City of Columbia, Missouri  
Meeting Minutes  
City Council  
Council Chamber  
Columbia City Hall  
701 E. Broadway  
Monday, September 20, 2021  
7:00 PM  
Regular  
I. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS  
The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for  
a regular meeting at  
approximately 7:00 p.m. on Monday, September 20, 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: Mayor BRIAN TREECE, Council Member PAT FOWLER,  
Council Member ANDREA WANER, Council Member KARL SKALA, Council Member  
IAN THOMAS, Council Member MATT PITZER, and Council Member BETSY PETERS  
were present. City Manager John Glascock, City Counselor Nancy Thompson, City Clerk  
Sheela Amin, and various Department Heads and Staff Members were also present.  
Treece explained the minutes were not yet complete for the July 19, 2021, August 2,  
2021, August 16, and September 7 regular meetings nor the August 9, 2021 and  
September 1 special meetings.  
Fowler asked that B294-21 and R151-21 be moved from the consent agenda to old  
business and new business respectively.  
Treece made a motion that he be allowed to abstain from voting on B282-21 and B283-21.  
Treece noted on the Disclosure of Interest form that this was due to the appearance of a  
conflict. The motion was seconded by Skala and approved unanimously by voice vote.  
Treece asked that B284-21 be moved from the consent agenda to old business due to a  
request from a member of the public.  
Pitzer asked that B290-21 be moved from the consent agenda to old business.  
The agenda, including the consent agenda with B284-21, B290-21, and B294-21 being  
moved to old business and R151-21 being moved to new 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  
BC9-21  
Board and Commission Applicants.  
Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals were appointed to  
the following Boards and Commissions.  
BUILDING CONSTRUCTION CODES COMMISSION  
Wallace, Scott, 4315 Glen Eagle Drive, Ward 5, Term to expire August 1, 2024  
CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD  
Kleiner, Andrew, 5905 Freeport Way, Ward 3, Term to expire November 1, 2022  
CITY OF COLUMBIA NEW CENTURY FUND INC. BOARD  
Kleopfer, Lynn, 4106 Joslyn Court, Ward 4, Term to expire September 30, 2024  
Muench, Fran, 2711 Mallard Court, Ward 6, Term to expire September 30, 2024  
CONVENTION AND VISITORS ADVISORY BOARD  
Laird, Donald, 5005 Durham Chase, Ward 5, Term to expire September 30, 2023  
Marcks, Melody, 3020 W. Wildflower Court, Boone County, Term to expire September  
30, 2023  
Morrison, Bret, 5380 S. Rock Quarry Road, Boone County, Term to expire September 30,  
2023  
Strodtman, Rusty, 4009 Quinton Court, Ward 2, Term to expire September 30, 2023  
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION  
Ross, Meg, 205 S. Garth Avenue, Ward 4, Term to expire September 1, 2024  
PERSONNEL ADVISORY BOARD  
Crumbliss, Angela, 2501 Woodberry Court, Ward 5, Term to expire September 30, 2024  
Kinkade, Kevin, 606 Park De Ville Place, Ward 1, Term to expire September 30, 2024  
IV. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT  
SPC50-21  
Brian Page - One man's explanation for human behavior, as it relates to our  
lives today.  
Brian Page commented that they were all equal with the same brain components as each  
other, and tonight he would talk about the neo cortex, which was the reasoned,  
responsive God given brain, and the common sense thinker. Page believed that to think  
was to be responsible for one’s thoughts. Page noted there were brain stem donut  
components known as limbic and medulla oblongata brains. Limbic was inherited from  
ancient predatory mammals and medulla had been inherited from the reptile world. Page  
explained he relied on neo cortex for his reasoned, responsive thinking, and on the  
medulla and limbic brains to be on guard for reactionary people. Page pointed out that  
reactionary people tended to react to his appearance and would try to use him as their  
whipping boy. Page commented that when he had become a new amputee, his world had  
turned on him as he was judged on his appearance and seldom for content. Page  
believed human behavior was directly related to any and all physical and emotional  
wounds from parents and other family relations, and felt hate and reactionism stemmed  
from childhood wounding as hate was draped around the reaction of a wounded child in  
an adult body while reaction was the pushback by the wounded child in an adult body .  
Page noted he tried to avoid raging against or hurting his abusers because he would  
otherwise be in jail. Page stated he used to be very frightened and ultra-reactionary, had  
suffered from emotional illness and addiction, and his childhood included the violent  
taking of his dominant left hand by his family, and his road to sanity had included an  
undergraduate education in psychology with an emphasis on behavior modification along  
with 50 years of peer support group work. Page explained he had come to resolution  
around the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse by his family, and now knew he was  
good enough. Page noted he had a roadmap to sanity and wholeness, and stood for  
peace, harmony, love, and justice. Page commented that more black people had treated  
him decently during the pandemic than white people, and pointed out he would advocate  
for a world inhabited by reasoned people who used the common sense brain. Page  
suggested they listen to family farmers whose values and principles included caring for  
self, neighbors, and the environment as they relied on all three. Page also suggested not  
advocating for unwanted child births and war as population reduction as those issues  
were much more about politics than true values and standards.  
Treece suggested Page provide his written comments to the City Clerk for her to  
distribute to the Council. Page noted the City Clerk had them already.  
SPC51-21  
Marie Concannon - Neighborhood response to comments made by  
Councilperson Peters at the end of 9/7/2021 council meeting.  
Marie Concannon, 704 Hilltop Drive, listed the people in attendance that were in support  
of the comments she would make, and it included Vernon Forbes, founder of the  
Ridgeway Neighborhood Association, Susan Maze, resident of the North Central  
Columbia neighborhood, Christine Gardener, a member of the West Ash Neighborhood  
Association and the Columbia Neighborhood Residents Alliance, Paul Sharp, a resident  
of the East Campus neighborhood, and Peter Norgard and Rita Fleischmann, both of the  
Benton-Stephens Neighborhood Association. Concannon commented that at the  
September 7, 2021 Council Meeting, Sixth Ward Council Member Betsy Peters had  
raised a concern about the impact of the Unified Development Code (UDC) on the  
neighborhoods that touched the central city. While the impact of the UDC on the  
downtown district had been addressed, the impact on the neighborhoods might have been  
ignored putting neighborhoods at risk. Concannon noted Peters had proposed the  
formation of an ad hoc committee representing the impacted neighborhoods to consider  
the problems presented by the UDC. As those that lived in the impacted neighborhoods,  
they were present to support the formation of an ad hoc committee. Concannon explained  
they felt it was important for the future of their neighborhoods, and appreciated the  
consideration of Council in that effort.  
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS  
PH32-21  
FY 2022 Annual Budget for the City of Columbia.  
Discussion shown with B277-21.  
B241-21  
B242-21  
Adopting the FY 2022 Annual Budget for the City of Columbia.  
Discussion shown with B277-21.  
Amending Chapter 11 of the City Code relating to certain Public Health  
and Human Services Department fees.  
Discussion shown with B277-21.  
B243-21  
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 B277-21.  
B275-21  
B276-21  
B277-21  
Amending Chapter 19 of the City Code as it relates to personnel policies,  
procedures, rules and regulations.  
Discussion shown with B277-21.  
Adopting the FY 2022 Classification and Pay Plan; providing for FY 2022  
salary adjustments relating to the Classification and Pay Plan.  
Discussion shown with B277-21.  
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.  
PH32-21 was read by the City Clerk, B241-21A, B242-21, and B243-21 were given forth  
reading by the City Clerk, and B275-21, B276-21, and B277-21 were given second  
reading by the City Clerk.  
Treece explained the Council had another amendment sheet from staff and seven  
miscellaneous documents with respect to general information in the profile, the budget in  
brief narrative pages, the projected ending cash balance, which had been emailed, the  
personnel appendix, the department directors appendix, the financial notes and policies  
appendix, and the glossary.  
Fowler thought they should consider an amendment to the budget to provide funding to  
create process for requiring mitigation, adaptation, and climate equity impact  
a
assessments for all new policies and projects that met threshold criteria, such as  
cost-burden, vulnerability, or an increase to net emissions, as had been requested by Jay  
Hasheider in May. Fowler understood that had been lifted from an action item in the  
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), and a sum of money had been suggested to  
hire an expert to help development that assessment so it would become a regular part of  
staff reports. Treece stated he would add that to list and would ensure Fowler was  
recognized to make that motion when they took up the other amendments.  
Skala commented that the Council had addressed a lengthy list of staff amendments at  
the prior meeting, and there were now fourteen more amendments totaling over $7 million,  
and asked for clarification. Glascock replied Finance Director Matthew Lue would provide  
further information in his staff report, but some were encumbrances that would carry over  
from FY 2021 to FY 2022 so it would decrease the budget in FY 2021 while increasing it  
in FY 2022.  
Skala noted he had asked for an amendment regarding land acquisition in terms of the  
park sales tax, and after communicating with Glascock, he believed they had come to a  
reasonable solution. Skala understood staff would explain that later this evening.  
Lue provided a staff report, and noted the amendments associated with encumbrances  
would effectively result in a net zero change in the fund balance.  
Skala understood staff was documenting changes they would not have normally seen in  
the past. Lue stated that was correct. Glascock explained the City Charter called for a  
lapse of anything that was unspent, and they wanted to ensure the Council approved  
what was carried forward.  
Lue continued with the staff report.  
Treece referred to the projected ending cash balance document that had been emailed to  
the Council, and asked about the reason for it. Lue replied this was something the  
Finance Department had developed, and it had been provided at the budget work session .  
It included a beginning balance and showed the decision-making process to get to an  
ending balance. The Capital Improvement Project (CIP) expenses had been removed, and  
the end showed the anticipated CIP dollars for the next fiscal year. Treece asked what  
happened between the version they had received Friday afternoon and the version  
received this afternoon. Lue replied there had been a mistake related to CIPs that had  
doubled the revenues in the enterprise funds, and that had been corrected. Treece  
understood the effect was that the ending available resources amount was lower in every  
utility. Lue stated that was correct, and explained it was due to the revenues being  
increased artificially. Treece asked what had contributed to the miscalculation in the  
summary he had received on Friday. Lue replied there had been an error in the formula .  
Treece asked why the effect of that had only impacted the enterprise funds. Lue replied  
the enterprise funds used enterprise revenues to pay for CIPs. Treece asked what the  
formula error was that had led to that and when that had been discovered. Lue replied it  
had not been on the prior document that had been provided, but it had been missed by  
staff on the update. Treece commented that this error undermined his and the public’s  
confidence in which numbers they should believe since there had been a change between  
Friday and today, the day they were to approve the budget. Lue explained that if the  
Council looked at the document provided at the budget work session, the only difference  
between that and what they had received today was the amendments. Treece asked if  
the numbers received at the budget work session were identical to what they had  
received today. Lue replied yes with the exception of the amendments that were passed  
at the September 7, 2021 Council Meeting. Treece noted it had been a big change for  
each enterprise. Lue pointed out the change was only on that document. There was not a  
change in the budget. The error only applied to this document.  
Lue continued with the staff report.  
Skala understood the staff amendments were corrections that had not been previously  
accounted for and were being addressed now and would appear in the future. Lue stated  
that was correct. Lue explained they would try their best to not have these types of  
corrections in the future, and would try to provide everything to the Council in a more  
timely fashion. Skala stated he appreciated the corrections. Treece thanked Lue for the  
transparency.  
Fowler commented that in prior years the Office of Neighborhood Services had a fund to  
help neighborhoods with small projects and asked if that had been zeroed out. Lue  
replied he did not think it had been a fund. It was likely a line item within the Community  
Development Department budget. Fowler agreed it was a line item. Lue stated he was not  
sure of the status of those funds. Fowler explained a neighborhood association leader  
had told her that those funds had been moved for another purpose due to COVID.  
Glascock asked how much money was involved. Fowler replied the program was to allow  
up to $250 per neighborhood association if a project was brought forward, and funding  
was dependent upon the number of neighborhood associations that asked for it .  
Glascock asked Fowler if she wanted to add money for that to the budget. Fowler replied  
she wanted to restore the customary amount of funding they had in the past if it was not  
already included because it was  
appreciated for small projects. Glascock stated he was not sure of that amount, and  
pointed out budget amendment could always be made in the future. Community  
a program the neighborhood associations greatly  
a
Development Director Tim Teddy noted he could not provide the exact amount, and  
explained he thought it was their intent to continue to fund the neighborhood mini-grant,  
which was used for printing, notices, and other things that supported neighborhood  
activities. Once a neighborhood association used the resource, they could not use it  
again for the rest of the year because it was meant to be shared. Teddy reiterated he  
thought they had some funding for it.  
Pitzer referred to the projected ending cash balance document and asked for the effective  
date of the FY 22 beginning available resources estimate. Lue replied he thought it had  
been as of August 30, which had been the last time an estimate had been done on cash.  
Pitzer understood it had included everything up until then. Lue stated that was correct .  
Lue emphasized it was an estimation and it could change. Pitzer understood it had  
changed from the original version that had been provided as it had more updated  
information. Lue stated it should have the updated information.  
Treece opened the public hearing.  
Treece noted written comments had been received from John Conway regarding electric  
customers and the review of financial projections for the water and electric utilities,  
Matthew Schact of Vidwest Studios, Rene Powell regarding funds for the unsheltered  
population, and Nick Knoth of the Boys and Girls Club. The remaining two items were  
general comments not specifically related to the budget.  
Debbie Graham explained she was currently serving as the President of the Board of the  
Columbia Interfaith Council, which ran the homeless shelter known as Room at the Inn  
(RATI). Graham commented that she was there to speak in support of funding for a  
permanent shelter for RATI along with other agencies and services that provided much  
needed help to the unsheltered population, whether that was through American Rescue  
Plan Act (ARPA) or other funding sources. Graham stated she was somewhat hopeful,  
but also somewhat confused about the funding process, and asked the Council to  
consider releasing funds for the planning and development of permanent home for RATI,  
Turning Point, Loaves and Fishes, and any other agency that wanted to join them in the  
creation of an opportunity center. As of this moment, RATI was a homeless shelter that  
did not have a home. They were continuing to look and were hopeful they would be able  
to lease space. It might not be optimum, but they would open and provide as many cots  
as possible for the homeless in Columbia. Graham noted she would be appreciative of  
anything the Council could do to make the opportunity center or something like it a reality  
sooner than later.  
Fowler understood a sum of money was in the budget for a winter shelter along with a  
sum of money for a planning process for homeless services, and asked Graham for her  
understanding of where they were with those two resources. Graham replied they had  
responded to RFPs through the Human Services Division that they thought would provide  
them with sufficient funds to lease a facility along with operating funds. Graham stated  
she was not sure they were eligible for the CDBG money, and would need to check with  
staff in that regard.  
Adam Saunders with the Columbia Center for Urban Agriculture (CCUA) spoke in support  
of the Agriculture Park at the Clary-Shy Park site. Saunders noted the first Harvest  
Hootenanny had been held there this last Saturday and over 2,000 people had been in  
attendance along with the Columbia Area Career Center people that had cooked for over  
1,400 meals for people. Saunders felt that showed what could come with a community  
building at that site. Saunders stated the Columbia Farmers Market had been voted the  
number one farmers market in the nation last night by the American Farmland Trust via a  
competitive poll. Starting last week and finishing up this week, 1,200 kids would visit the  
site as part of the Farm to School program. Saunders pointed out these pieces were  
snapshots of the dream they had in this public-private partnership, and explained they  
would like to finish the last piece of the master plan by continuing the public-private  
partnership with the City and the County along with private funding. Saunders thanked the  
Council for its consideration to help finish out the Agriculture Park along with their past  
support that had gotten them to this point.  
Ruth Friar commented that she continued to see discussion regarding the ARPA funds in  
terms of agencies coming to the Council to try to make a case for funding along with  
people expressing interest in it for certain projects when at the last meeting there had  
been discussion of actually separating the ARPA funds from the budget process, and  
asked if she was remembering that correctly. Treece stated that was correct. Friar  
explained she could get herself down a deep hole thinking about how the ARPA funds  
could be used as it was a nice sum of one-time funds that could be transformative. Friar  
asked if it would be taken out of the budget conversation so she could stop thinking that  
she had to advocate for that funding at this time. Treece noted there was nothing in the  
budget now to obligate or spend the ARPA funds. Friar asked if there would actually be a  
motion that the funds be separated from the budget, and if there would be some sort of  
robust conversation with people like her and those not like her with regard to how the  
money would be utilized. Treece replied that was up to the majority of Council and it had  
not happened yet. Friar asked if there would be a motion and when it might happen.  
Treece replied there was nothing to pull out of the budget, and thus he felt, that type of  
motion would be redundant. Treece explained he thought there was general consensus  
among the Council to pass the $474 million budget prior to deciding what they would do  
with the ARPA money they had and would be receiving along with how that process  
might look. Treece commented that whatever that motion was would trigger a series of  
public hearings for any appropriation or project. Friar explained it had been confusing for  
her and she wanted to make sure those funds were not part of what was being discussed  
now.  
Skala noted the City had received about $12.5 million in ARPA funding, and those funds  
were sitting an account, and they expected to receive another $12.5 million next year.  
Skala pointed out the funds had to be spent within four years. Skala stated Treece had  
offered a proposal, which had gotten a lot of attention, but those numbers were relatively  
arbitrary at this time. In addition, it was just a framework. The Council had yet to discuss  
it or to harvest the input received from the public advocating for certain things. Skala  
understood that would happen after the budget was finalized. Friar understood the  
conversations that had occurred with regard to the opportunity campus, broadband  
services, etc. were the ideas of people and not recommendations at this point. Skala  
stated that was correct, and noted there had not been any recommendations, allocations,  
etc.  
Thomas thanked Friar for asking the question because it was a very confusing process .  
Thomas pointed out the list of proposed expenditures had been printed in the budget  
document, which had confused everyone, but it would not be a part of the budget  
because they would adopt the budget today and they were not ready to make any kind of  
decision on the ARPA funds. Thomas agreed with Treece in that any specific expenditure  
would go through the normal public hearing process, and noted he was hopeful there  
would be an overarching high level community engagement process separate from that for  
at least some of the funds as that would be responsive to the calls they had heard from  
so many members of the community. It, however, would be dependent upon the vote of a  
majority of the Council.  
Rebecca Shaw, 2625 Vail Drive, provided a handout and explained she was still very  
curious about the budget process to include the overestimation of department budgets .  
Shaw explained the handout had graphs of 6-7 operating budgets from the proposed  
budget and understood only four of 47 operational budgets had ended in the red in FY  
2020. The rest of the departments had grossly over-budgeted. In just the six that she had  
reviewed in more detail, there was an over-budgeted range of 9-18 percent. Shaw asked  
why they were doing this. Shaw explained she understood the need for a rainy day fund  
because things happened and proposed operational budgets did not necessarily mean  
money was there for certain items. Shaw thought it sent a signal to the Council that  
those were the revenues needed to conduct daily business and would result in Council  
believing they needed millions more than they actually did. Shaw felt that by continuing to  
budget in that manner they were essentially saying that they did not have funding for  
other projects, which was a concern, because she had come before the Council many  
times requesting funding for transit, a shelter, and other items for the humans in town  
when they had been told there was not funding available for those items. At the end of the  
year, however, they had a slush fund of almost $20 million. Shaw suggested a review of  
the process behind the budget. Shaw pointed out the Fire Department was a good  
example of a group that came in at their budget almost every year, and wondered what  
they were doing differently than these other departments. Shaw commented that she had  
contacted Lue last week as to how a dollar value had been assessed to the proposed  
ARPA funding breakdown, specifically regarding the Mayor’s Task Force on Community  
Violence, and the answer returned was that they were  
a suggested breakdown for  
qualified spending, i.e., a placeholder of dollar value. Shaw noted Lue had also stated that  
expenditures had not been budgeted and no programs had been selected. With regard to  
ARPA funding, Shaw felt the assigning of numbers made it likely that the Council and the  
community would put a weight on those numbers. Shaw wondered why those items had  
dollar values if they were not to be a part of the budget because associating $ 10 million to  
broadband and $1.4 million to community violence programs created  
discussion.  
a
weighted  
Dani Perez commented that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had  
said that health equity was when all members of society enjoyed fair and just  
a
opportunity to be as healthy as possible. Perez explained that public health policies and  
programs centered on the specific needs of communities could promote health equity,  
and pointed out COVID had elevated a lot of pre-existing inequities and social and racial  
injustices. Perez stated COVID had unequally affected many racial and ethnic minorities  
and groups, making them more at risk of dying. In terms of ARPA funding, Perez noted  
there appeared to be a narrative in media indicating the ARPA funds would be spent on  
specific projects. Perez commented that she did not see any reputable or well-resourced  
data indicating the proposed projects identified were priorities or how they would help the  
most vulnerable. Perez explained she was afraid the people she was a part of were not  
being seen or acknowledged. There were Latinx, Asian, and other populations that  
wanted to have a say. Perez stated it appeared as though the Council had already made  
up its mind with regard to ARPA funding and what the public said or did would not matter,  
which made her feel unseen and unheard. Perez believed many other communities, to  
include the black and brown communities, were not being seen or heard as well. Perez  
wondered how the City had come up with these assumptions and why they would not  
speak with the various communities. Perez asked the Council to be mindful of the various  
groups of people within Columbia.  
Traci Wilson-Kleekamp explained she was speaking on behalf of Race Matters, Friends,  
and did not feel the City did a good job in terms of outreach. Wilson-Kleekamp believed it  
would have been helpful if in June the City had said they would have a public engagement  
process for the $25 million that would be received, and that the process would happen  
after the budget was adopted while also providing the parameters of the engagement  
process. Wilson-Kleekamp noted they had tried to bring this up many times, and it had  
been a really confusing conversation. Wilson-Kleekamp pointed out Treece had tried to  
pull ARPA funding into the budget at the last meeting and had indicated the others could  
vote against it if they were not in favor, and she did not believe that was a process .  
Wilson-Kleekamp understood it was politics, but it was confusing for the public to follow.  
Wilson-Kleekamp stated it also said a lot about equity and inclusion as that was not  
reflected in the budget. Wilson-Kleekamp noted the CAAP had great terms along with  
equity decisions, and felt those should be used with the budget to determine if they were  
actually doing that kind of work. Wilson-Kleekamp understood the City did not have a  
mechanism for interrupting community violence, and believed it should be a high priority .  
Wilson-Kleekamp also understood the City did not have  
a
relationship with the  
communities that were having a lot of trauma, and felt some communication could occur  
if they had a robust neighborhood resource center. Wilson-Kleekamp commented that  
when she thought about equity, she thought about those that had been left behind. In  
education, it meant helping students meet their maximum potential whereby each  
student had different needs. The idea was to ensure they met each student where they  
were so they could work at their maximum operating capacity as learners.  
Wilson-Kleekamp referred to Seattle, Washington, as they had established an Equitable  
Communities Initiative Task Force to improve disparate outcomes for their black,  
indigenous, and people of color communities, and felt that type of investment could begin  
to correct disparities caused by government sanctioned and racist policies, which  
negatively affected the black and indigenous communities at disproportionate rates .  
Wilson-Kleekamp pointed out millions could be disbursed to the community by the end of  
2021 in Seattle and legislation had been developed after task force members and city  
departments had developed implementation plans for each recommended strategy.  
Wilson-Kleekamp felt it was possible for Columbia to do that kind of work, and did not  
see that equity or inclusion had been addressed when looking at the budget.  
Wilson-Kleekamp stated the City really needed to think about how to engage with people,  
and they likely needed to go to them instead of expecting them to come to City Hall.  
Maria Oropallo noted she was speaking on behalf of the Finance Advisory and Audit  
Committee (FAAC) and explained she had been appointed in 2014. Oropallo stated Jim  
McDonald, the Assistant Finance Director, had been hired in 2015 and she had been on  
the interview team when Matthew Lue, the Finance Director, had been hired in 2019.  
Oropallo explained the FAAC had been working for years to understand the budget, the  
process, and the outcomes. In addition, they had reviewed it to determine what had been  
spent, how it was spent, and why, and during the past 18 months, they were seeing an  
adjustment in the way staff thought. Oropallo felt they now had the beginnings of a  
robust, transparent, accountable, and reported budget process. Oropallo emphasized that  
it was in the beginning stages, but she still wanted to give staff credit. Oropallo stated the  
FAAC was seeing a much more healthy dialogue and hoped everyone would benefit from  
it.  
Eugene Elkin, 3406 Range Line Street, commented that there were a lot of unknowns  
and the Council had the task of determining what might be the best choice.  
Elkin  
understood $3 million was tied to the homeless and wondered if that was enough. Elkin  
suggested $6 million be earmarked for the homeless. Elkin understood homes that had  
been in the $200,000 range were now over $300,000, and low income people could not  
afford a home at either price. Elkin noted they did not know how much mental health  
services might cost, but was glad someone was interested in assisting in that manner as  
it would help the homeless. Elkin asked the Council to consider more for the homeless.  
Susan Renee Carter explained she resided in the Second Ward and felt that if they  
wanted to meet the mission of everyone in Columbia to be able to live out their life the  
way the wanted, the City should budget based on data they had in the budget profile.  
Carter stated the budget seemed out of alignment in terms of how much was being spent  
to address the fact the black community had such a high rate of unemployment and  
family poverty, which was a great need. Carter understood it was too late this year as the  
Council would likely vote on the budget soon, but as they were looking at the planning  
process and the additional funding they had, she suggested they not forget this issue .  
Carter pointed out the figures were from 2019, and those very same people had been  
greatly impacted by COVID. The Council had the opportunity to make a difference in the  
lives of people while also addressing public health issues brought about by trauma and  
insufficient basic needs, such as community violence. Carter asked the Council to follow  
the data, know what it was they were budgeting for, and know what the money was being  
spent on so it had the greatest impact in the community.  
Erika Buford commented that she resided in the Second Ward and a concern she had  
was with regard to the homeless. Buford explained she was active in the community and  
understood some landlords were accepting back payments but were still evicting tenants .  
Buford relayed to the Council the story of a family that had been evicted and had been  
relieved to be provided housing at Welcome Inn, which was a hotel, so they would not be  
on the streets. Buford noted there were gaps in the system that needed to be addressed .  
The wait time was too long at some of the organizations that were helping people. In  
addition, some of the requirements were difficult for some to meet. Buford explained  
some families were trying and were working, but there were still issues that needed to be  
corrected. Buford suggested utilizing some of the funding as resources for some of the  
organizations that were willing to help those in need. Buford noted that Welcome Inn,  
which should only be needed in the short term, was overwhelmed with families, some of  
which were there for the long term. Buford pointed out this was only one of four hotels in  
Columbia that had the same situation. Buford agreed it provided a relief for them because  
they were not on the street, but felt some of these funds needed to go toward those  
resources that provided housing.  
Matt Schacht, 1617 Windsor Street, stated he was representing Vidwest and explained  
Vidwest was a community media center whose job was to get media tools into the hands  
of the general public. Schacht noted anyone interested in telling the story of their  
communities could contact them as they would be able to assist them with camera and  
audio equipment and by teaching them how to use it. Schacht felt documenting and  
sharing stories would allow people to better understand the situation, and he wanted  
everyone to know that resource existed.  
Susan Maze, 902 N. Seventh Street, stated she wanted to point out the level of  
desperation people were in when serving the underserved in Columbia. Maze understood  
everyone was clamoring for the $25 million for which she had advocated a long term  
planning process to determine how to help the most people. Maze commented that the  
City had somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million in reserve funds that could be  
used now to help those in crisis today while still utilizing the $25 million for planning.  
There being no further comment, Treece closed the public hearing.  
Treece made  
a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21A  
per the amendment sheet with the fourteen staff amendments. The motion was  
seconded by Skala, and approved unanimously by roll call vote with Treece,  
Fowler, Waner, Skala, Thomas, Pitzer, and Peters voting yes.  
Treece made  
a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21A  
with the seven miscellaneous documents involving general information in the  
profile, the budget in brief narrative pages, the projected ending cash balance,  
the personnel appendix, the department directors appendix, the financial notes  
and policies appendix, and the glossary. The motion was seconded by Skala and  
approved unanimously by voice vote.  
Fowler made a motion to amend the budget document associated with B241-21A with a  
sum of money to implement the action item from the CAAP as had been suggested by  
Jay Hasheider. The motion was seconded by Thomas.  
Treece commented that when her amendment had been shared with staff, the new  
Sustainability Manager had indicated that would be a part of the second phase of what he  
was currently working toward, and that the $25,000 suggested might not be adequate.  
Treece wondered if they should provide the new Sustainability Manager the ability to  
come back to the Council.  
Fowler stated she had not seen the response from staff and wondered if she had been  
included and if the Sustainability Manager was present to explain his process further.  
Treece read from the response, which indicated “This proposal aligns with phase two of  
work we have been doing to develop an evaluation process for municipal actions using the  
‘Triple Bottom Line’ (people, planet, and prosperity) framework. We put a pause on the  
people component so we wouldn’t get ahead of the equity evaluation question. Staffing  
has paused the other two for now. While we have not looked into cost for phase two  
specifically, based on our initial research…I am not confident we could complete  
satisfactory project for $25,000.”  
a
Fowler commented that what had been described did not jump out to her as being the  
same thing that Jay Hasheider had requested, but it had been a long time since she had  
read the CAAP. Fowler explained she did not want them to go through another year  
without making any progress. Fowler was not sure whether they should defer to the  
Sustainability Manager as she felt it was different.  
Skala stated he shared the concern of Fowler in that they should be making some  
tangible progress and that there needed to be a budget for some tangible progress to  
occur.  
Skala felt the $25,000 was a basement level figure that would allow the  
Sustainability Manager to get started. Skala pointed out they could always augment that  
funding should that become necessary per the recommendation of the Sustainability  
Manager.  
Treece asked Sustainability Manager Eric Hempel if he had anything to add to this  
discussion. Hempel replied his intent in talking about the $25,000 was to make it clear  
that he did not feel they would be able to deliver an adequate product for that amount and  
to set some context that they were working on it. It was a different angle for the same  
problem, but it was more focused on further educating and increasing capacity at the staff  
level to understand where impacts were and where they might be avoided in an effort to  
increase and improve the projects they dealt with at the municipal level. Hempel noted  
this had come up as  
a part of the Climate and Environment Commission (CEC)  
discussion in terms of how to proceed with some sort of evaluation. They decided to start  
with more education and foundation building. Hempel stated he appreciated the  
consideration of needing to get on this as soon as possible and wanted to reinforce the  
$25,000 would be best used as for scoping and understanding for which a higher budget  
level tool could be used.  
Fowler noted she did not disagree with anything said by Hempel. Fowler commented that  
her issue was likely with the budget process in that they got to the end of the budget  
process and were unsure as to whether they had budgeted sufficient funds to implement  
the CAAP. They were now in the third year of the CAAP, and it felt as though they had  
fallen short in moving that along. Fowler understood they would have the opportunity next  
year, but the CAAP had some aspirational goals. Fowler stated she wanted to see them  
move more deliberatively with regard to amount of funding the CAAP implementation  
items required. Fowler understood this amendment was a very small step and staff would  
likely have to come back with a supplemental budget request, but wanted to proceed with  
adding this $25,000 to the budget.  
Thomas explained he wanted to move forward with the amendment as well. Thomas  
thought it would show that it was a Council priority to study and comment on how  
different policies and programs that were coming forward in the process were either in  
alignment or not in alignment with the CAAP. Thomas noted a lot of the parts of the local  
and regional policy processes were not in alignment, and believed the more they could do  
in terms of looking at the CAAP and comparing it to what they were doing with it the  
better.  
Skala understood Fowler was suggesting a $25,000 allocation. Fowler replied yes. Skala  
understood they could always augment that in the future. Fowler explained she was  
proposing the recommendation of Jay Hasheider and was open for Hempel to provide a  
different number.  
The motion made by Fowler and seconded by Thomas to amend the budget  
document associated with B241-21A with $25,000 to implement the action item  
from the CAAP that had been suggested by Jay Hasheider was approved by roll  
call vote with Fowler, Waner, Skala, Thomas, Pitzer, and Peters voting yes and  
Treece voting no.  
Skala reiterated he thought they had resolution to his prior suggestion for an amendment  
with regard to bringing the land acquisition fund back to the level at which it should be,  
and asked Glascock to explain how that would be done. Glascock replied they had  
reviewed the account numbers tied to land acquisition within the Parks and Recreation  
Department, and they felt it was short by some amount in between $1.3 million and $1.8  
million. They would likely bring forward an ordinance in the future to restrict a certain  
amount in reserves until they received the final park sales tax numbers so they could  
determine exactly what the amount should be from the general fund. Skala understood  
this was a mechanism by which they could guarantee the fund would be restored to the  
level at which it should be. Glascock stated that was correct. Skala noted he was happy  
with that response and understood it would not require an amendment to the budget at  
this time.  
Thomas pointed out most of the public comment they had received tonight and at prior  
public hearings had been related to the ARPA funds, and it had been a confusing and  
dysfunctional process. Thomas commented that he wanted to move forward even though  
they would not vote on anything related to those funds today. Thomas understood two  
major decisions had to be made. One involved the items on which they would spend the  
money, and the other was the process that would be utilized to determine the items on  
which they would spend the money. Thomas stated he believed the process should come  
first, but thought they could discuss some of the ideas they had for items on which they  
might want to spend that money before the process had been completed.  
Thomas  
suggested they each say what they preferred in terms of process and the investments  
they wanted to make with those funds.  
Thomas explained his preferred process would be an engaged community process that  
really elevated the stories of people that had suffered most through the pandemic and had  
suffered most before the pandemic as that was the purpose of the federal program.  
Thomas understood there were a number of different ways to proceed. Thomas noted the  
Public Health and Human Service Department had implemented a process that had come  
about as close as anything they had done toward achieving that in 2013 and again in  
2018 for the community health plan, but understood that Department did not have the  
capacity to do it again with the continuing COVID response. Thomas also understood a  
consultant could be hired to run that kind of process, and explained he would be  
supportive of that. Thomas noted Fowler had done a tremendous amount of outreach in  
terms of engaging different organizations and community leaders for input in potentially  
setting the stage for a really good process. Thomas believed the groundwork had been  
laid for a good process. Thomas commented that there was urgency to some of the  
issues they wanted to address, and there were some fairly well-developed projects he  
thought the majority on the Council already supported as did the majority of the members  
of the community. Two of those were the opportunity campus or some sort of homeless  
services center and a 24/7 behavioral health services clinic. Thomas understood a lot of  
details needed to be worked out with both of those projects. Thomas stated the process  
he preferred was for them to identify a few of those big categories most of them agreed  
upon and to then allocate some funds for those while asking staff to come back with  
specific proposals, which might include the drafting of an RFP for services or inviting  
organizations in the community that might be able to provide those services to make  
presentations or specific proposals. Thomas suggested they then agree to start a longer  
process to engage the community for more authentic feedback and input as to how they  
should spend the remainder of the funds. Thomas pointed out the U.S. Treasury site had  
talked about structural inequality and the need to address many of the issues that had  
already been discussed. Thomas commented that he did not feel broadband, stormwater,  
or the agriculture park fit into that category, and noted they had other large surplus funds  
available for some of those projects. Thomas stated he thought they also needed to have  
a process for how they would utilize the surplus in the reserve funds.  
Treece asked if anyone else wanted to speak on this issue and wondered if this was  
when they wanted to have this discussion.  
Skala commented that he regretted the fact there had been a page in the budget  
document dealing with ARPA because it should not have been there, and it had created  
confusion. Skala understood that had been a regurgitation of the suggestions of Treece to  
begin the discussion, and was not set in stone. Skala thought the Council on two  
different occasions had talked about the fact they would not take the issue on until there  
was more information available nor prior to October 4. Skala stated he was supportive of  
obtaining more information and input from the public in order to make decisions. Skala  
noted the $12.5 million they had was not going anywhere. Skala commented that he  
understood the urgency to get this aid out to the right people, and his inclination was to  
lean more toward the people side than the project side that some were suggesting, but  
felt people versus projects was a false dichotomy because it was all about serving the  
people. Skala stated he did not see projects as antithetical to serving the people. Skala  
explained he was not ready to discuss the ARPA funding tonight when they had already  
promised to begin to address it on October 4. Skala invited the public to participate in  
that robust discussion, and noted he was hopeful they would then come to agreement as  
to how to get this aid to the right people at the right time and in a timely manner at least  
for the first year. They would then need to do in-depth work with a consultant prior to  
making decisions. Skala commented that he thought it would be a mistake to take this  
issue up before they had even adopted the budget after promising they would not take it  
up until October 4.  
Thomas stated he did not recall promising not to take it up until October 4, and it had  
been discussed at every council meeting as they had received public input and had  
responded with discussion. Thomas noted they did not seem to be going anywhere or  
have any kind of direction, and hoped they could have a discussion either now or on  
October 4 to establish a direction. Thomas explained he did not know where the others  
stood on what they wanted the process or outcome to be and was hoping they could all  
express that so they knew the preferred direction of Council.  
Treece stated he thought they needed some kind of placeholder on an agenda, and it  
could be the October 4, 2021 meeting agenda, so there was a mechanism to obtain the  
public input they all wanted on how to proceed. Treece noted they could have that  
discussion now if they wanted so a resolution could be prepared as a new business item  
for the October 4, 2021 Council Meeting, and if they did that, he felt it should include two  
parts. Treece commented that he heard Thomas saying that they should look at areas  
where there was the consensus of the Council for the money they had on hand. Treece  
pointed out he thought it should be in the budget because it was revenue the City had  
received this fiscal year. Treece understood they could choose not to appropriate it within  
this budget, but reiterated he thought it should be recognized in the budget. Treece  
commented that he thought they could proceed with those items that had the consensus  
of the Council in terms of asking staff to provide additional detail and holding a public  
hearing like they did with capital improvement projects. They could then look at what the  
longer term engagement looked like for the money they would see in May of 2022.  
Fowler commented that there was a line item within the budget that acknowledged the  
receipt of the first installment of the ARPA funds. It had been acknowledged as being  
received by the City and was also included in one of the available cash reports. Fowler  
stated she did not want the Council to take an action within the budget process to do  
anything else with the money. Fowler explained she was okay with October 4 being the  
evening they would engage with the public about the process although she had not heard  
that date either. Fowler pointed out she was not interested in passing any mechanism  
whereby they would allocate any of those funds this evening as they had explained to the  
members of the public they would not do that today.  
Treece stated he felt asking for a resolution to come forward for the October 4 meeting  
would be consistent with that. Fowler understood Treece wanted to use the process they  
had to allocate the funds and that was not the process those in the audience and others  
had requested. Fowler explained she was in favor of having a discussion with community  
members during the public hearing on October 4 but not a resolution. Treece asked how  
they would put the public hearing on the agenda without a resolution. Thomas replied he  
thought they could have public hearings without an ordinance or resolution. Treece  
pointed out there was always a resolution to set a public hearing. Thomas asked Amin if  
a public hearing could be held without it being tied to any actual legislation. Amin replied  
there was usually a resolution setting a public hearing, and that was likely the most  
transparent way to proceed. Amin noted the Council could approve a motion at the end of  
the meeting asking for a hearing to be noticed, but they would have to be specific in what  
they wanted the notice to say. Amin explained that was why the resolution was handy.  
Fowler commented that she did not trust the resolution process as she understood it,  
and suggested they do what they did on June 21 whereby they had discussed the ARPA  
funds prior to the regular council meeting. Fowler thought the public could talk to them  
about the process. Amin understood they might be speaking about having this open  
meeting at the October 4 pre-council meeting, and something was already scheduled for  
that pre-council involving someone that might be coming from out of town. Fowler asked  
about the October 18 pre-council. Amin replied she had heard there might be a closed  
meeting and was unsure of the status of that.  
Waner pointed out they had said they would wait until after the budget process was done  
to deal with the ARPA funds, and suggested they finish with the budget process and then  
dive into a really focused and concerted discussion in earnest with regard to a process  
they could follow for that specific funding.  
Treece asked if everyone was comfortable with that, and no one indicated they were not.  
B242-21 was given fifth reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
B243-21 was given fifth reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
B275-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
Treece made a motion to amend B276-21 per the amendment sheet. The motion  
was seconded by Skala and approved unanimously by voice vote.  
B276-21, as amended, was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote  
recorded as follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS,  
PITZER, PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
B277-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
B241-21A, as amended, was given fifth reading by the City Clerk with the vote  
recorded as follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS,  
PITZER, PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
PH35-21  
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).  
PH35-21 was read by the City Clerk.  
Teddy provided a staff report.  
Treece asked if the property was contiguous to the city limits. Teddy replied it was  
contiguous on the south and west sides.  
Fowler understood the applicant could place a single-family residence on this property  
now, and asked if the purpose of annexing was for City sewer. Teddy replied yes, and  
explained that was a typical motivation for annexation. The City’s policy was to not  
extend sewer to a property unless there was a signed annexation petition or annexation  
agreement if the property was not contiguous. Fowler asked if this would be an  
agreement to annex in the future in order to get sewer or if it was a request for an  
annexation now. Teddy replied this would have immediate effect on approval of the  
ordinance because the property was contiguous and they had signed a petition to come  
into the City limits. Fowler asked for the location of the sewer. Teddy replied it was on the  
west side of the roadway. Teddy noted there was a private sewer system within Paradise  
Hills, but City sewer was in the subdivision to the west. Fowler asked if the applicant  
would run a line to it or if the City would extend it. Teddy replied the policy of the City was  
that those kinds of connections were at the expense of the applicant and the plans would  
have to be approved by the City. Fowler asked about the other utilities as she wondered  
what other revenues the City would receive from this annexation. Teddy replied property  
tax and any service fees, such as solid waste. Fowler understood it would involve sewer  
and water, but not electric. Teddy stated that was correct.  
Pitzer asked what type of road Crabapple Lane was proposed to be in the future. Teddy  
replied a neighborhood collector road, which ultimately involved a 60-foot right-of-way.  
Teddy described the traffic flows within the area. Pitzer understood the two Crabapple  
Lanes would connect. Teddy noted there were not a lot of east-west connections in the  
area that linked Scott Boulevard, Old Mill Creek Road/RouteKK, and Sinclair Road, which  
was why that was a recommended future improvement. Teddy pointed out there were no  
plans to do it as a City project at this time. Teddy explained there was a fairly large tract  
to the south, and it might be time to seriously think about getting Crabapple Lane built  
when that was subdivided. Pitzer asked if a residential driveway could open on to a  
neighborhood collector. Teddy replied they were working on some concepts for a driveway  
that could make use of that right-of-way. Teddy thought a right-of-use permit might come  
with the subdivision plat.  
Treece opened the public hearing.  
Ben Ross explained he was the engineer representative of the owner and noted he  
understood the City’s public sewer was on the east side of Persimmon Road, which was  
just east of the site. It was a public force main and the applicant was planning to connect  
to that public line for sewer purposes, and the plans had already been submitted for  
review. Ross stated the applicant anticipated building a sidewalk along the south property  
line and have a right-of-use for a private driveway in the newly dedicated right-of-way for  
Crabapple Lane. This would be seen with the subdivision plat.  
There being no further comment, Treece closed the public hearing.  
PH36-21  
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).  
PH36-21 was read by the City Clerk.  
Teddy provided a staff report.  
Peters understood this was almost out to Midway in terms of the sewer, and asked if that  
was correct. Teddy replied yes, and explained one of the routes that would be possible  
for them to take would be along the Henderson Branch route. Teddy pointed out it would  
be a lesser capacity sewer to only serve their tract and it would be built at their expense .  
Teddy noted the Perche Creek trunk line crossed the creek at a point to the south. There  
was a place where the creek meandered and curved westward, but the sewer continued  
on a straight path, so on the other side of the meander, it was on the west side of the  
creek.  
Peters asked how this was different than the sewer line they had discussed a few years  
ago that had been removed from the CIP list because it was too expensive. Teddy replied  
this would be a private project paid for by the developer unless the City participated in a  
differential cost project. Peters understood this was a smaller sewer line that would  
connect to the Perche Creek line versus a larger sewer line, and that was the difference .  
Teddy stated that was correct.  
Peters understood there had been discussion regarding another development on Gillespie  
Bridge Road they had not annexed because they would have trouble with fire protection,  
and asked if that would be a problem in this area. Peters wondered what would happen if  
there was flooding and a fire at this location. Teddy replied he could only say they had  
not received comments back from emergency services saying they should think twice  
before annexing the property or asking how far they would go with annexations. Teddy  
explained he had brought up the distances as a way to suggest it was something to think  
about if they became more involved in this west area in terms of City jurisdiction. Teddy  
noted they had discussed a fire station conceptually at the Strawn property that had been  
donated to the City. In addition, there had been years of discussion with regard to how to  
get another crossing of the Perche Creek to relieve I-70 when that was tied up with a  
wreck or major construction as a detour so there might be opportunity to do some long  
range planning.  
Peters asked if this was part of the West Area Plan that had not moved forward. Teddy  
replied he thought this would be in that area.  
Treece pointed out another difference that had not been mentioned was that the  
Henderson Branch extension was in an area that was not being proposed for annexation .  
Peters understood that was because it had not been contiguous.  
Treece opened the public hearing.  
Tim Crockett, an engineer with offices at 1000 W. Nifong Boulevard, explained they were  
looking to annex in order to access City sewer, and noted the rezoning request that  
would come before the Council was similar to what the County had with regard to the  
open recreational uses. Crockett pointed out they were asking for  
a little bit of  
neighborhood commercial as well so a restaurant could be added to the facility. With  
regard to the sewer, it would be constructed at the cost of the applicant, and it would be  
a smaller force main sewer serving this property.  
Dee Dokken, 804 Again Street, stated she was representing the Sierra Club and  
explained they had worked hard with the City and the County for an agreement to do a  
West Area Plan. The first meeting had been held in February of 2020 and they had  
decided on some general guidelines. Dokken thought City staff had agreed to collect  
background information and they would then meet the following month, but that had never  
happened. Dokken commented that she was glad some open space zoning was being  
proposed for this particular development but they were not aware of the context of this  
development since the West Area Plan had not been completed. Dokken did not believe  
this should be done until there was a plan or some sort of weighing of the pluses and  
minuses of the entire west area. Dokken pointed out the one percent floodplain that had  
been mentioned did not exist anymore. Dokken stated it was more than a one percent  
chance of flooding, and explained that any time fill was used, it covered up the soils and  
plants that had evolved to soak up water and the water was pushed downstream. Dokken  
believed it was a fantasy to think fill could be utilized and everything would be okay .  
Dokken did not feel fill should be allowed in the floodplain. In addition, it was not a  
100-year flood, and was likely a 15-year flood or something less than a 100-year flood  
due to increased rainfall. Dokken encouraged the City to try to convince the County to  
restart the planning process before annexing across the Perche Creek.  
Jim Powell, 11 N. Seventh Street, explained he was an attorney on behalf of the Fritz  
Family Gift Trust, which owned a substantial tract of land to the south of this tract. Powell  
noted the Trust did not have any objection to the annexation, proposed zoning, or  
conditional use, but wanted to bring an issue with a 30-foot strip of land that ran through  
the middle of the tract to the attention of the Council. The applicant had previously  
indicated they wanted to address the issue, but that had not happened. Powell explained  
the strip was shown on some of the maps that had been submitted as a dashed line  
running along the east portion of the triangle than ran south of the proposed tract, but  
there was not any label as to what that strip might be, and they believed that should be  
addressed before this matter moved forward.  
Treece asked if they were attempting to reconcile that before this item came before the  
Council. Powell replied they would be happy to discuss it. Treece understood that  
discussion would take place with the applicant and not the City. Powell stated that was  
correct.  
Jeff Stack, Sexton Road, commented that he did not have anything against this  
development, but was concerned about 121 acres being opened up for more concrete.  
Stack felt there was an aversion to spaces that were not covered with concrete. Stack  
understood they called it progress, but he felt they were raping the earth without being  
mindful, and were just serving the interests of some people. Stack reiterated he believed  
they had a perversion of perpetually fighting against the earth. Stack commented that  
there were about 40 buildings at what used to be the Philips Farm. The sports complex  
there had about 12 pickleball courts with a bunch of white men playing pickleball. It was a  
nice space for well-to-do people. The area west of Scott Boulevard was being cleared out  
of trees and greenspaces. There had been reference to greenspace with the prior item  
and the need for roads so there was a shorter drive. Stack noted deer and other creatures  
were running all over the community now because they no longer had homes. Stack  
pointed out sustainability was discussed quite often, but they were not really proving it .  
They were continuing to proceed as normal and supporting some economic elites in the  
community with large and upper scale housing arrangements. Stack felt they needed to  
be more in harmony with nature rather than overwhelming it. Stack asked that they try to  
think of other ways to make use of the beautiful area in which they lived.  
Dani Perez stated she was not against expansion but was against the lack of  
mindfulness. Perez commented that Columbia had some of the worst runoff she had ever  
seen in a progressive city. As an aspiring marine biologist, Perez noted one of her  
capstones was to determine the impact of the Midwest on ocean health. Columbia had a  
lot of creeks, and those creeks were not far from the Missouri River, which connected to  
the Mississippi River, contributed to the wetlands in Louisiana, and ultimately connected  
to the Gulf of Mexico. Columbia, along with other cities, contributed to pollution and  
excess nutrients in the ocean, which caused  
a great imbalance and contributed to  
climate change. Perez commented that when discussing the CAAP, they needed to be  
more mindful of construction and zoning. Perez noted that if they wanted to continue with  
construction, they needed to determine how they would make up for the water runoff, and  
suggested including more plants that absorbed water. Perez recommended they  
incorporate environment planning with development by really thinking about the zoning,  
the lay of the land, and the future. Although climate change was unpredictable, there  
were patterns they could consider. Something that might good now might not be good in  
the future. Perez reiterated she believed they needed to be more mindful and  
environmentally aware.  
Scott Fritz, 216 N. Strawn Road, commented that some of the exhibits showed the sewer  
line that had previously been up for discussion as existing when it did not exist. Fritz  
understood Treece had indicated the application for that extension had not sought  
annexation, but he believed that was false because those people were seeking to annex  
into the City as part of the process. Treece thanked Fritz for the clarification.  
Chimene Schwach, 1232 Sunset Drive, pointed out that at some point someone would  
ask the City to build infrastructure on to the land that had been annexed, and that cost  
was not known. Schwach noted there was a lot of infrastructure in the middle of the City  
that had yet to be brought up to modern standards. Schwach explained she lived in a  
property that still had a sewer collective. Schwach commented that the City would be on  
the hook for the cost when there was flooding, which she understood would happen in an  
area that was in a one percent flood zone. Schwach asked the Council to justify and be  
accountable for rubberstamping development without knowing the actual cost to the City .  
Schwach did not feel people should get what they wanted just because they asked,  
particularly if they did not provide information on what they would ask for the next year .  
Schwach pointed out they would ask for infrastructure funds once the property was  
annexed, and felt the City needed those numbers in order to make decisions that made  
sense. They would otherwise not be accountable to the people of Columbia.  
There being no further comment, Treece closed the public hearing.  
Thomas commented that he was disappointed that the West Area Plan had come to a  
halt again. As had been mentioned, the City and the County had met once before the  
pandemic in early 2020, but that had been after about 2-3 years of attempting to start the  
process before a development had received a sewer connection by a 4-3 vote, which he  
believed to be a terrible mistake. Thomas felt annexing this property and allowing them to  
connect to sewer without proper planning would be the first domino of a lot of sprawl and  
another bridge over the Perche Creek. Thomas hoped they denied the annexation request  
when it came to the Council at the next meeting.  
VI. OLD BUSINESS  
B278-21  
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).  
Discussion shown with B281-21.  
B279-21  
B280-21  
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).  
Discussion shown with B281-21.  
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).  
Discussion shown with B281-21.  
B281-21  
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).  
The bills were given second reading by the City Clerk.  
Teddy provided a staff report.  
Thomas understood the proposal was consistent with the East Area Plan in the sense  
that this area had been designated residential, and asked if the East Area Plan had gone  
into any more detail than to simply designate parts of the study area as residential versus  
commercial or other types of development. Teddy replied he thought there had been  
questions and answers in that regard as part of the process. Teddy noted the  
consideration of a variety of housing types had been there as had been the use of  
subdivisions to promote land conservation, i.e., the clustering of small lots with larger  
open space areas where there were draws, ravines, drainageways, or wooded tracts.  
Thomas understood the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) felt the plat did not  
conform to those recommendations. Teddy stated he thought it had more to do with the  
immediate impact of the Code indicating blocks should be more compact to promote  
walking around them, the elimination of the one cul-de-sac, and the concern of driveways  
directly on the collector.  
Fowler referred to the development agreement in terms of the offset for the Richland Road  
intersection improvements and asked how the $94,448.70 was determined as the  
contribution. Teddy replied he thought a reasonable percentage of the entire intersection  
improvement had been utilized, but noted he did not have the exact details. Teddy  
explained it worked out to about $600 per lot. Fowler stated that amount seemed low,  
and asked for the cost of a typical intersection improvement. Glascock replied there was  
no way for him to answer that question. It would depend on the intersection and would be  
impacted by the need for right-of-way, the type of improvement being done, i.e., a signal,  
roundabout, etc. Glascock explained he would consider these planning numbers. It was a  
calculation based on some factors staff had taken into account. There was not a typical  
intersection.  
Fowler understood there was a 50 cent per square foot charge that went toward roads.  
Teddy stated that was correct and explained that was to be spent on arterial and  
collector roads throughout the City. It was required for any residential development .  
Fowler asked for the calculation that had been done in terms of what they expected that  
number to yield when this particular development was built out. Teddy replied they would  
need to know the average size of the homes. If they picked 3,000 square feet as the  
average, and multiplied it by 50 cents, it would be about $1,500 per lot. Teddy pointed out  
he did not know what the average was as he did not know the home sizes at this time.  
Fowler understood there had not already been a calculation as to the revenue stream to  
assist with the cost of road improvements. Teddy noted he had mentioned the traffic  
study and the fact the two-lane rural road would need improvements, such as bike and  
pedestrian facilities, different drainage, safety improvements, etc., if they were to urbanize  
it, but felt the burden placed on any property should be a function of a study that said  
there was a capacity issue based on trip generation. The development was showing there  
was adequate lane capacity to carry the traffic that was generated from this development,  
and the City had countered by saying they knew there would be more developments like  
this coming forward so they wanted to have a plan to get some things addressed to  
ensure they were not in a position of being way under capacity in terms of what was  
developing in that area.  
Fowler commented that she was troubled by the idea that someone had not already  
estimated the road fee that would be generated from this development to see if it came  
close to the anticipated costs of improving the road and the intersection. Teddy explained  
the improvements would be done in response to growth not only within the boundaries of  
this property but also other developments that were building out. Teddy pointed out that  
roads that were arterial in nature could be used by any resident or visitor to the City .  
There would be more local usage, but they were for everyone that needed to get around in  
the area. Teddy noted that was the philosophy as they went up the roadway hierarchy  
causing the funding sources to be a little less localized. Teddy understood some places  
practiced exactions whereby they would simply say the roadway was currently under  
capacity and the developer needed to build it up to capacity regardless of the actual  
impact because they did not want to add to it. Teddy stated he was not sure they were  
declaring it a failing system yet. Fowler commented that she was not trying to be unduly  
critical of Teddy and the processes he followed.  
Fowler noted she had a lot of hesitations including the size of the lots, the expansive  
nature of the development, the fact it would involve high-end housing, etc. Fowler stated it  
made her sad that this was the direction in which resources were being expended and  
that the City would take on the future responsibility for road improvement without  
obtaining sufficient funds from the developer. Fowler understood the Growth Impact Study  
Working Group was looking into some of these issues, and wondered when the Council  
would intervene in this process. There was a critical housing shortage, but they were still  
approving projects of this magnitude which added to their future responsibilities.  
Skala commented that he had been involved in trying to increase the development charge  
based on trip generation in the past, and that the referendum had failed spectacularly. As  
a result, it remained at 50 cents per square foot.  
Skala asked about the traffic impact on this corridor from Rolling Hills Road to Grace  
Lane as he understood there had been conversations with the County. Glascock replied  
he had talked to the County a couple of times with regard to Grace Lane due to the  
interchange that would be constructed and the road across the South Farm that would  
connect everything. Glascock noted it needed to be addressed and it was something  
they would continue to discuss. Skala assumed this development, if approved, would add  
pressure to that corridor.  
Skala asked if there had been changes recently to the block and cul-de-sac lengths as  
he recalled other numbers associated with the street standards. Teddy replied the UDC in  
2017 had introduced the concept of mandatory maximum block lengths, and prior to that,  
they had a suggestive block standard. Teddy noted the street standards portion that had  
been carried forward and was a part of the development code focused on cross sections  
and the types of improvements along with their respective dimensions that needed to be  
included to make streets more complete. Teddy reiterated the work that had been done in  
2004 was still with them and within a part of the UDC. The concept of making the blocks  
more compact had been added since then along with the cul-de-sac related issue.  
Discouraging driveways on major roads had always been a feature but had not always  
been successful. Teddy realized it was difficult because the subdivider had to work with  
an extra row of lots if they wanted to interpose lots that did not directly access a major  
road and the lots had to be backed up to it since there was not another way to do it.  
Skala understood Teddy had mentioned exactions and recalled that one of the reasons  
for the UDC was to get away from that term, and asked if that was correct. Teddy replied  
he thought that was fair. Teddy explained they had the traffic study requirement in the  
UDC now, which created  
a kind of arbiter since the City’s traffic engineer would  
participate in the scoping of the study on the front end and the review of the submission .  
If the engineer agreed with it, that study could be used as the basis for improvements  
adjacent to the site or even off-site improvements. Teddy pointed out a large commercial  
development would likely involve a traffic study that recommended off-site improvements  
unless it was on a road that could already handle the anticipated traffic.  
Peters asked if the grading of the Richland Road frontage and the installation of a pedway  
was along the entire length of this development. Teddy replied yes, and explained they  
would otherwise be going off-site in terms of acquiring right-of-way and building in front of  
someone else’s tract. Peters stated she had seen other pedways on Highway WW, and  
asked if this would be similar. Teddy replied eight feet was the standard for a pedway.  
Tim Crockett, 1000 W. Nifong Boulevard, explained he was representing the applicant of  
the Old Hawthorne North development, which involved a total of 126 acres. They were  
seeking annexation and R-1 zoning for 123.8 acres along with design adjustments  
associated with the preliminary plat. Crockett noted they were asking for relief from  
Section 29-5.1(c)(3)(ii) which discussed the length of blocks and indicated block lengths  
could not be longer than 600 feet. Crockett displayed a graphic that showed the four  
locations from which they were asking for relief in blue, and described the street  
connections that would be needed if the design adjustment was not provided. Crockett  
commented that the block length associated with Location 1 was similar in nature to a  
design adjustment the Council had approved in 2017 for a similar subdivision, i.e., the  
Bristol Ridge development. Bristol Ridge was a much more dense development of roughly  
the same length with more lots, and the Council had decided it was in the best interest to  
grant that design adjustment. Crockett stated he disagreed with the interpretation of the  
block length at Location 2 because both of the streets had an outlet to either the north or  
the south so the block length itself was already divided. Another connection was being  
requested between the two streets, which would add two 4-way intersections along with  
more of a thoroughfare through the development. Location 3 was similar in that the  
connection would not provide a benefit to the neighborhood or the City. Crockett noted he  
did not feel this was the true intent of the block length portion of the UDC. Crockett  
pointed out Location 4 would result in three stub streets of short distances going into Old  
Hawthorne, and it did not make sense to have streets that often. Crockett commented  
that revising the layout to include the streets as demonstrated would increase the overall  
street length by approximately 1,800 feet even after reconfiguring it to be in compliance  
with City regulations. This equated to about 1.6 acres of additional impervious surface  
and also resulted in losing density in the development. Crockett explained the cul -de-sac  
length had a 300-foot maximum but would allow a 750-foot maximum if the Community  
Development Director was so inclined due to topography and environmental features.  
Crockett noted they had a draw on both sides and were riding the ridge. They wanted to  
develop in the appropriate locations and not in the waterways or the draw. Crockett stated  
they would contend that they were at less than 750 feet, which was the old cul-de-sac  
length limit and what Teddy was allowed to approve administratively, and that this was  
justified in this location. Crockett displayed a diagram that depicted the collector street  
that ran east-west by the dashed red line and explained the lots outlined in yellow were  
the lots that would have driveways directly onto that collector street. Crockett commented  
that a traffic study had been commissioned from CBB out of St. Louis, and they had  
determined this east-west collector would probably never function as a collector street for  
various reasons. First, the area to the west was already developed property so they did  
not believe this road would go much further to the west. There were some tracts to the  
east, but if that area developed, the homeowners would likely not travel east-west. They  
would go either north or south. The idea of a collector was to get traffic to an arterial  
roadway, and there was an arterial roadway to the north and  
a collector that ran  
north-south immediately to east of them. If they were trying to get to an arterial roadway,  
they would traverse east to the future collector and then travel north. They would not  
continue on in their direction. Crockett pointed out Teddy had indicated he thought that  
collector roadway had fairly light traffic on it compared to the collector designation, and  
the traffic study confirmed that. Crockett noted there were some collector designations  
that had driveways on them, and felt this was one where that would be appropriate.  
Crockett stated they would limit it to just the sixteen lots identified. Crockett displayed a  
revised layout which was different than the layout being proposed tonight, and explained it  
would be the layout that would be in full conformance with all of the regulations. The  
number of additional streets could be seen as well as the lot count. In addition, it had the  
collector street with zero driveways, which would be built by the developer at the  
developer’s expense, but would have zero traffic on it for a period of time until it worked as  
a collector. Crockett reiterated many of them did not feel it would ever act as a collector .  
It was a street the City would maintain and own without any traffic on it.  
When  
calculating everything, it was 182,000 square feet or 4.2 acres of additional impervious  
surface. It was a large amount of street, sidewalk, and pedway that would be added to  
the development, and they would have to treat that stormwater. It was also more that  
would have to be maintained by them and the City. Crockett commented that they  
wanted to be efficient in their designs while addressing public safety and health. The  
Police Department and Fire Department had reviewed the proposed layout and were fine  
with it. Crockett did not feel that adding those extra streets had any real value to the  
development or the City. Crockett noted the traffic impact study had included this location  
as well as the surrounding intersections and had identified the level of service at which  
the existing intersections functioned currently and with the addition of this traffic. The City  
had reviewed it and had requested a contribution toward the Richland Road and Grace  
Lane intersection as they believed it would be a roundabout in the future. City staff had  
then assigned a value as to what it would cost to reconstruct the intersection and  
extrapolated their fair share based on the traffic study, and that amount was within the  
development agreement. Crockett stated they would grade along the Richland Road  
right-of-way and it would include a pedway as well. Crockett pointed out the annexation  
and zoning request had the 9-0 support of the PZC. Crockett understood the PZC had  
some concerns with regard to the design adjustments, and reiterated they wanted to be  
efficient while maintaining public health and safety, and felt there was a better way than  
the way identified in the UDC.  
Dee Dokken, 804 Again Street, encouraged the PZC to keep pushing for smaller lot  
sizes, clustering, community greenspaces, and other things that would decrease sprawl  
and meet the CAAP, and pointed out the time to do this was at annexation. It was when  
they could set the pattern for what people expected because it was much harder to add  
density later. It was better to start out with a good plan versus a lot of big lots that later  
had to have more people on them.  
Traci Wilson-Kleekamp commented that she recalled the attempt to increase the  
development charge that Skala had mentioned and it appeared they were still in that  
same place. They had not addressed whether development was paying for itself or what it  
might be doing to the infrastructure. Wilson-Kleekamp wondered why they were building  
out on the fringe when they did not have the requisite transportation or affordable housing .  
The local agencies were providing people bus tickets out of town because there was no  
place for them to live. Wilson-Kleekamp understood the budget included one affordable  
housing project to be built in 2022. Wilson-Kleekamp noted that did not make sense to  
her, and it was the reason people had to come before projects.  
Dani Perez commented that as a person that did not own a car, she saw a lot of things in  
town that deserved more infrastructure than what she was observing with this  
development. Perez stated she wanted to see more internal infrastructure, houses being  
required to meet better codes, and for empty lots within town to be used. Perez also  
suggested fewer green lots be developed as that contributed to runoff. Perez thought it  
was intriguing to see how they were willing to spend money on unnecessary streets and  
sidewalks in this area when there were streets and sidewalks that were heavily utilized  
that needed that infrastructure investment.  
Chimene Schwach stated she thought Columbia could be a model city for housing and  
community development, but they were still creating more million dollar houses in the  
outskirts of town. Schwach noted that in addition to the issue of affordable housing for low  
income people, there was an issue with affordable housing for middle class families.  
When the average house prices in Columbia were reaching $450,000 and they were  
building $1 million homes on two acre lots, it was not affordable for many people.  
Schwach commented that she thought it was possible to have $600,000 houses along  
with $300,000, $200,000, and $100,000 houses. Schwach understood developers were  
focused on $600,000-$1 million homes because of the money they could make, but she  
felt money could also be made on $300,000 or $200,000 homes. They could create  
sustainable communities whereby everyone had sidewalks, access to public  
transportation, etc. Schwach stated she was certain there was not a bus route directed  
toward the Old Hawthorne community, and reiterated they needed to think about how  
they were planning the community. They needed to look to the future versus what they  
had done in the past as they were supposed to learn from mistakes. The City suffered  
when they did not pursue best practices.  
Aída Guhlincozzi explained she was  
geographer by trade. As result, this kind of development discussion was very  
interesting from scholarly and citizen perspective. Guhlincozzi stated she was  
a relatively new citizen of Columbia and a  
a
a
concerned about the housing market costs. Guhlincozzi commented that as someone  
that was hoping to build a home in Columbia, she was not looking for a house that was  
upward of $400,000. Guhlincozzi was looking for something that was far more financially  
manageable for someone with her educational background. Guhlincozzi noted she was  
also concerned about the populations in Columbia that did not and would not have that  
level of financial opportunity in terms of their need for housing, which was crucial, along  
with their need for transportation. When looking at developments such as this, she was  
concerned about the lack of transparency in such a process. Guhlincozzi agreed she had  
not been a part of this conversation since she recently moved to Columbia, but felt there  
should be more direct engagement around any development and growth practice. When  
discussing new housing developments whereby infrastructure might be needed in the  
future, Guhlincozzi believed it was important to think about where else that money could  
be going, such supporting transportation and sidewalks. Guhlincozzi urged the Council to  
take more time with this and to think more critically about these issues.  
Peters commented that in her review of this development there were some large lots but  
there were also some smaller lots. Peters agreed nothing there would be considered  
affordable housing, and pointed out they did not have any way to get people that were  
living in affordable housing or low income housing to their jobs since there was not a bus  
system in that area. Peters felt that needed to be considered because they would  
otherwise set themselves up by demanding they have low income housing in places they  
could not provide support services. Peters agreed they did not need the extra streets so  
she believed the design adjustments were a good idea. Peters noted that allowing the  
design adjustments would decrease impervious surfaces and would be best in terms of  
the CAAP.  
Thomas commented that over  
a ten year period from FY 2005 to FY 2014, the  
development fee of 50 cents per square foot had generated just over $9 million for the City  
to invest in arterial and collector roads, but over that same time period, the City had spent  
$85 million on expanding arterial and collector roads, and the only reason they were  
doing that was to accommodate growth in the community. As a result, it was clear the  
50 cents per square foot fell far short of the necessary cost to balance the budget. In  
addition, there was not any electric utility connection fee or public safety development  
fee. Thomas understood a new fire station was being discussed for that area, and they  
would have to scramble to find money for it like they did for the last fire station in the Fifth  
Ward since these homes would not contribute to the cost of the new fire station that  
would serve them. Thomas commented that he liked the idea Crockett had alluded to in  
that they could create small block lengths with bicycle and pedestrian connections  
instead of building the additional streets. Thomas thought that would be a nice proposal  
and encourage a lot more active travel throughout that neighborhood. Thomas stated all of  
the neighborhoods where he grew up in England had bicycle and pedestrian connectors  
to make it permeable to move around without a vehicle.  
Peters pointed out she understood they already had the funding for the fire station .  
Thomas asked from where that funding was coming as he did not believe it was coming  
from the growth on the east side of town that was driving the need for the fire station.  
Pitzer understood it had been approved by the voters.  
Skala stated he was starting to come to the conclusion that the transportation issues  
they had involved the chicken and egg situation. Skala noted he did not want to get into  
the idea of inclusionary zoning at this point, but believed Old Hawthorne was in need of  
more density. Skala commented that he was not talking about affordable housing in  
terms $100,000 homes, which was desperately needed, but more about housing in the  
range of $200,000-$300,000, which was close to the median. In terms of this proposal in  
this place, Skala stated he wanted to see something more creative that would lean more  
toward smaller lots so it was denser and made more sense in terms of how growth paid  
for itself. Skala noted he was disturbed by the desire to place driveways on a collector  
street. Skala understood the argument was that this might not ever become a collector,  
but when reviewing other areas in the Third Ward, such as along St. Charles Road, it was  
dangerous when there were driveways on a collector roadway. Skala explained he had  
initially thought he would support the recommendation of the PZC, but had now changed  
his mind.  
Peters understood 700 apartments had been planned for the original Old Hawthorne area,  
but the Council had recently allowed them to change that to smaller single-family homes  
because they had not seen the need for that type of development in the area.  
B278-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, WANER, PITZER, PETERS. VOTING NO: FOWLER,  
SKALA, THOMAS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
B279-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, WANER, PITZER, PETERS. VOTING NO: FOWLER,  
SKALA, THOMAS. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
B280-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, WANER, PITZER, PETERS. VOTING NO: FOWLER,  
SKALA, THOMAS. Bill declared defeated.  
Treece understood B280-21 required  
a five-sevenths vote, and had thus failed. Amin  
stated that was correct and noted that decision affected B281-21. Treece understood that  
was because the preliminary plat had included the design adjustments. Amin stated that  
was her understanding.  
Treece asked Crockett how he wanted to proceed. Crockett replied he understood the  
Council had approved the annexation and the zoning, and since the zoning was approved,  
they could come back with a new plat at will without waiting the one year period. Crockett  
asked if that was correct. Thompson replied if the Council continued the preliminary plat  
versus voting it down, it would provide the opportunity to come back with a revised plat  
without restarting the process. Crockett stated he would prefer that then.  
Treece asked if they could come back with  
a downward departure of the design  
adjustments or if that would require PZC hearing, and provided the bicycle and  
a
pedestrian connectors as an example. Thompson replied it would depend on whether it  
became compliant. If it required other design adjustments, it could go back to PZC.  
Thompson stated it would be in the judgement of the Community Development Director  
as to whether it was compliant with what had already been viewed by the PZC.  
Treece made a motion to table B281-21 to the October 18, 2021 Council Meeting.  
Thompson commented that if a determination was made that it needed to go to the PZC,  
it would be reported to the Council, and the applicant would have the opportunity to  
continue it further.  
The motion made by Treece to table B281-21 to the October 18, 2021 Council Meeting  
was seconded by Waner.  
Pitzer understood the reason they were doing this was because all of the design  
adjustments had been within one ordinance. They had not voted on each one individually .  
Treece explained the blueprint they had was not accurate so they could not pass that  
ordinance.  
Crockett asked if they could bring another preliminary plat back while still asking for the  
design adjustments because he thought Thomas had indicated he might be agreeable to  
some of the design adjustments if they came up with something different. Treece replied  
he would assume that was fine and that it would require the same two-thirds majority, but  
in his mind, it would need to be something that was a downward departure. It was also at  
the discretion of the Community Development Director.  
The motion made by Treece and seconded by Waner to table B281-21 to the  
October 18, 2021 Council Meeting was passed by voice vote with only Peters  
voting no.  
B284-21  
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).  
The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.  
Teddy provided a staff report.  
Pitzer asked if the subdivision was 75 percent complete. Teddy replied he thought it was  
probably about 25 percent complete, but the engineer might have some more specific  
information. Pitzer asked if there had been any other changes to what had been originally  
proposed and agreed upon in 2006. Teddy replied no. Teddy noted people likely saw the  
excavation happening now because there were approved construction plans and recalled  
that condition pertaining to that street. Teddy explained the street was kind of shaped like  
an elbow as there was a change in direction on the other side of the boundary, and this  
new street would come into it in a Y-type configuration. Teddy thought it would be  
circuitous travel from the north to the south so it might be more about incidental  
construction traffic.  
Christina Luebbert, 304 Travis Court, Jefferson City, explained she was with Luebbert  
Engineering and noted the 2006 approved preliminary plat had indicated Sugar Maple  
Drive was to be designed and constructed to North Waterfront Drive using Boone County  
Public Works design standards and a gate with a knox box, which would only be opened  
by public officials in times of public need, was to be installed by the developer and would  
remain in place until Rice Road, now Geyser Boulevard, was extended from its current  
terminus to Lake of the Woods Road. In addition, it indicated the gate was no longer  
needed once the connection existed. Luebbert commented that she had received a copy  
of the Boone County Commission order today, and it only provided permission to have the  
gate and said “the gate may remain in place until the adjoining subdivision is 75 percent  
complete or Rice Road is extended through to Lake of the Woods Road, whichever  
comes last.” Luebbert understood the County was only giving permission for the gate to  
be over their right-of-way. Luebbert noted that once the construction plans had been  
approved by the City, which had been an arduous 6.5 month process, and the  
right-of-way permit had been obtained from the County for the connection, the contractor  
had started to work on the sewers, storm sewers, and streets. When learning work was  
being done for the street connection, the neighbors had become concerned. Luebbert  
pointed out that at the end of the petition that had been signed by this and other  
homeowners associations in support of the preliminary plat in 2006 had indicated the  
intersection would be blocked until such time Rice Road extended to Lake of the Woods  
Road. It had not said anything about the 75 percent. Only one letter had included the  
desire for the 75 percent, and that caveat had not been on the preliminary plat. As a  
result, Luebbert did not feel it was a requirement. Luebbert explained she had spoken to  
her client and he had indicated a willingness to work with the neighbors by installing a  
temporary blockade, but he did not want the expense of an actual gate, knox box, etc .  
Luebbert stated they did not have any problem with the homeowners association  
installing it, but in the meantime, they planned to utilize some boulders for traffic control  
after the connection was constructed.  
Treece asked Luebbert for the name of her client. Luebbert replied D & D Investments of  
Columbia, which owned the property associated with the plat. They had purchased it from  
the bank when the previous developer had gone bankrupt, which was in 2016 or 2017.  
Treece asked Luebbert if they did or did not want the gate. Luebbert replied they would  
rather not have a gate because they did not want to spend the money on a gate. Treece  
asked if there was a gate there now. Luebbert replied there was not a gate there now  
because there was not a connection now. Treece asked if he was looking at the 2006  
plat. Luebbert replied he had the 2006 preliminary plat, but they were voting on the final  
plat tonight.  
Randy Benton stated he lived in the Edgewater Condos and explained trees had been  
cleared, but there was not any road there yet. In addition, it appeared as though there  
would be another road a few lots over.  
Treece commented that the final plat before them tonight did not show any connection to  
North Waterfront Drive. Luebbert explained it was because the Boone County right-of-way  
was already there. Benton stated it was not a street yet.  
Treece asked Benton about his concerns. Benton replied the traffic congestion. Benton  
understood the connection was required due to emergency services, but that there would  
be a gate with a lock there permanently. The emergency services would go through the  
gate if access was needed.  
Treece asked Benton for his desired action tonight. Benton replied he was agreeable to  
the development if a gate was installed. Benton stated he did not want a street coming  
through to his neighborhood. Benton reiterated it appeared there would be another street .  
Treece asked Benton if he was referencing Apple Blossom Drive. Benton replied yes.  
Phillip Bridgeford noted he lived on Waterfront Drive and had moved to this area for the  
security, but since he had been there, the residents of what used to be Rice Road would  
cut through their property on foot by crossing over fences, etc. Once the connection was  
made, it would make it easier for them to be in an area in which they should not be.  
Bridgeford stated his house faced the new construction, and they had not properly  
maintained the drainage from all of that construction, which had polluted their lake. The  
bottom of the lake had risen, and it was just a mudhole now. Bridgeford was not sure how  
putting in an additional road would keep them safe. The road that came in and out of  
there was a lane and one-half wide, and there was not room for two cars to pass if there  
was a car parked on the side of the road. It would increase problems in terms of  
accidents as those that did not live there would not be aware of the issues.  
Bruce DeGroot explained he was the State Representative for District 101, which  
included Wildwood, Clarkson Valley, and Chesterfield, where he lived. DeGroot noted he  
had been on the Chesterfield City Council for three years, and prior to then, he had served  
on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of Variances. DeGroot pointed  
out that developers did not get council members elected as they were corporations, not  
people, and as a corporation, they did not have a soul or a moral compass. They were  
made up of board members that had the fiduciary duty to their shareholders who were  
only interested in money. Developers wanted to cram as many houses on a property as  
possible to satisfy their shareholders, and that was the situation here. DeGroot  
commented that the roads in the area were very narrow and dangerous, and constructing  
a road would put more people in their neighborhood to try to get on Lake of the Woods  
Road. DeGroot stated the infrastructure was not there as they did not even have  
sidewalks, and now more people would be on that road. DeGroot asked the Council to  
put neighborhoods before developers and corporations tonight by either postponing the  
vote or voting no as he did not feel they knew enough about this development.  
Treece asked DeGroot if a gate or boulders to help restrict traffic was a potential solution  
or if he just did not like the plat. DeGroot replied he would be satisfied with a gate for  
emergency services, and explained he did not see the need for unfettered access.  
Pitzer asked DeGroot why he was commenting on this item. DeGroot replied he lived in  
Chesterfield as well as at 1992 Waterfront Drive as he split his time. DeGroot noted he  
was also moving his mom from North Dakota to a home across the street on Waterfront  
Drive.  
David Strumpf stated he resided on Waterfront Drive North and wanted to reinforce some  
of the prior comments. Strumpf believed safety was the issue as it was a very windy  
street and people did not watch what they were doing when going around the curves.  
Strumpf asked the Council to reconsider even providing access through there, and  
pointed out the fire station was actually in the opposite direction so there was not any  
reason anyone would want to get onto Waterfront Drive North. If the connection was  
needed, Strumpf suggested a 100 percent completion before unlocking the gate due to  
the safety issues.  
Skala understood there was no reason to have a gate if the connection was maintained  
and there was build out of the entire subdivision, and asked if that was correct. Teddy  
replied staff was operating with the understanding that when development had been  
originally proposed there was an awareness that it would progress in phases and Rice  
Road, now Geyser Boulevard, would not be completed, which meant movements to the  
east would drop down on Sugar Maple Drive to Waterfront Drive and out to Lake of the  
Woods Road. Teddy understood a condition was annotated on the preliminary plat as  
guidance to say that if the connection was made before Rice Road was extended, there  
had to be a gate. Otherwise, the connection could be made. Teddy explained it was rare,  
but there were occasions when roads were closed due to some emergency causing the  
need for an outlet in both directions. On June 25, there had been a number of roads  
closed due to flooding and fallen trees.  
Skala asked if the blocking of the connection could be permanent. Teddy replied he  
would not recommend that as he did not feel that had been in the spirit of the original  
agreement. In addition, they were trying to foster some interactions between  
neighborhoods. Teddy understood people tended to like the conditions in which they  
found their neighborhoods, and if they had streets that were somewhat private, they  
wanted to keep it that way. Teddy commented that he thought diverting construction  
traffic while construction was in progress was likely something the developer could work  
out with the neighborhood.  
Treece asked if the current street standards required Sugar Maple Drive to connect to  
Waterfront Drive or if it could just curve into Royal Plum Drive. Treece wondered if the  
length was adequate. Teddy replied he was not sure. Teddy thought they had worked with  
Boone County staff on this and they had been in agreement that there should be some  
connection there. Teddy understood someone had mentioned Apple Blossom Drive, and  
noted that was a dead end stub street. It would not connect to a street on the south side .  
It would only enable possible access in the future should the large tract subdivide. Teddy  
pointed out the Code indicated that streets should be carried to the property lines.  
Treece asked Peters about the circumstances involved with the gate at Timberhill Road  
as that had been something on which he had voted. Peters replied Timberhill Road was  
an unimproved road with large ditches on both sides. Although the gate was installed, the  
road name was the same on both sides, which caused some confusion for those utilizing  
GPS services, and many people would either turn around or go around the gate causing  
them to drive into people’s yards. Some boulders had been placed near the gate to try to  
prevent that. Treece understood it was a breakaway gate in case of an emergency.  
Peters agreed.  
Skala thought there was a gate on Lillian Drive as that road was supposed to connect  
through the Links Golf Course development to Clark Lane. It allowed for bicycle and  
pedestrian access but not anything else other than emergency access.  
Pitzer commented that he thought those gates were the result of an agreement between  
the neighborhood and the adjoining the development, and there was a similar agreement  
here. Pitzer provided an analogy involving the Lillian Drive and Timberhill Road situations  
whereby fifteen years from now a different group of people living there could decide they  
wanted to remove the gate, and that would not be in conformance with the agreement that  
had been made in the public record. Pitzer stated his concern was that they were  
opening the door to undoing fifteen year old agreements, and noted he was troubled by  
the fact they might go down that path. Pitzer pointed out there were opportunities for a  
temporary restriction, whether that involved boulders or something else, until the  
construction traffic was done or when it was built out to 75 percent or more. Pitzer stated  
he was not in favor of doing anything permanent that was contrary to the agreement  
everyone had been amenable to fifteen years ago.  
Treece clarified Pitzer understood the agreement was that the gate would remain until  
Rice Road, which was now Geyser Road, connected to Lake of the Woods Road. Pitzer  
agreed and noted there had been a 75 percent notation that the developer seemed to be  
willing to accommodate. Pitzer understood that might not hold up legally, but it sounded  
as though they were willing to honor that.  
Peters understood they would be voting on approving the final plat. Treece replied yes.  
Treece understood the plat did not reference whether there would or would not be a gate,  
and asked for clarification. Luebbert replied the final plat had been prepared based on the  
approved preliminary plat, and the approved preliminary plat did not say anything about  
the build out of the development. As a result, they had not been aware of the 75 percent  
until recently when it had been brought to their attention. Luebbert clarified they had not  
been the original developers so they were not privy to those conversations, and had just  
been made aware around 5:00 p.m. tonight. Luebbert commented that houses were being  
built at a fairly steady pace. Treece asked if houses were being built in this development .  
Luebbert clarified houses were being built in Phase 1, which was north of this and along  
Geyser Road. Luebbert noted her client wanted to move forward with this plat so they  
could install the necessary infrastructure for houses to be built there when they were  
finished with Phase 1.  
Treece asked Luebbert if she wanted the Council to vote or if she wanted to work with the  
surrounding neighborhood a little longer. Luebbert replied she wanted to emphasize that  
this plat met City standards and what had been required per the preliminary plat so she  
did not understand how it could not be approved.  
Skala asked Luebbert if she had said they did not have any particular issue with a keyed  
gate there as long as they did not have to pay for it. Luebbert replied they did not want to  
pay for a gate and a knox box, but were willing to put something up as a temporary  
barrier if agreeable. Skala understood it would not bother them if the neighborhood  
decided to install it. Luebbert replied they would not be opposed to that.  
Luebbert pointed out the applicant was not a corporation with a board of directors. D & D  
Investments of Columbia consisted of David Drane and Dan Burks, who had grown up the  
last five and seven decades in this community and had multiple businesses and projects  
in Columbia.  
Skala understood it would be illegal to block the connection if all of the conditions were  
satisfied, and asked if that was correct. Thompson replied that if the Council wanted to  
say there would not be a connection between the two roadways, the best way to do that  
was to not connect the two roadways. Luebbert pointed out that was not what had been  
on the approved preliminary plat. Thompson stated that was correct. The approved  
preliminary plat, with which the final plat had been drawn to be in conformance, had the  
connection. Thompson explained the role of the Council was to determine the appropriate  
connectivity in terms of traffic movement, safety, etc., and not necessarily the desires of  
the neighbors. The Council had to decide how best the traffic patterns would work given  
the City Code and their planning tools. Neighborhoods did not get to decide to block  
streets. It was the right-of-way of the public, and the Council made that determination.  
The Council could not leave it in the hands of the neighbors to decide who came and went  
on a public street at any particular point in time.  
Luebbert pointed out it was County right-of-way at the location where the gate would be,  
and the County order said that the gate had to be removed when 75 percent build out was  
complete. Glascock asked if that meant the County would install the gate. Luebbert  
replied no, and explained they had just granted permission for the gate. Glascock stated  
he did not think the County could direct the Council to take out the gate.  
Skala commented that the County did not have jurisdiction over this, and thought the best  
solution would be to not to connect the road.  
Pitzer understood the gate on the preliminary plat was drawn on the County side of the  
border so the County had jurisdiction in terms of whether the gate could be put in or  
taken out. Pitzer pointed out they had also received the document signed by the five  
homeowner associations and condo associations agreeing to the idea of a temporary  
gate after a long series of negotiations. Pitzer commented that he believed it would go  
against what they had recently talked about in terms of connections, streets, and how  
neighborhoods were laid out if they blocked it.  
Treece made a motion to table B284-21 to the November 1, 2021 Council Meeting.  
The motion was seconded by Peters and approved by voice vote with only Pitzer  
voting no.  
B290-21  
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.  
The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.  
Pitzer understood this was an agreement with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to monitor  
groundwater quality in the McBaine bottoms and that this agreement had been in place  
since 1992. Utilities Director Dave Sorrell stated that was correct. Pitzer understood the  
USGS had been monitoring the groundwater quality throughout that time period. Sorrell  
replied he thought there was one year it had not been performed.  
Pitzer noted he had asked Sorrell earlier today how anyone could find the results of that  
monitoring, and had been sent to the USGS site. Pitzer commented that no one would  
ever find it. Sorrell agreed one would have to know what they were looking for on the site  
to find the information from these wells. Pitzer asked how the City was using the  
information they received from this monitoring. Sorrell replied they had baseline  
information from before the wetlands had been built, and they used this information to  
determine if the sewage treatment wetlands had an influence on the drinking water  
aquifer. The wetlands had changed some of the flowpaths and they had found some  
constituents in affluent that had shown up in some of the monitoring wells at a very high  
level, i.e. not deep down in the aquifer. By continuing to monitor this, it would allow them  
to be aware of whether the wetlands would have a negative impact on the water system  
before the damage was done so they could implement some modifications to the sewer  
treatment process. Pitzer understood that by “high level” Sorrell meant close to the  
ground surface and not a high level of contaminants. Sorrell stated he meant “high level”  
in terms of elevation, i.e., close to the surface of the ground and not down at the water  
intake area, which was closer to 100 feet in the ground. Pitzer asked if this data was  
included in the annual water quality report. Sorrell replied this data was not in the annual  
water quality report, and explained that report had a different set of data. Pitzer asked if  
this data was more or less comprehensive. Sorrell replied the water quality report was  
more comprehensive with regard to what they actual got from the tap, and this data more  
comprehensive in terms of what was going into the water plant. Sorrell noted they could  
put this data on the City’s website to make it more readily available in the community as  
he agreed it was difficult to find on the USGS site. Pitzer thought that would be useful if  
there was a way to do that.  
Pitzer understood the City had been paying $78,000 per year since 1992. Sorrell  
explained it had originally been split three ways between the Department of Conservation,  
USGS, and the City of Columbia, and over time, the City had become the sole provider of  
the information financially. Pitzer commented that he thought it would be useful if there  
was a way to make that data available or usable for people that were interested. Sorrell  
replied they could look into having that information on the City’s website or with a link to  
the USGS website. Sorrell reiterated he thought it was data worth getting because it  
would give them notice prior to any damage to the aquifer if it was caused by the wetland  
units.  
B290-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:  
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.  
The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.  
Fowler explained she had pulled this item because she did not want it go without mention  
since a tree canopy served a variety of benefits to the community and because she was  
concerned that they were not doing enough for climate action in this budget and in this  
year. Fowler understood this was a small step and asked how this particular project  
could involve a more focused look on the climate action steps. Teddy agreed it was a  
small step in the direction that trees were performing important ecological services, and  
he thought this campaign was aimed at people that owned trees. It was a way to reach  
out to the community to enhance the tree canopy by teaching people best practices in  
pruning, how to watch for disease and weakened trees, how to nurture planted trees, etc.  
Fowler wondered  
a next step was contemplated. Fowler understood this involved a  
campaign with Bucket Media and the time contributed by members of the Tree Board as  
the match for the grant. Fowler asked how they could move beyond that step. Teddy  
replied the guidance document was the Urban Forestry Master Plan, which the Tree  
Board had helped to develop, and as a result, he thought they would take a look back at  
the campaign when it was finished to assess successes along with ways to leverage  
some larger scale efforts of the same nature.  
Fowler asked if the City was doing something with rental property owners in the core  
parts of downtown in terms of the tree canopy. Fowler noted the house next door to her  
was surrounded by beautiful trees that were all scheduled to come down. One would be  
removed due to a stormwater project and the others would be removed due to the landlord  
viewing them as a peril to his roof. As a result, they would go from a shaded area to a  
bare area. Fowler felt they did not have a lot reach into the neighborhoods about the  
importance of the tree canopy. Fowler commented that she understood it as  
a
homeowner, but was unsure about others. Teddy stated he would take that as a good  
suggestion for intervention on which they could strategize, and provided outreach on the  
benefits of trees to neighborhood associations and apartment associations as an  
example.  
Skala commented that an issue they had run into with urban or street trees years ago  
was the concern that they could create accident sites in terms of vehicular travel.  
B294-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as  
follows: VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. 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.  
B273-21  
Authorizing a second amendment to the collective bargaining agreement  
with Columbia Police Officers Association, Fraternal Order of Police  
Lodge #26.  
B274-21  
B282-21  
Authorizing an amendment to the collective bargaining agreement with  
Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 955.  
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  
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).  
B285-21  
B286-21  
B287-21  
B288-21  
B289-21  
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.  
B291-21  
B292-21  
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  
R149-21  
Amending the FY 2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds to the  
Department of Public Health & Human Services for CARES Act COVID-19  
expenses.  
Setting a public hearing: proposed construction of the Landfill Fuel Station  
improvement project located at 5700 Peabody Road to include the  
installation of two (2) diesel fuel dispensers and metal canopy with lights,  
concrete pavement, storm water inlet and piping, and upgrades to the  
mechanical and electrical systems and existing control and fuel monitoring  
equipment.  
R150-21  
R152-21  
Setting a public hearing: proposed replacement of the aggregate pool shell  
in the Water Zone area at the Activity & Recreation Center (ARC).  
Authorizing acceptance of an Assistance to Firefighters grant from the  
Federal Emergency Management Agency - U.S. Department of Homeland  
Security for the purchase of communication equipment for the Fire  
Department.  
R153-21  
Authorizing an amendment to the community housing development  
organization (CHDO) agreement with Central Missouri Community Action  
for the construction of an owner-occupied home at 1105 N. Eighth Street  
as part of the Cullimore Cottages project and providing homeownership  
assistance.  
The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read by the City Clerk with  
the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: TREECE (except for B282-21 and  
B283-21 on which he abstained), FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER,  
PETERS. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and resolutions declared  
adopted, reading as follows:  
VIII. NEW BUSINESS  
R151-21  
Authorizing Adopt A Spot agreements.  
The resolution was read by the City Clerk.  
Fowler wondered if they could utilize adopt a spots as a way to meet climate action goals  
in terms of mitigating stormwater excess runoff or incorporating them into the raingarden  
program. Teddy replied it was called the Adopt A Spot Beautification Program and the  
primary purpose traditionally had been to establish greenspaces and seasonal colors on  
roadways, i.e., corners, center medians, and roundabouts. As time had gone on and with  
the hiring of a Sustainability Manager, they had gotten more into native plant education  
so there had been some projects where they had looked into pollinator species  
combinations and native vegetation to establish hardiness and conserve water. More  
broadly in terms of climate action, these spaces, which would otherwise be hot and  
impervious, were being cooled by landscaped medians, some of which were large, like  
those at roundabouts.  
Fowler asked how they would move forward if they wanted to expand the program to fulfill  
a larger role with regard to the CAAP. Teddy replied he would begin with a look at the  
data and a mapping of the sites. Teddy thought they could look at other similar types of  
landscape installations that were not part of the adopt  
performing some of the same services. They could then see where they had gaps on a  
geographic or functional basis. From there, they could get into discussion as to  
a spot program but were  
a
whether they wanted to expand the program. Teddy commented that the program  
operated on a budget as the City provided adopters signs, bulbs, etc. so there was a  
finite source of funding.  
Fowler asked if the raingarden slew at the fire station on Green Meadows was an adopt a  
spot or if that was done in conjunction with a different program. Glascock replied that had  
been part of the design of the fire station.  
Pitzer commented that there had been a roundabout project in his ward a few years ago,  
and there had been neighborhood concern about it for a couple of reasons, to include  
aesthetics, as they did not want a large concrete thing in the middle of the road. The  
result was that some of the neighborhoods had agreed to adopt the interior of the  
roundabout on a long term basis as an adopt a spot. Pitzer felt that had helped in terms  
of climate action while also addressing the concerns regarding the aesthetics of the  
project, which was a positive. Pitzer pointed out staff was very proactive in the use of  
native plants, plants that did not require a lot of water, etc. with the adopt a spot program .  
Pitzer noted he would caution against expanding the program because they already had  
trouble getting enough volunteers to take care of the adopt a spots in existence now so  
he thought that should be kept in mind.  
Treece thanked Pitzer and his family for adopting an adopt a spot and keeping it looking  
good. Treece pointed out former Council Member Mike Trapp was one of the people  
adopting an adopt a spot with this resolution.  
R151-21 was read by the City Clerk, and the vote was recorded as follows:  
VOTING YES: TREECE, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA, THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS.  
VOTING NO: NO ONE. Resolution declared adopted, reading as follows:  
IX. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING  
The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise indicated, and all were  
given first reading.  
B295-21  
Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Scott  
Boulevard and west of Persimmon Road (5170 S. Scott Boulevard);  
establishing permanent District R-1 (Single-family Dwelling) zoning (Case  
No. 216-2021).  
B296-21  
B297-21  
B298-21  
Voluntary annexation of property located along both sides of Van Horn  
Tavern Road and east of Highway UU (5500 W. Van Horn Tavern Road);  
establishing permanent District O (Open Space) and District M-N  
(Mixed-use Neighborhood) zoning (Case No. 227-2021).  
Granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to MFL Golf, LLC to allow  
“outdoor recreation or entertainment” uses on property located at 5500 W.  
Van Horn Tavern Road in an O (Open Space) zoning district (Case No.  
253-2021).  
Rezoning property located on the north side of St. Charles Road and  
approximately 500 feet west of Grace Lane (5301 St. Charles Road) from  
District R-1 (One-family Dwelling) to District M-C (Mixed Use-Corridor)  
(Case No. 221-2021).  
B299-21  
B300-21  
B301-21  
B302-21  
B303-21  
B304-21  
Rezoning property located on the east side of Fay Street and the west side  
of College Avenue (504 Fay Street) from District M-N (Mixed-use  
Neighborhood) to District IG (Industrial) (Case No. 225-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Central Addition Plat No. 2-A” located on the  
east side of Fay Street and the west side of College Avenue (Case No.  
223-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Central Addition Plat No. 3” located on the  
west side of Fay Street (509 Fay Street); authorizing a performance  
contract (Case No. 244-2021).  
Approving the Final Plat of “Pi Beta Phi Plat 1” located on the north side of  
Rollins Street and west of Tiger Avenue (511 Rollins Street); authorizing a  
performance contract (Case No. 224-2021).  
Granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to AnnElise Hatjakes to  
allow for the construction of an accessory dwelling unit on property located  
at 504 Parkade Boulevard (Case No. 152-2021).  
Authorizing an annexation agreement with Equipmentshare.com, Inc. for  
property located on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast, approximately  
630 feet east of Tradewinds Parkway (8378 I-70 Drive Southeast) (Case  
No. 167-2021).  
B305-21  
Vacating a utility and drainage easement on Lot 10, Block 2 within Moon  
Valley Heights Addition No. 4 located on the west side of Bucks Run (Case  
No. 267-2021).  
B306-21  
B307-21  
Accepting conveyances for utility and tree preservation purposes.  
Authorizing construction of sanitary sewer infrastructure from the Hinkson  
Creek outfall trunk sewer to serve properties along the eastern side of the  
Route B industrial corridor; calling for bids through the Purchasing Division  
or authorizing a contract for the work using a term and supply contractor.  
B308-21  
B309-21  
Authorizing an agreement for professional architectural services with  
Connell Architecture, P.C. for the design and construction of two (2) vehicle  
storage shelters at the Columbia Sanitary Landfill.  
Accepting conveyances for utility, drainage, sewer, temporary construction  
and temporary access purposes; accepting Stormwater  
Management/BMP Facilities Covenants.  
B310-21  
B311-21  
Authorizing a memorandum of understanding with the Missouri Department  
of Health and Senior Services for the issuance of birth and death  
certificates and associated information technology activities.  
Amending the FY 2021 Annual Budget by appropriating funds for  
COVID-19 expenses associated with the program services contract with  
the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for public health  
emergency preparedness services.  
B312-21  
B313-21  
Authorizing replacement of the aggregate pool shell in the Water Zone area  
at the Activity & Recreation Center (ARC); calling for bids through the  
Purchasing Division.  
Authorizing a contract for sale of real estate and special warranty deed with  
Columbia School District No. 93 for the acquisition of property located on  
the east side of Sinclair Road, adjacent to John W. Warner Middle School,  
to be used for open space and park purposes.  
B314-21  
Amending Chapter 4 of the City Code relating to the sale of alcoholic  
beverages.  
X. REPORTS  
REP69-21  
Amendment to the FY 2021 Annual Budget - Intra-Departmental Transfer of  
Funds.  
Treece asked where the funds had been moved and whether this was last year’s money.  
Glascock replied it was in this year’s budget. Treece asked why it had not been a part of  
the encumbrances they had approved for the FY 2022 budget. Sorrell explained the funds  
had been budgeted in the capital account for repairs to the cooling tower, and they had  
been told by accounting that it needed to be paid for out of the operating budget. This just  
moved funds that were already appropriated for repairs to the cooling tower from a capital  
account to an operating account. Sorrell noted it had been budgeted incorrectly and  
should have been budgeted as an operating expense. Treece understood they were not  
actually moving the money, and were only moving the source of funds. Sorrell  
commented that it was all from the electric utility revenue account. It would come from  
the operating account now instead of a capital account.  
XI. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COUNCIL AND STAFF  
Ben Ross explained he had emailed the Council last week with regard to the parking  
variance process, which he felt needed improvement. Ross stated the Code itself needed  
to be improved, and provided the requirement for elementary schools to only have one  
parking space per classroom along with the criteria the Board of Adjustment (BOA)  
utilized to approve variances as examples. Ross commented that he had attended four  
different variance hearing in the last few years, and the members tended to talk differently  
with regard to their role. Ross noted an elementary school off of Sinclair Road had been  
required to go to the BOA due to the City Code requirement, and even though there was  
nothing wrong with the property, it had received City staff support and the variance had  
been approved by the BOA. Ross pointed out the BOA required extra greenspace at  
Russell Boulevard Elementary, which ended up costing them six parking spaces and  
increasing the impervious area per parking spot. In addition, the people that would have  
parked in the six spaces were parking on the street, which was not as safe. Ross  
referred to Rock Bridge Elementary and noted CPS wanted 477 percent of the allowed  
parking, which he felt meant the requirement in the Code was unreasonable. The BOA  
had denied the request and had later ultimately tabled it. In addition, City staff had not  
recommended approval. Once the parents had gotten involved, the BOA approved the  
request by only one vote. Ross described an infill development in the Second Ward  
involving a Starbucks and a Dobbs Tire and Auto Center whereby both had asked for  
parking variances for more parking. The staff had recommended denial, and the BOA had  
denied the request. Starbucks had only wanted three more spots, and the staff had  
suggested parking on the neighboring undeveloped lot instead. The neighboring lot was  
the Dobbs Tire and Auto Center, who had later asked for more parking, and City staff  
recommended denial for that request as well. Ross stated Dobbs Tire and Auto Center  
was a great family business within the State of Missouri that had a great relationship with  
Ranken Technical College for jobs. People were not able to find affordable housing  
without good jobs, and that development would have provided good jobs. Ross described  
the proposal and stated he felt the BOA was misinterpreting the ordinance. Ross  
explained one of the BOA members that had initially voted against the Dobbs Tire and  
Auto Center request had done so because he did not think the variance pertained to  
nature of the site, but when he had the opportunity to vote again, he had changed his  
mind and voted in favor of it. Ross suggested the Law Department provide training to the  
BOA so they were all on the same page with regard to the ordinances. Ross also  
suggested the Council ask the BOA to reconsider the parking variances for Starbucks  
and the Dobbs Tire and Auto Center and fix the issues within the City Code.  
Treece stated his understanding of the BOA was that this issue was only appealable to  
the Circuit Court, and asked if there was another mechanism for the issue to be revisited .  
Treece noted he was also unsure of the best policy. Treece did not think the BOA should  
rubber stamp every request that came to them. In addition, Treece was not sure they  
should create exceptions in the UDC for these developments because others may want  
the same exception downtown or close to a neighborhood creating more parking than  
what might be appropriate. Treece reiterated he was torn as to the best solution in terms  
of process and content.  
Thompson explained there was the opportunity for the developer to come back with a  
planned development for the site so the Council could determine whether or not there was  
the ability to have the number spaces requested based upon the use, layout, etc .  
Thompson noted she considered a planned development an interactive process where  
there was give and take in the design of the site and parking layout. With additional  
parking, there might be more landscaping, buffer, etc. It was dependent upon the  
circumstances of the exact request. Thompson reiterated a planned development was  
always an option. Thompson pointed out there was not an option for a do-over, and the  
appeal was to the Circuit Court. The Council did not hear appeals from the BOA.  
Ross asked if the BOA could reopen the case. Ross noted they had tried to during the  
meeting last week. Thompson replied if the BOA had not voted to reconsider the issue at  
that meeting, it was closed. Thompson reiterated there was an opportunity for a planned  
development, and noted there was also the opportunity to provide further guidance in the  
Code as it related to seeking a parking variance. Changing the variance rules to apply to  
a parking situation would likely cause more harm than good. Thompson noted it might be  
more appropriate to set out criteria for when a parking adjustment or variance would be  
authorized for parking maximums for Council consideration for the future.  
Waner stated she tended to be supportive of the planned development approach.  
Skala noted he understood planned developments were supposed to be the relief  
necessary for exceptional issues. The UDC was established to stipulate some solidarity  
with the way the Code was written instead of having to negotiate, but planned  
developments were still an option. Skala commented that if they wanted to influence how  
the BOA viewed certain issues, they could stipulate guidelines for variances to help them.  
Pitzer stated he too was unsure of the best approach. The facts of this case were one  
thing and something to which he was probably sympathetic. Pitzer noted the planned  
development route would create a second avenue for parking variances. They had the  
variance route with the BOA as well as the planned development route that came to the  
Council, which meant applicants would weigh their options to determine how they might  
best succeed given the particulars of their case. Pitzer understood the UDC was  
supposed to reduce the number of planned developments, and not motivate more of them.  
Waner commented that it was interesting to her and almost seemed nonsensical in some  
capacity to say they were categorized as service so they could only have a certain  
number of spots, but if they were categorized as retail, they could have double or triple  
that number of spots. Waner noted she was not a Code expert by any means, and had  
visited the site with Dr. Nakhle Asmar, who was not a typical developer as he wanted to  
beautify the area and bring some jobs to Columbia. Waner stated she wanted to find the  
best possible route to make that happen.  
Skala noted the number of spaces for the type of development was based on data. Skala  
also agreed they did not want to encourage a lot of planned developments, but pointed  
out it had not been totally discarded and it was an option for some of these exceptional  
cases.  
Pitzer felt this was one of those government bureaucratic morasses that no one knew  
how to navigate, and he was unsure of the way either.  
Ross commented that he knew they had lost 22 jobs, which was why he had been  
motivated to talk to the Council.  
Jeanne Mihail, Crawford Street, stated she was delighted the Council had split the  
question as to what to do with the ARPA funds from the current budget issue. Mihail  
noted she agreed with some of the proposed uses, such as finding a permanent shelter  
for their unhoused community members and providing mental health services, which both  
appeared to be longer term projects. Mihail commented that she also agreed with a  
number of the speakers this evening that had indicated they needed to provide real relief  
to suffering people right now. Mihail felt there were two tracks for the funds. Mihail  
explained the part that worried her was the use of the word “remainder” in describing the  
difference in two pools of funds, one for the longer term, larger projects and the other for  
everything else. Mihail stated she was not sure how they would know what was an  
appropriate proportion for the “remainder” until they had actually spoken to the community  
to determine the needs. If the needs were great enough, the remainder might be larger  
than they thought. Mihail asked that they think about not making this type of division in  
terms of the ARPA funding until they had explored the needs within the community where  
they were located since some could not come to council meetings to determine what that  
division should be in terms of longer term projects and immediate relief.  
Aída Guhlincozzi, Old Highway 63, echoed the comments of Mihail and emphasized the  
importance of a publicly engaged, transparent process for the ARPA funds in terms of  
how it was determined the money would be spent. Guhlincozzi commented that  
accessibility in addition to transparency needed to be considered and pointed out those  
in the room tonight were not a proper representation of the community. Guhlincozzi  
explained she was able to attend because she did not have children, had a supportive  
and patient husband, and had a flexible work schedule to manage the mornings after  
being at the meetings so late. Those without that ability and flexibility were still valid and  
deserved to be heard when it came to spending these funds in the best way to support  
community members. Guhlincozzi noted she would continue to push for those kinds of  
transparent, publicly engaged processes for all actions the Council took moving forward,  
especially in terms of redistricting. As  
a
geographer, Guhlincozzi recommended  
considering resources available at geocivics.com and at the University of Missouri  
Geography Department.  
Traci Wilson-Kleekamp commented that one of her favorite documents completed by the  
City was the CAAP, and a reason for that was because it said one of the things they had  
to do as  
a City was to deal with the tension spots they had amongst issues.  
Wilson-Kleekamp stated she felt that needed to be done with regard to the budget  
process. Wilson-Kleekamp explained she was impressed with Finance Director Matthew  
Lue as he was trying to help get the budget and financing issues together, and believed  
he was being charitable by saying it had been handled in this manner but they were  
trying to get it going in another direction. Wilson-Kleekamp noted tension spots were  
transparency and the inability to do outreach and education with the public with regard to  
the process. Wilson-Kleekamp felt there was some value to using Zoom and transcribing  
minutes for items such as the budget hearing held on August 19. Using Zoom or an  
extended tool of Granicus would allow more people to participate online and at home.  
Wilson-Kleekamp stated she was not sure why that was a touchy subject as it would  
provide more access, particularly with boards and commissions. Wilson-Kleekamp noted  
she was disappointed by board and commission meeting minutes that were one  
sentence long as there was no way to know what was going on with that commission.  
Wilson-Kleekamp commented that she was reviewing the contrast with regard to where  
they had tension spots. The PZC had asked for rubric on the CIP in terms of how the City  
determined what needed to be done in an equitable way. Wilson-Kleekamp understood  
there were issues of equity involving the Housing and Community Development  
Commission with regard to how money was provided to organizations. Wilson-Kleekamp  
noted the Climate and Environment Commission also had some really good suggestions  
in their supplemental report, similar to the kinds of concerns raised by the PZC in terms  
of commitment. Wilson-Kleekamp commented that they had made  
a records request  
regarding pay data, and in their review, they felt the option that had been picked for pay  
for employees was the least equitable option. Wilson-Kleekamp explained that, for her,  
the exercise of the budget was a test of how they were managing their tension spots and  
whether they were looking at equity as something they valued. Wilson-Kleekamp stated  
she was concerned they said the words “equity” and “inclusion” but did not really  
understand them. Wilson-Kleekamp suggested they work on that for the next year.  
Dani Perez quoted Ibram X. Kendi, the author of How to Be an Antiracist, “In America, it’s  
as though racist ideas are constantly rained on your head: ‘You have no umbrella and  
you don’t even know that you’re wet with those racist ideas,’ because the ideas  
themselves lead you to believe that you are dry. Then someone comes along and says  
‘you know what, you’re wet’ and these ideas are still raining on your head. ‘Here’s an  
umbrella.’ You can be like, ‘Thank you! I did not even realize I was drenched.’” Perez  
explained some of the things she had observed at the prior meeting had activated her,  
and she likely said some things that were uncomfortable. Perez noted she wanted the  
Council to know she and others that had been critical had not done so because they  
were white or men or due to their class in terms of income. It was because they were so  
used to the system in which they were born and would take advantage of that system  
since that had been taught to them. Perez commented that she was half white so she  
was guilty of it as well. Perez stated they were just trying to provide the Council  
umbrellas because they were drowning in systemic racism, sexism, and ableism. It was  
not because they hated those groups or favored a certain class over another. It was  
because they did not realize they had been taught their way of life was a dry life even  
though they were drowning. Perez asked the Council to think about why they wanted  
certain projects in the future with the ARPA funding and the next budget. Perez  
suggested they determine if it was because they assumed it was wanted due to speaking  
to a few select people or if it was because they made assumptions based on their  
privilege and comfortableness. Perez asked the Council to stop thinking they were dry as  
many of them, to include her, were not as they all had a lot to learn. Perez suggested  
they talk to the homeless, people with cognitive and emotional issues, the black  
community, and other communities prior to moving forward with projects such as  
a
homeless shelter or mental health facility. Perez stated they did not want revenge. They  
only wanted equity and equality. Perez understood it was not their fault they were white.  
Chimene Schwach commented that she was impressed the Council did this marathon on  
a regular basis as it was the first time she had stayed for an entire meeting. Schwach  
noted she was also dismayed as she had missed dinner and other activities with her kids  
while at the meeting, but felt she had to since not everyone else had the privilege of  
attending. Schwach understood they had bus service that lasted to the end of council  
meetings, but there were not many people here that would take the bus home tonight.  
Schwach felt the council meetings were not accessible. In addition, the public comment  
whereby people could talk to them about something that was not on the agenda should  
not be at 12:30 a.m. or 1:00 a.m. Schwach thought there needed to be another process  
at least once a quarter. Things did not always have to be done the way it had been done  
in the past. Schwach was happy the budget process went well tonight. Schwach  
commented that she was not against development, but felt modernization and best  
practices needed to be considered. Schwach stated she was appalled that the Citizens  
Police Review Board (CPRB) did not have any non-white people on it. Schwach  
understood the Council had been given the opportunity tonight to change that, and  
instead of choosing one of the two people of color, they had chosen a white guy.  
Schwach pointed out these two people of color were not like her or Traci  
Wilson-Kleekamp who were always speaking out against things. Schwach noted the  
Council could have made a better choice, even if it was solely for symbolic purposes.  
Schwach felt it was very telling that when given opportunity after opportunity to make the  
right choice, they always went with the white guy.  
Eugene Elkin, 3406 Range Line Street, stated he recently learned Shelter Insurance was  
constructing the first house of a group of 33 Habitat for Humanity homes along Highway  
63 North. Elkin understood they were using their employees along with their money for  
that home. Elkin noted he was thankful for the Community Housing Development  
Organization (CHDO) funds as that had helped Habitat for Humanity over the years. Elkin  
understood someone had asked if they could receive that type of funding, and as far as  
he knew a 501(c)(3) would provide the means to obtain those funds.  
Elkin wondered if they were doing themselves an injustice by covering up their faces and  
lowering their immune system to other things that might be in the atmosphere. Elkin  
commented that in July he had gotten sick with an ear infection and sinus infection, and  
in August, he had been infected with COVID. Elkin stated he had previously been  
supportive of the mask, but was not anymore due to the lack of oxygen and the lack of  
exposure to germs, potentially leading to them getting sick.  
Peters asked for a report regarding sidewalks on Lightpost Drive. Glascock replied a  
report would be provided.  
Peters asked Council if they would be agreeable to an ad-hoc committee with  
representation from the different neighborhoods surrounding the downtown area to review  
the UDC to determine how it affected neighborhoods and whether there was a need for a  
better overlay or something else. Peters noted that if the Council was agreeable, she  
would come back with a plan to discuss the number of people they might want on it and  
what they might want them to address. Treece asked if there was any objection, and no  
one objected.  
Fowler noted they were about to embark on leaf-raking season and she wondered what  
that might look like for residents that wanted to bag them as it could require the purchase  
of additional bags. Fowler explained she understood why there was a charge for more  
bags, but pointed out the program created some disproportional impacts on families with  
kids and those with particular packaging difficulties. Fowler wondered how they could  
manage the collection of yard waste this fall.  
Glascock asked Fowler if she wanted a report or if she wanted to discuss it now. Fowler  
replied she thought it would be helpful to have options to discuss. Glascock noted an  
option was to set aside two weeks, maybe before and after Thanksgiving, whereby leaves  
in any type of bag would be picked up. Glascock stated he had not thought about it much  
beyond that, and emphasized it would be for leaves only. The trash would still need to be  
in a City logo bag. Glascock pointed out he would have to talk to staff prior to bringing  
back a report. Fowler asked if that could include the bundling of small branches.  
Pitzer commented that he had brought up this issue a year ago when they had gone to  
this trash system and did not recall support for doing anything with yard waste at that  
time. Pitzer agreed about the need and noted he supported doing something different.  
Treece stated he was not opposed to looking at a special pick-up, but pointed out the  
content of the bag was not the issue for trash collectors as they still had to pick it up and  
throw it into the truck. It was why they had gone to the pay-as-you-throw model. Treece  
was not sure it mattered if it was leaves or a television as it was all the same to trash  
collectors. Treece noted that did not mean there was not a better solution, such as twice  
a year in the fall or if they raked leaves into the street for a street sweeper. Treece stated  
he was not sure of the solution but was willing to explore it.  
Treece commented that he thought there was consensus for a report. Skala agreed.  
Skala stated a special pick-up in the fall to provide a bit of relief sounded like an  
interesting proposal. Skala noted it did not personally affect him as he raked his leaves  
towards the woods on his property, but he understood how others might benefit from it.  
Thomas asked if the bags would go to the landfill or the mulch site if there was an extra  
pick-up. Thomas did not think they wanted leaves in the landfill. Glascock replied they  
took them to the landfill now due to the bioreactor and its generation of gas. Glascock  
thought they could take it to the compost area at the landfill, but they would not take it to  
the mulch site. Glascock reiterated it was something they could look into. Thomas felt it  
would be best if people were composting the leaves on-site.  
XII. ADJOURNMENT  
Treece adjourned the meeting without objection at 12:34 p.m.