City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

City Council

Council Chamber

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Monday, October 18, 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, October 18, 2021, in the

Council Chamber of the City of Columbia, Missouri.

The Pledge of

Allegiance was recited, and the roll was taken with the following results:

Council Member ANDREA WANER, Council Member IAN THOMAS,

Council Member MATT PITZER, Council Member BETSY PETERS, Mayor

BRIAN TREECE, and Council Member PAT FOWLER were present.

Council Member KARL SKALA was absent. City Manager John Glascock,

City Counselor Nancy Thompson, City Clerk Sheela Amin, and various

Department Heads and Staff Members were also present.

Mayor Treece explained the minutes were not yet complete for the July 19,

2021, August 16, September 7, September 20, and October 4 regular

meetings.

Council Member Thomas asked that B322-21 be moved from the consent

agenda to old business.

The agenda, including the consent agenda with B322-21 being moved to

old business, was approved unanimously by voice vote on a motion by

Mayor Treece and a second by Council Member Pitzer.

II. SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

III. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

BC10-21

Board and Commission Appointments.

Upon receiving the majority vote of the Council, the following individuals

were appointed to the following Boards and Commissions.

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

Olsen, Linda, 4203 Beach Point Drive, Ward 4, Term to expire November

1, 2026

CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD

Adkins, William, 1700 Forum Boulevard, Apt. 809, Ward 4, Term to expire

November 1, 2024

Bonaparte, Delsie, 110 W. Phyllis Avenue, Ward 2, Term to expire

November 1, 2024

Harmon, December, 200 Austin Avenue, Apt. B, Ward 1, Term to expire

November 1, 2024

COLUMBIA SPORTS COMMISSION

Klarfeld, Jared, 28 E. North Cedar Lake Drive, Ward 5, Term to expire

December 31, 2021

COMMISSION ON CULTURAL AFFAIRS

Gadsden, Kristin, 205 Bright Star Drive, Ward 4, Term to expire October

31, 2024

Harmon, December, 200 Austin Avenue, Apt. B, Ward 1, Term to expire

October 31, 2022

Melton, James, 5007 Bates Creek Court, Ward 6, Term to expire October

31, 2024

Spear, David, 2607 Burrwood Drive, Ward 5, Term to expire October 31,

2024

Thompson, D’Andre, 605 E. Walnut Street, Suite A (Business), Ward 6,

Term to expire October 31, 2024

HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION

Fletcher, Michael, 912 Hickory Hill Drive, Ward 4, Term to expire

November 1, 2024

Shaw, Rebecca, 2615 Vail Drive, Ward 5, Term to expire November 1,

2024

SUBSTANCE ABUSE ADVISORY COMMISSION

Lindner, Molly, 1705 Brookfield Manor, Ward 5, Term to expire October 31,

2024

IV. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT

SPC52-21

Joseph Jefferies and Olivia Perner - Introduce the nonprofit Requiem

Alliance.

Joe Jeffries and Olivia Pener spoke.

JEFFERIES:

Hello, how are we? Mr. Mayor, gorgeous City Council, we’re glad to be

before you today. My name is Joe Jefferies.

PENER: I'm Olivia Pener.

JEFFERIES: And we are very excited to be speaking to you today.

We just wanted to

introduce -- we are working to start

Alliance. Obviously, the service, retail, and hospitality industry goes through quite

a bit on their day-t- day. It's very difficult, and as I’m sure you all well know, it's

recently taken it’s taken its toll very physically upon that community. So we are

working to start this and to help assist with making sure that this doesn't happen

nonprofit. It’s Requiem Mental Health

anymore -- that these type of deaths and this type of loss does not grieve our

community any longer. It's unnecessary and it’s unfortunate, and it's just -- it

leaves people feeling empty and it is not okay. And so we want to work to start this

nonprofit, which we are doing, and we're hoping by the end of the month to have

our 501(c)(3) status and hoping to get ourselves introduced to you all today to

make sure we do the right things for people who need it the very, very most.

Olivia? I don't know, sorry, I got like almost emotional.

PENER: It's okay.

community centered and specifically focusing on treating the -- addressing the

mental health needs of the service industry workers in this town. Since that's the

So right now, we're focusing on creating an organization that's

industry that we come from and the industry that we have the most experience

with, that's where we would like to start. We are currently working with Compass

Health Network to complete our 501(c)(3) application as well as build our initial

coalition. And then we will also be working with behavioral health to establish

services that we can either subsidize or fund entirely for service hospitality retail

industry workers.

other types of peer support for members of the industry so that they can tend to

each other, guess, in tandem with seeking professional services so that if they are

in situation where they're not able to seek those professional services in the

From there, we would like to additionally provide trainings and

moment, they still have options for,

guess, maintaining and addressing their

mental stability until they can access those services.

JEFFERIES: Right, just creating

a network and a community because we know that --

like it's very easy as I’m sure you all know like from previous jobs or whatever - you

know, you know everybody that works at the Red Lobster or everybody that works

at the Olive Garden because you work there too, but you don't know the people

that work at one or the other so it's really creating that community outside of that

so that way we can ideally create

network of support that is like so

community-oriented and supported that it isn't just overburdening healthcare

providers when it can just be like, hey you have a friend that you can reach out to,

that you can be safe with -- that we can make sure that you're well tomorrow and

that you’re at work tomorrow and that you’re happy.

PENER: Right, so in addition to fully funding and subsidizing as much of the financial

cost to accessing mental health and substance abuse healthcare, within the

industry, we would also like to mitigate and eliminate some of the barriers to

accessing that care that aren’t financial through education and through --

JEFFERIES: Resource directories and through campaigns --

PENER: Through campaigns that we do with the organizations themselves, acting

not only as

funding provider but also as

facilitator for connecting people to the

Additionally providing sponsored

organizations and resources that they need.

events to connect industry members to one another and also opportunities for

them to engage in activities that perhaps don't involve going to bar. And then,

additionally, to serve as an advocate for the industry to civic and healthcare leaders

such as yourselves.

JEFFERIES: And we also know we're running out of time, we have 47 seconds, but --

so in terms of like the funding approach, what we're looking for is

community funded approach. You know, we kind of did the math, and if every

industry worker “in Columbia” gave, you known, $15 or whatever, it would be

tremendous amount of money that we could give back to our community. And we

really

are ideally looking for eventually some type of civic support, but we don't know

when or how or exactly -- because we’re still again developing that 501(c)(3) status.

I think that is, I think that’s it.

TREECE: Thanks for the introduction. I appreciate what you're doing.

JEFFERIES: Absolutely, we’re glad to meet you all. Thank you for having us.

PENER: Thank you for having us.

TREECE: Stay in touch, Olivia.

SPC56-21

Robin Rotman - Statement in opposition to the request of Crockett

Engineering for a waiver of the one-year waiting period for resubmittal of

the Canton Estates Preliminary Plat and related request for R-1 zoning,

pursuant to Section 29-6.4(n)(1)(i)(D) of the Unified Development Code.

Robin Rotman spoke.

ROTMAN: As the Mayor said, my name is Robin Rotman and

live at 4500 Kentsfield

pleasure to be back with you today and appreciate

statement in opposition to the request of Crockett

Lane here in Columbia.

It’s

this opportunity to make

Engineering for

Canton Estates preliminary plat and the related request for the R-1 zoning pursuant

to Section 29-6.4(n)(1)(i)(D) of the Unified Development Code. So before turning to

the substance of this request, I just wanted to note for the record that the burden

of persuasion in this proceeding is on the applicants, not on the public, so that

means it's the applicant’s job to convince you that granting this exception -- that

a waiver of the one-year waiting period for the resubmittal of the

granting this waver is the right thing to do. It's not my job or any other member of

the public's job to convince you that it isn’t the right thing to do, but nevertheless,

that's what

I hope I'm going to do in the next four minutes. So I'm looking at the

waiver request from Crockett Engineering dated October 7th, and the long and the

short of it, or the crux of the applicant’s argument is that the Code doesn't mean

what it says. So the Code refers to the same or substantially the same zoning -- that

that is subject to the 12-month waiting period, but the applicant

understand that the Code refers to zoning, believe the intent of the regulation is

more for “like developments” than “like zonings” in many instances. And have so

say, as manner of governance and rule of law, would find it concerning for the

says, while

City Council to depart from the plain language of the ordinance and to leave out the

word “zoning,” which is in the ordinance, and replace it with the words “like

development” -- that the applicant would advocate for you to do.

Justice Scalia and I did not see eye to eye on many things, but textual interpretation

wouldn’t be one of them. Okay, so let's go ahead and turn to the zoning. So the

think the letter

8th Planning and Zoning

You know,

applicant says in this letter that they need R-1 zoning.

entirely misrepresents what happened at the April

Frankly

hearing.

This letter attempts to leave the impression that the Commissioners were

pulled

somehow accepting the R-1 zoning even though they voted against it, so

the transcript from the April 8th hearing and I just wanted to read to you six quotes,

so from six of the seven Commissioners who all expressly stated that R-1 zoning

was was inappropriate.

appropriate for this

Commissioner Carroll, “I just don't think that R-1 zoning is

era.” Commissioner Geuea Jones, “should be PD.”

Commissioner Loe, “cannot support blanket zoning R-1.” Commissioner MacMann,

“is that R-1 zoning good enough for this property? For me it is not.” Commissioner

Russell, “I don't think R-1 is the right thing.”

Commissioner Stanton, “If you’re going

to use PD anywhere, it would be here.” Okay, but even if you bought into Crockett’s

argument that the Code doesn't mean what it says and it really means similar

developments, this is

lots. This one -- it’s confusing because their cover note asked for 200, but

that was a typo. I guess, they -- really if you count them up, it adds up to 99 so I

similar development. So the original proposal was for 113

guess

guess that what they meant. But this is not

a material change. The letter refers to

“we would” add preservation easements on the three acreage lots. That’s entirely

speculation. If you look at the plat, you also see three mansions being built on the

acreage lots. And when

I have reviewed the records for these properties, the only

easement that

see currently in existence is

guess that means conservation easement.

meeting minutes from recent years to see if the Council had ever granted

pursuant to this provision and could not find single example. Doesn't mean it

didn't happen. could have certainly overlooked something, but think it's

utility line easement.

There is no

preservation or

Okay, two more points

for you just to contextualize this request.

went back through the City Council

waiver

important to remember that this is an extraordinary remedy that is an exception

from the normal state of affairs. And so my last, my last words for you are that if

there was ever

development proposal where the developer should not be

allowed to cut corners, where the public input process should not be curtailed, it's

this one. Thank you.

SPC57-21

Kevin Roberson - Statement in opposition to the request of Crockett

Engineering for a waiver of the one-year waiting period for resubmittal of

the Canton Estates Preliminary Plat and related request for R-1 zoning,

pursuant to Section 29-6.4(n)(1)(i)(D) of the Unified Development Code.

Kevin Roberson spoke.

ROBERSON: Hi, I’m Kevin Roberson and

Columbia, Missouri, and I’m the President of the Board of the Friends of Rock

Bridge and I’m also member of the Gans Creek Allies, which is loose-knit group

of people that believe in protecting the park. I'm opposed to the City Council

approving Crockett’s request to grant relief to the Unified Development Code for

live in 7355 South Bennett Drive in

lot of reasons that Ms. Rotman stated earlier. I'm trying not just read-- cause in lieu

of what you said you preferred -- from the heart. I do have a few notes, but I’ll try

and speak just off the cuff as much as I can. My general reason for opposition -- our

general reason is to protect the Rock Bridge Memorial State Park from this

development -- in particular, the Gans Creek Wild Area and the Gans Creek and the

Clear Creek drainages also. The specific reasons are, as was noted, at least six

Planning and Zoning Commissioners have stated this area is not appropriate for R-1,

and

agree with that completely. As noted in the Columbia city staff mark-up

summary, the staff does not believe that this is materially or substantially different

than the proposal that was given earlier, and that’s even if you buy into Crockett's

argument that we don't really mean zoning.

I believe we do, but it doesn't matter

because it's not substantially different and the staff noted that, and we all agree

with them. To my knowledge and the Gans Creek Allies members’ knowledge,

there was no substantial or meaningful engagement with the interested party by

Crockett or Rob Hill before they submitted the concept review request or even

before the request of the waiver letter was sent to the City.

know that's

something that -- believe that's something that you thought was important, the

Planning and Zoning thought was incredibly important, that they were to reach out

to us, and I wish they had. I actually asked him -- he's a member of the Friends of

Rock Bridge, and the first President's letter that I wrote -- I write them monthly --

asked him to reach out to us and let’s work on this before it's resubmitted. I know

he read that because he's member. He’s proud of that and he has stated that

several times. So there's been no additional meaningful studies that had been

conducted and showed that this area is not sensitive area and does not deserve

special protection that we talk about in Columbia Imagined and the Bonne Femme

watershed and many other studies. The proposal, as you all know, for

conservation overlay was just presented to you on the 4th of October, and received

some considerable support and would directly apply to this tract that’s under

discussion. So that's all that

I have of my statements. I wanted to make sure that

you know that we care deeply and this is still important to us, and even though, like

you, we have many things to do besides listening to me or me testifying, we do

think it's important that you know we all do care.

There's a lot of people here in

support of that, and I'd like to ask them to stand briefly without clapping, please.

[Approximately 20 people stood.] Thank you very much for your time, and thank

you for your service, each one of you.

SPC58-21

William Easley - Transit system, garbage, phone system, how the City

doesn't want to help low income people, and the law.

William Easley spoke.

EASLEY: Bill Easley, 705 Cook. We got fast cars coming down Cook Avenue and other

places. You don't arrest nobody. Loud music, fireworks, nothing, and

a few months ago over a dog. He was going to kill a dog, and I was asked to take it.

And the lady had everything, and she brought leash, and it was found defective.

So somebody called the Humane on me, and she gave me a ticket over the dog. I’m

still fighting it, and I'm going to take it to the US Supreme Court because the City of

I got a citation

Columbia don't do nothing. You don’t arrest nobody, and

got

faulty dog leash

And you was -

that I shouldn’t have got, and I'm fighting it over the damn principle.

you’re going -- over millions of dollars. You could have gave Columbia teachers

money. You could have gave us back our city garbage, but you don't do nothing. You

give it to the rich people, rich business, rich landlords, and we're going to change it.

Mayor Hindman was good.

I would call him and he would pick up the phone and

say, “hey, what can I do for you?” That was his exact words, “what can I do for you?”

You do not know how to call people.

TREECE: Thank you, Mr. Easley.

SPC59-21

Jeff Stack - Urging Columbia's City Council and other local governments to

end local involuntary homelessness.

Jeff Stack spoke.

STACK: I'm Jeff Stack and I live on Sexton Drive in Columbia. I'm speaking for myself

and Mid-Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation. There’s

as consider our unsheltered human kin and the response from our local

governments. Over the past several years, as I've said before, there has been

welcoming heightening of genuine concern by the Council for those folks in our

community who are homeless. am so grateful that the Council is contributing

again a lion’s share of the budget to once more enable Room at the Inn to function,

beginning in early December and operate throughout the winter. also was

heartened that there’s been broad support on the Council for the American Rescue

Program Act funding to be dedicated towards creating both crisis center and

opportunity campus as it’s being called with the year-round shelter, soup kitchen,

day center, and services hub. would’ve preferred the robust public input process

would have first been undertaken for that funding, but these two measures are

indeed desperately needed and the process of making either reality is still long

myriad of feelings

have

ways off --

I realize a few years away. So it does seem good to get this process

underway as soon as possible.

For the rest of that ARPA funding though,

I am

thankful -- it seems there will be

much broader community engagement process.

Kudos to Council Member Waner, for your analysis, your work with it -- Durham,

North Carolina -- efforts, and to try to make for an equitable inclusive process here

in Columbia. I’m grateful for that. While nothing about that process will be on

tonight’s agenda,

Browning, and others behind the scenes have been working really hard to create

framework for this process to make sure it’s indeed robust community input

am thankful that the Public Health Director, Stephanie

structure. And, while praise is warranted, the reality confronted by those without

shelter is always vital for us to keep front and center. Those harsh realities haunt

my mind regularly, maybe many of you as well. Even though, thankfully,

know them second-hand, think about one brother -- I’ll call him Bill. Last Monday,

he showed up at the soup kitchen dressed only in light hospital bed clothes and

shoes. I don't really know why the hospital released him like they did. I wasn’t able

to find out. He said he’d been treated for a back injury that continued to affect his

balance. After he’d eaten and we’d close the kitchen, made some calls and found

only

there was no room at the other privately operated shelters. He said a bag of clothes

he had had when he went into the hospital had apparently been thrown out and

been lost.

I brought him to Walmart afterward where FOR paid for a new set of

inexpensive clothes, underclothes, and socks. You know, there was unfortunately

no place at my place where I could let him let him stay, and he said he'd be okay

just to stay at the Walmart until they closed, and then he'd try to find

an outdoor

heavy heart. You

time when police, well at night, when police officers

space

know,

to sleep nearby somewhere outdoors.

could picture

I left there with a

probably got summoned to the Walmart, and they merely told Bill to move along.

different reality is possible, much more enlightening one, really for all of us, to

allow for -- for the service and protection of the most vulnerable among us by being

able to actually have public emergency shelter. would urge the City -- mean

Room at the Inn will be opening and that’s wonderful. I'd like for the City and

County to consider trying to provide funding beyond that so that we could try to

have

shelter operated -- now, I’m not speaking on behalf of RATI because they’re

would love to see the City

pretty spent by the endo of those three months, but

and County come together and try to work out an ongoing shelter so we can take

folks to a shelter and not just move them along. But it's really critical that we try to

deal with this. You know, I would like -- I think the City can pull this off, you know,

with other assistance, as well.

I appreciate what you've done so far, but we can do

more and -- one of the things I want to bring attention to is -- of course, as you folks

are so keenly aware -- the ongoing affordable housing crisis. So, you know, just

providing shelter for a short time is not enough. And so, we need to continue to try

to push the resources that we have and use them, and not just maybe hold quite as

much as we have in reserves, but to make it usable for people to prevent folks from

-- especially as winter comes on.

are 900 people currently on the waiting list as you folks probably are aware -- and

120 units in disrepair. would love for the City try to commit some funding for

making those units habitable, and let us try to do what we can to make this a much

more home-based place for all folks. The other thing learned that are -- also with

I learned from Randy Cole earlier today that there

the 150 housing choice vouchers that are available -- the federal government’s

providing those resources, but apparently there are only 36 lower income units

available.

Jane Williams was telling me this with Love -- Columbia Love -- and so

we don't have enough landlords to make those available. So there are some

conundrums. But we need more public housing, more affordable housing, and

thank you for your time.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

PH39-21

Proposed replacement of water distribution infrastructure along portions of

Garth Avenue and Leslie Lane.

PH39-21 was read by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Utilities Director David Sorrell provided a staff report.

SORRELL: David Sorrell, Director of Utilities. This is the public hearing for the

proposed replacement of water mains along Garth Avenue and Leslie Lanes. The

existing water main along Leslie Lane is

a six-inch diameter cast-iron pipe, and it’s

near the end of it's useful service life. This six-inch cast-iron pipe is proposed to be

replaced with a 12-inch PVC pipe, and we intend to close a loop along Garth Avenue

and include that in this project. This will provide greater reliability and increase

available fire flow in this area. It would total approximately 2,025 linear feet of new

water main, including replacement of existing fire hydrants spaced to meet fire

code requirements, and all the customers of water services will be connected to

the new main at no cost to the customers. As part of the public improvement

processes, an interested parties meeting was held on August 24, and so far, all

feedback we’ve received has been in support of the project. The project’s

estimated to cost approximately $252,000 and will be paid for with water utility

funds. With that I’m willing to attempt to answer any questions.

TREECE: Any questions for staff?

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

There being no comment, Mayor Treece closed the public hearing.

Council Member Waner made a motion to direct staff to proceed with the water

replacement project on Garth Lane and Leslie. The motion was seconded by

Mayor Treece and approved unanimously by voice vote.

PH40-21

Proposed replacement of water distribution infrastructure along Glenwood

Avenue and Glenwood Court.

PH40-21 was read by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Utilities Director David Sorrell provided a staff report.

SORRELL: This is the public hearing for the proposed replacement of water mains

along South Glenwood and Glenwood Court. The existing water mains in this area

are six-inch cast-iron pipe and they’re near the end of their useful service life. This

six-inch cast-iron pipe will be replaced with

a six-inch PVC pipe and provide greater

reliability in this area. total of approximately 1,030 linear feet of new main will be

installed, including replacement of existing fire hydrants spaced to meet current

fire code requirements, and, again, the customer’s water services will be

connected to the new main at no cost to the customer. We held

a public or --

interested parties meeting on August 24, and so far all feedback received has been

in support of the project. It’s estimated to cost approximately $143,000 and would

be paid for with water utility funds. With that, I’d be happy to attempt to answer

questions.

TREECE: Any questions for staff?

TREECE: Tell me what I'm looking at here. I can’t --

SORRELL: The shaded area on the two streets is the area where the water main

would be replaced, and the blue lines are existing water mains.

TREECE: That’s North Glenwood?

SORRELL: That’s South Glenwood.

THOMAS: South Glenwood.

TREECE: South Glenwood.

SORRELL: And Glenwood Court.

THOMAS: Trail going down the right side.

TREECE: Got it.

TREECE: Any questions for staff?

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

There being no comment, Mayor Treece closed the public hearing.

Council Member Thomas made a motion to direct staff to proceed with the

replacement of water distribution infrastructure on Glenwood Avenue and

Glenwood Court. The motion was seconded by Mayor Treece and approved

unanimously by voice vote.

PH41-21

Proposed construction of a water main loop closure along Sinclair Road

from Nifong Boulevard to Southampton Drive.

PH41-21 was read by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Utilities Director David Sorrell provided a staff report.

SORRELL: This is the public hearing for the proposed construction of

loop closure along Sinclair Road from Nifong Boulevard and Southampton Drive.

When possible, water mains should be constructed in loop configuration to

provide increased reliability and fire protection services. This project was

identified to provide redundant feed to the immediate area as well as contribute

toward increased capacity and redundancy in the southwest portion of our service

area. total of approximately 2,770 linear feet of 12-inch water main will be

a water main

installed along the east side of Sinclair Road within existing rights-of-way. We do

not anticipate any pavement or sidewalk removal or damage as part of this project.

We held an interested parties meeting on August 24th, and again, all comments and

feedback received to date has been in support of the water main project. It’s

estimated to cost approximately $440,000 and would be paid for with water utility

funds. And again, I would be happy to attempt to answer any questions.

TREECE: Any questions for staff?

PETERS: I do have a question.

TREECE: Dr. Peters.

PETERS: When you say you increase -- you want to complete a water main loop feed

-- what does that mean? Do you get water coming in both directions?

SORRELL: It can come -- it can come in multiple directions, yes. And then also, if you

did have

a main break or something like that, you could isolate one section and not

interrupt water service to the rest of the area.

PETERS: Okay, so you're just doing it by pressure on both ends of the loop?

SORRELL: Yep.

PETERS: And then --

SORRELL: And whichever -- you know it’s going to follow the path of least

resistance, but then if you have a water main break or -- or something’s happening -

- if you have a fire and you're pulling a lot of water from one side of it, then the

other side could maybe feed the rest of your customers. It’s just increased

reliability.

PETERS: Okay, thanks. I just was not sure what that meant.

TREECE: Mr. Pitzer.

PITZER: So, on the east side there,

I thought that the right-of-way went up -- the

sidewalk went up to the edge of the right-of-way on the east hand side.

SORRELL: I do not believe that's the case. Shawn, could you -- I was going to say it's

quite a bit wider than that. We put that culvert in a few years ago, and it's in the

existing right-of-way in there.

PITZER: Alright,

room to --

thought we did the sidewalk against the curb because there wasn’t

SORRELL:

think it's because the terrain sloped off so quickly.

If recall right, it’s

why the sidewalk’s up against the road.

PITZER: That side is elevated.

SORRELL: Huh?

PITZER: That side is elevated -- where the sidewalk’s next to the curb.

SORRELL: But when you get closer to the creek, it falls off real quick.

PITZER: Okay, well. Just surprised but I’ll trust you.

SORRELL: I'll double-check, but I'm pretty certain we’ve got room to do it without

disturbing what's already there.

PITZER: Okay.

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

There being no comment, Mayor Treece closed the public hearing.

Council Member Pitzer made a motion to direct staff to proceed with the final

design for the Sinclair Road water main loop closure project. The motion was

seconded by Mayor Treece and approved unanimously by voice vote.

PH42-21

Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of I-70 Drive

Southeast and west of St. Charles Road (Case No. 307-2021).

PH42-21 was read by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Community Development Director Tim Teddy provided a staff report.

TEDDY: Good evening. And I’m going to try to stay closer to the mic. Last time, there

were folks in the audience that couldn’t hear me well, so just give me the signal if

I'm not picking up on this microphone. Yeah, this is known as the Erickson tract.

.9 acres, so almost a full acre. It’s located off of I-70 Drive Southwest. This is a public

hearing to consider annexation. The property owner, Nan Erickson, has signed

petition to annex, or what we call petition for voluntary annexation. It is

It’s

contiguous to the city limits. There is companion proposal to put it in the M-C,

mixed-use corridor zoning district, and that is roughly equivalent to it’s existing

zoning designation on the County zoning

map. This is a look at its location in the

context of that Lake of the Woods interchange area. You can see the outer road

sweeping around it. You can see some commercialization directly south of it, and

then there's a larger, more planned, area to the east where you have Port Way and

Bull Run and some of the associated development there. It's an unimproved site. As

mentioned, it’s got County commercial zoning. MoDOT is the roadway jurisdiction.

do want to correction to what I’ve got on the slide there. It's actually Boone

Electric Cooperative providing electric service, and the water district. So,

I beg your

pardon for making that error. thought had changed it, but evidently, it didn't

save, but what's in the staff report is correct -- Boone Electric and water district. It is

contiguous to the city on three sides there so this would appear to be filling in a gap

in our boundary. I’ll try to answer any questions Council might have.

TREECE: Any -- this is just statutory hearing on the voluntary annexation. We'll

have another public hearing on the - on the annexation and zoning -- plat later. Any

questions for staff?

PETERS: Mr. Teddy, do you know?

TREECE: Dr. Peters?

PETERS: I’m sorry. I’m the worst at that. Is this a flat land or is this more of a gully or

do you have any idea?

TEDDY: Well it’s got -- as you can see, it’s got tree cover on it. I didn't study the

topographic exhibit prior to this hearing, but

don't believe it is

flat

undifferentiated piece.

PETERS: Okay.

TEDDY: Yeah.

PETERS: Thanks.

TREECE: I’m going to open the public hearing. Does anyone from the public desire --

I’m sorry -- Council Member Fowler.

FOWLER: Yes, at the last meeting, we had

annexation that then at subsequent meeting ended up on the consent agenda

because it had majority of support from Planning and Zoning. This has those same

circumstances, correct?

procedural discussion about an

TEDDY: Yes, it received unanimous support for the land use recommendation.

FOWLER: So tonight is the public hearing, and then at the next meeting, it could

very well end up on the consent agenda. Is that correct?

TEDDY: Yes, it's planned, and we do indicate by an asterisk -- there's

a symbol on

that legislation item under the Intro and First Reading that symbolizes that and

other items may be going on consent at the next meeting.

FOWLER: I don't see that on this one.

TEDDY: Not for the public hearing item, but for the -- under Intro and Frist Reading.

That's where the annexation and zoning ordinance is introduced.

FOWLER: Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. I appreciate it.

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

There being no comment, Mayor Treece closed the public hearing.

TREECE: We’ve completed the statutorily required public hearing for the voluntary

annexation of property located on the south side of I-70 Drive Southeast and west

of St. Charles Road.

VI. OLD BUSINESS

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 bill was given third reading by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

TREECE: So we had tabled this item at the September 20th meeting. Would you like

to have a recap of the staff report or ask the applicant to come forward with any --

we kind of hit the pause button at the end to give them time to retool their plat.

Anything you want to add to bring us up-to-date, Mr. Teddy?

TEDDY:

I can just inform council, and of course the audience, that there's been a

couple of changes to this preliminary plat in the

form of what I call mid-block

walkways that the applicant is introducing to the plan to mitigate the excessive

length of the blocks per our code. We allow a maximum of 600 feet so that's one of

the three design adjustments that were discussed by Council in September. So, the

plat otherwise appears to be much the same, and it does still require -- with the

approval, it would require design adjustments unless modified again.

TREECE: Any questions for staff? Mr. Pitzer.

PITZER: Yeah, Mr. Teddy, so there was a road that was on the CATSO plan that is --

that was not on the plat. That wasn't in the design amendment, I believe, so by -- if

we just approved

plat without that CATSO road, that would be in effect

eliminating that road from the plan, right? There's no other action that we need to

take to do that?

TEDDY: Yeah, right. The one in question is

a north-south, and I’ve pulled up the old

slide here. On the west side of the development, conceptually there's an alignment

-- actually, it's more like through -- well it’s through these parcels here, and that

was one of our comments -- was there would be an area here that would be

affected by that, but yeah, you’d be choosing not to pursue that collector through

this way. There is

a collector that runs through the site, east-west, which is also a

feature of the CATSO map, and that could be extended to all of that in the future.

TREECE: Mr. Crockett, would you -- do you have any updates for us?

CROCKETT: Yes, sir, I do.

TREECE: Take your time. I'm ten minutes ahead.

PETERS: You have these meetings timed?

TREECE: I have milestones -- everyone cooperates.

CROCKETT: I’ll do my part, Mayor. Okay. Mayor, members of the Council, Tim

Crockett, Crockett Engineering, offices at 1000 West Nifong. As Mr. Teddy indicated,

we did make

a few corrections to the preliminary plat. And if you recall, at your

September 20, 2021 meeting, the Council approved the annexation and zoning of

this piece of property. They also voted, by a vote of 4-3 to deny -- or excuse me -- to

approve the design adjustments. However, given that it was denied at P&Z we

needed five votes. And so we went back and looked at it -- and I'll go through

quickly. This is my presentation from last time. I'll go through it relatively quickly.

Again, this is the preliminary plat before you tonight -- that was before you a month

ago. We're asking for design adjustments with regards to the interval in which we

have street connections. And the UDC indicates we have to have them every 600

feet. The old code said every 1,000 feet. Six hundred feet is rather excessive in our

look, and this is an exhibit that the city put together that talked about different

locations in which -- that exceeded those 600 feet. So you can see the differences

there in blue. What the -- what they really asked for us to do was add a location --

another street connection here, one at this location, one at that

one in the section there within the cul-de-sac. And again, want to go through this

relative quick. So, we'll go through it here. This is, again, situation we talked

about last time that's been very similar in nature -- that was already approved --

these locations through here. Basically what it does is that adds 1,800 linear feet

location, and then

additional street to this development. It doesn't improve connectivity. It doesn’t

improve public safety. It doesn’t improve response times, but it does add 1,800 feet

of street or 1.6 acres of additional impervious surface -- 1.6 of additional

impervious surface just to make these connections here. We have

reduction in

total lots, and we’re also talking about density and how we want to talk about

density and how we want to encourage it, but we’re going to reduce density and

add street. We talked about the length of this cul-de-sac. Again, we're less than the

old code -- again, we’re talking about old code, new code -- but

allows us to go up to 750 feet at the discretion of the Director of Planning, and in

this case, Mr. Teddy decided that, you know, it wasn’t in the City's best interest to

have that. We can make the connection to the south. don’t want to say it’s

the current code

impossible to make. It’s not something we can't do, but -- we can -- but it crosses as

draw, crosses a creek, it crosses -- tears out a lot more trees, and we just don’t think

it's needed to simply serve eight residential lots. Again, it's similar to other

cul-de-sacs in the area. And then again, this is the third design adjustment that we

talked about. And this is -- what’s outlined in red is the collector street that goes

east and west, and we're asking for having

a limited number of driveways on that

street. We had traffic study commissioned for this area that was submitted to the

city. The City’s traffic engineer reviewed it and approved it. And basically that

traffic study came back and said that really that collector street isn't going to serve a

large function. It’s not going to have a large amount of traffic in the long term. They

don't believe that it’s going to connect further to the west, given that that area’s

already developed. Now albeit in large ten and twenty acre tracts of land, but the

buildable area is very small

on those tracts, and that buildable area is already

constructed with homes so it's very limited on where those -- that street could

potentially go. Even at that, Richland Road, which is the arterial street, which is just

not very far from the north, and it actually leads somewhere. So the idea there is

that -- Richland Road is going to be the road that’s going to handle the traffic. Our

traffic engineer came to that conclusion and the City traffic engineer agreed with

that. So again, these are the design adjustments that we're talking about. Now, we

did

layout with the connections that the City is asking before because we have the 600

foot issue, and then we add standalone collector street that runs east and west

a revised layout, and we talked about this last time. So if we do the revised

through here, you can see what we have. It’s a lot more pavement. In that scenario,

we're looking at about 4.2 acres of additional impervious surface. So, where’s that

lead us tonight. So what we did is we went back and made amended preliminary

plat. And so what we did is we add pedestrian connectivity in lieu of public street

connections. So what we did is we added 8- foot sidewalks or 8-foot pedways that

connected some of these locations instead of simply putting in additional streets. If

we put in additional streets, it's more 4-way intersections that has conflicts, and we

believe that the pedestrian connectivity really serves the purpose of connectivity

in the neighborhood.

It doesn't have to be streets and it doesn’t have to be

roadways. It can be as simple as an 8-foot pedestrian connection. So where do we

add them? There's the first connection that we added -- right there. There's the

second location, the third, and the fourth. So we added those locations. We're

putting them in public easements. They will be built to city standards but they will

be maintained by the homeowners association so it was not an additional cost to

the City.

There are going to be permanent easements that will be in place on the

final plat, and then the infrastructure would be built. Those sidewalks will be built

when one of the homes on either side -- the first home that gets built -- then that

section of the sidewalk or pedway would get built at that time. That would ensure

that it gets put in, in

a timely fashion, and it also allows -- the reason why we're

waiting until then is that it allows for that first home to get built to establish the

grade in that area. And so what are we asking for tonight -- we’re asking for you to

approve -- and this is

a little bit of confusion at the last meeting. We’re asking you

to approve the amended preliminary plat with the following design adjustments,

which include the longer block lengths, the longer cul-de-sac length, and the

private residential driveways on

collector street. With that, we're asking you to

approve the preliminary plat that includes the 8-foot sidewalk and pedways located

in public easements. So that's what we're after for tonight, and of course,

through the conclusion if you’d like, but Mayor, I want to keep us on time.

TREECE: You’re good. Any questions?

I can go

PETERS: Yeah,

I have a couple questions. One would be -- you said that you would

put the pednet, or the pedway, in when the first house is developed on that stretch

CROCKETT: Correct on either side. Dr. Peters, on either side of that section -- when

the first house goes in, they are going to establish the grade going down behind

that house, and so then that section of that 8-foot sidewalk would be built at that

time -- before occupancy of that house.

PETERS: Is there --

know in Old Hawthorne, we’ve run into this -- where people

while, which means

will buy lots and then they choose not to build on them for

we don't get any sidewalks in that case for years and years. So is there any

expectation that you’d put the rest of the pedway in if it's not done by in, you know

five year?

CROCKETT: Yeah,

think

think we could put

I understand what you’re saying -- if someone buys their forever home

five-year stipulation would be fine. If it's not in in

five-year period,

timeframe on that. That way it ensures that

it gets done.

site here, and sits on it for 15 years, or buys both of them, then there's that missing

link that doesn't get built.

PETERS: Yeah, that's certainly been

problem out there and

number of other

places. And then my other question is -- do you want these voted on together or

separately?

CROCKETT: It’s my understanding that the preliminary plat -- the only item is the

preliminary plat and the design adjustments are attached to that preliminary plat.

So it's my understanding its one vote. I could be --

PETERS: It all goes together.

TREECE: There's an amendment sheet that changes mostly just the dates and the

title, Dr. Peters. And then the rest would be on the preliminary plat.

PETERS: Okay, thanks.

TREECE: And just one quick question. Maybe, Mr. Thomas or you, maybe you have

different opinions on this -- are these pedway connectors?

I could see why they’d

be desirable for the overall neighborhood in terms of connectivity and just walking

paths. I assume each of those roads are also going to have sidewalks on them.

CROCKETT: Absolutely. All the roads will have sidewalks on both sides per city

standard.

TREECE: Do you see -- for those homeowners, is it undesirable to have that

between them or what's your sense there?

CROCKETT: If you asked me that three or four years ago,

very undesirable. Nobody wants that in their backyard.

would have said that’s

still think to certain

population, it is undesirable, but I think that there's a little change right now, and to

a certain population, it’s very desirable. So I think -- long story is -- who do you ask?

Is it desirable to you or is it desirable to me.

think all of us have

a different

opinion, and

route.

I think that there's a certain population that does desire to be on that

TREECE: Mr. Thomas, you want to --

THOMAS: And think we've seen the same transition happening with trails, which

are not totally dissimilar from this. You know, there was time twenty years ago

when every neighborhood that the city tried to put a trail through or along the edge

of opposed that proposal. Now real estate agents charge more for the houses right

next to the trail because it's seen as a desirable feature.

TREECE: mean can see -- just with this map -- especially some loops within that

neighborhood and Bluff Creek has some similar trails that kind of cut through the

paths.

THOMAS: It would be desirable for me.

TREECE: Got it.

CROCKETT: It’s surprising how many subdivisions really do have this. When you

start looking around town, there’s subdivisions that you don’t realize that have

them that really do.

TREECE: I appreciate your creativity.

TREECE: Anybody have any questions? I’ll open the public hearing, anyone from the

public desire to be heard on B281-21? Seeing none, any council discussion? Dr.

Peters.

PETERS: Well this is I think in my ward unless it’s in Karl’s so -- I'm okay with all of

those adjustments.

think that CATSO road that would be in there is really not

going anywhere. We do have Richland Road north of that and we have WW south of

that so it’s unclear to me why we would need another road halfway through there.

That doesn’t seem to be that much of

pedways that were put in, so for me this is a fine --

a difference so -- and I do appreciate the

TREECE:

built environment really isn’t aligning with that CATSO road anyway. It's

moving off to the other direction from when I looked at it.

TREECE: Any discussion? Mr. Thomas.

THOMAS: Well I’m going to support the motion as well. The cul-de-sac length thing

is certainly

well-intentioned rule to limit the amount of back and forth that city

don’t think it’s,

services have to do and other services that go to every door, but

you know, the most important thing in every situation. And within the

neighborhood, as Tim stated, these pedway connections will allow, you know, easy

and unsupervised mobility for children that allows shorter distances and creates

more of

on that road. It doesn't look like it’s going to be really

established as residential street, then all those driveways and people turning in

and out will create sort of the friction to keep speeds low. And it winds around. It’s

not in straight line so -- didn't support the annexation and zoning in the first

network for walking and biking.

also don't see the need to restrict lots

main road. And if it’s

place, but given it’s now coming in the City, I do support the revised plat with these

new connections.

TREECE:

failed to mention Council received three comments before 4:00 p.m.

today. One from Thomas Meyer at 6200 East Richland Road requesting the Council

not approve the plat or any other proposed plat that does not address these

concerns regarding cul-de-sac lengths, street distances, through streets, emergency

vehicle access. And then two from 6250 East Richland Road, again -- other than

changing names of

concerns regarding cul-de-sac lengths, street distances, through streets, emergency

vehicle access request the Council not to approve this plat. And you all received

couple streets, nothing was done to address Council’s

these as well. So, wanted to make sure those were on the record.

Mayor Treece made a motion to amend B281-21 per the amendment sheet. The

motion was seconded by Council Member Thomas and approved unanimously by

voice vote.

B281-21, as amended, was given fourth reading by the City Clerk with the vote

recorded as follows: VOTING YES: WANER, THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE,

FOWLER. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: SKALA. Bill declared enacted, reading

as follows:

B296-21

B297-21

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).

Discussion shown with B297-21.

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).

The bills were given third reading by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Community Development Director Tim Teddy provided a staff report.

TEDDY: Yes, this is

continuing item. We’ve had the annexation hearing on this.

Tabled at the last meeting, and this is 121 acres proposed for annexation. The

majority of the tract, and that would be -- 115 acres out of the 121 are proposed to

be zoned open space if this property is annexed into the city. Six acres would be

zoned mixed-use neighborhood district, which would

allow

the

potential

for

additional commercial functions. Also the separate bill is approving

conditional

use, and that's for outdoor recreation and entertainment. And what that does -- it

basically ratifies the existing activities that occur on this site. It’s known as Midwest

Golf and Sport. It’s

par 3 golf course. It’s miniature golf, laser tag, outdoor games,

go-cart track -- all of which are enumerated in the

believe batting cages,

conditional use ordinance. And there's some restrictions on enlargements of those

functions as well replacement with something else. So that’s our way of handling

open space. Generlly open space district means basically everything from

passive open space to things by conditional use that could allow these

entertainment functions. So, it will not be developed on large scale except as that

kind of facility according to this zoning. The applicants indicated that they are

interested in possibly adding restaurant to the existing entertainment venues,

and that’s what requires the M-N zoning. That’s not an allowed use, so that’s why

the six acres. A couple different views of the site, and just to recap -- one of their

park to

desires is to have the ability to connect to city sewer, and the Perche Creek trunk

line is located to the east., and that connection would be their project to design,

get approved, and financed. This is not

public sewer project -- would have to get

it’s in the

the City sewer utility's approvals. Just recapping what the utilities are

Boone Electric service area, not city electric, Consolidated Water District No. 1, not

the city water, and the Boone County has maintenance jurisdiction over Van Horn

Tavern Road, which is the public road approach to this site, and there's no plan to

change that.

mentioned the travel distance it takes to get here using Gillespie

Bridge at the city limits or coming from Strawn Park so there are some considerable

distances, and that would give us pause if we were to annex west of the Perche on

a large scale. Just a view of the proposed M-N zoning within the larger tract, which I

said is going to be mostly this open space district with the conditional use. This is an

additional exhibit just to show you how extensive the floodplain and floodway is

on this site. You’ll recognize the golf course ponds are right here so that’ll give you

some orientation. This crosshatched area is what’s called the regulatory floodway,

and that's an area that can't be disturbed. It can't be filled. If anything is placed

that’s an obstruction to the floodway -- what’s called an engineering no-rise

analysis would have to be done to determine that that obstruction would not make

that floodway level rise more than foot. And the function of the floodway in

nature is to allow a flood event to pass downstream. So it’s -- you can think of it as

an extraordinary channel width that’s needed to get those floodwaters

downstream, whereas the ordinary floodplain also called the flood fringe or

special flood hazard area -- that's an area where special care has to be taken to

elevate development sites, building sites -- so that the lowest floor level is above

the elevation. Well this whole site is in either floodway or floodplain, so that -- or

almost all of the site is-so that would mean that

possibly not be feasible because they’d have to elevate the site so much within

that floodplain area. So just wanted to share that information with Council. And

then upon annexation, it will be subject to all of the city ordinances. And they

a large scale development would

would have to plat in conjunction with any future building, so we’d get

subdivision plat on this property. Try to answer any questions.

TREECE: Any questions for staff? Mr. Pitzer.

PITZER: So that section of M-N zoning where there's an existing structure there

think, is that a higher elevation than the --?

TEDDY:

I don't know where it would be if a building was built there today. We’d

have to look at the topography of that site. It could be graded possibly to create

that floor elevation that’s needed to overcome the floodplain.

PITZER: Okay. Well was it -- was that building then

before there was any restriction on building in the floodplain?

you’re saying it was built

TEDDY: It might have been different, or it may have gotten --

don't have

similar

documentation on what the county might have issued. They’ve got

ordinance, but if it’s something recent, perhaps it's documented.

PITZER: Okay.

TREECE: Any additional questions. Seeing none, I’ll open up the public hearing.

Would the applicant like to make any comments?

CROCKETT: Members of Council -- Tim Crockett -- Crockett Engineering, 1000 West

Nifong. Again, before each night, as an annexation and zoning of this piece of

property -- the current zoning of the property is REC in the county, which is

comparable to the

the exception of the M-N that’s internal, and the purpose of that M-N is, of course,

so we can build restaurant. The type we want to build is something along top

O zoning we are requesting. So we’re asking for like zoning with

golf concept on a smaller scale. So that’s what they’re looking at doing out there. So

Mr. Pitzer, the answer to your question is -- yes, all the construction out there has

all been permitted through the County, and abides by the FEMA regulations. So the

FEMA regulations state -- or excuse me -- the county regulations with regards to

floodplains. The FEMA regulations state that we need to be at or above floodplain

elevation with our structures. The county, like the city, says we need to elevate

those structures two feet, and so those structures out there,

I believe, are at least

two feet above the base flood elevation. Consequently, any future addition, any

future building that we do out there, if annexed, or even in the county would have

to be elevated two feet above the base flood elevation. So yes, that little area out

there -- if go out there and look at the highest point -- now it doesn't look like much

-- it’s just elevated slightly. Now keep in mind, it’s 122 acres, and we are only really

developing

a small piece of that. We’re only developing 6 or 7 acres total, and most

of that is already developed. What we’re looking to add is some parking and add

building spot. And so, that area that’s out there is slightly higher than everything

else around it and it is above the base flood elevation. Again, this property is being

sought to be annexed so that we can tie into the city sewer. The city sewer runs

along Perche Creek that’s out there currently. It’s

that’s only at less than 20 percent capacity. Of course, that comes with

couple years ago, we had the Henderson Branch sewer and how council decided

60 or 66 inch sanitary sewer line

situation --

not to construct that. I’d like to remind you that this extension would be at the cost

of the developer. During the public hearing, there was some public comments

made with regards to how much the city has to spend on infrastructure for this

piece of property, and I’m telling you that right now there is no money being spent

on this piece of property for infrastructure. This sewer would be built at the

expense of the developer. They aren’t asking for the City to contribute to that at all.

It would be

force main that would come out there and serve this piece of

property. In order for us to pull a building permit, we’d have to go through and plat

the property. So in order to pull a permit, we have to have a legal lot -- to get a legal

lot we have to plat. When we plat the property, there is that outer road that runs

through there -- that goes from bridge to bridge that is the missing connection for

an outer road along I-70. When this piece of property goes through the preliminary

plan process, my plat would have to grant the right-of-way for that road. So that's a

benefit to the city, knowing that the city doesn't have to come in in the future and

have to acquire that, have to purchase that and buy that right-of-way. So that would

be something that would be required at the preliminary plat stage. And again, the

floodplain and floodway -- Mr. Teddy briefly talked about this -- there is floodplain

and there is floodway. But we’re not developing in the floodway. There may be

some yard games down in the floodway, but that's certainly allowed. That’s

certainly no problem there. And when you look at FEMA's regulations, two of the

exact uses that they use is recreation and playgrounds. Those are two exact

terminology that they use from the regulations -- what‘s suited for floodplain areas

-- and so that's exactly what we’re looking for here. And again, we’re looking at

like-zoning and all of the development is going to be permitted with FEMA

regulations in mind. And so, there's

check with that -- any time we submit

anything to the city, the city stormwater engineers review that and we have to

certify all elevations. We have to certify, as Mr. Teddy said, no rise if we’re in the

floodway, which we have no intention of. And again, it’s just

a very small piece of

this property. So with that, I’m happy to answer any questions that the Council may

have and I appreciate your favor -- you know -- consideration.

TREECE: Any questions for Mr. Crockett? Alright, thank you.

CROCKETT: Thank you.

TREECE: Anyone else from the public desire to be heard on B296-21 or the

conditional use permit, B297-21? Ms. Amparan, good evening.

AMPARAN: Hello, good evening. Hi, I’m Carolyn Amparan speaking on behalf of the

4,200 members and supporters of the Osage Group Sierra Club in Boone County and

Columbia. Tonight, we wanted to just ask you, as kind of the bigger picture, not to

approve an annexation or new sewer connections, and the bigger issue is that the

West Area Plan has not yet been completed. The West Area Plan was initially

discussed back in February of 20, and that is for an area of 26 square miles to the

west of the city, and this is something that the city and county both need to work

on together. Unfortunately, it got somewhat set aside due to the pandemic, but it is

still

a really important issue, and the -- I really appreciate the staff sharing how this

property is in both the floodway, and predominantly the rest of it is in 100-year

floodplain, because those are the type of sensitive issue that need to be

considered when we develop the West Area Plan. And so that's

why we need this plan before we start approving annexations and further

developments, and although you’re not being asked to approve building permit

a good example of

tonight, it is very possible -- we want you to consider that we can't just

automatically approve building permits and development permits even if they are

going to be in the 100-year flood zone and raised the required two feet because the

regulations have not yet caught up with the facts of climate change, and it is a fact

that 100-year floods are happening much more frequently, and it’s also

a fact that if

we allow fill in the 100-year floodplain to build these structures up two feet, then

we’re just displacing these flood waters into other areas. So, we’d ask you not to

approve the annexation or new sewer connections until the West Area Plan can be

completed, and to perhaps reignite that process.

TREECE: Would anyone else from the public desire to be heard? Ms. Dokken, good

evening.

DOKKEN: I’m Dee Dokken.

like at 804 Again Street. I’m speaking as an individual

today, but I’m speaking to the process. Since this was on the consent agenda last

time before it was taken off -- and that implies that Planning and Zoning -- there

was no controversy or they approved the annexation as well as the zoning. They did

discuss the zoning. That’s probably

reasonable zoning, the best zoning possible,

but they are deciding on zoning if it is annexed. They are not -- they did not discuss

annexation. They are not allowed to discuss annexation. When it’s put on the

consent agenda the way it was, it implies that P and Z has approved both the zoning

and the annexation.

I think that is not a transparent process. It means you have to

watch the agenda with an eagle eye. As you can see, there was some controversy

and some discussion on this annexation. Thank you.

TREECE: Thank you. Any further public comment? Does anyone else from the public

desire to be heard? Seeing none, I’ll close the public hearing. Any discussion on

B296-21 or B297-21? Mr. Thomas.

THOMAS: First of all,

just want to declare an ex-parte conversation with the

little while ago. On the face of it, this looks like

sewer connection for small development on

the existing property, not significantly changing the uses. And appreciate the

thoughtfulness that went into that decision, but am going to vote against the

annexation and zoning. There is much bigger issue at play, and both Carolyn and

applicant here by Zoom

reasonable request -- requesting

Dee referred to this. Our city is expanding at a very rapid rate and losing density as

we go, and this is not the way we want to develop to be resilient for the impacts of

climate change that are coming. We want to stay more compact. And we’ve already

jumped the Perche Creek with one property that we’ve given

to, and really think if we don't stand firm against this development trend west of

the Perche, then, in few year’s time, there’s going to be lot more sewer

connections up that hill and lot more annexations. And then, we’re going to have

to build road bridge across Perche Creek and there’s going to be all kinds of

infrastructure going out there, and we’re just perpetuating the low density sprawl

that’s happening kind of all around the city, which really has to stop. don’t know

whether you all followed -- know Pat attended Chuck Marone's presentation last

sewer connection

week or a couple weeks ago, but if you’ve looked at any of the resources by Chuck,

he really sees the natural tendency of cities to grow low density, publically

subsidized infrastructure. So I’m going to vote against this until we have

community-engaged West Area planning process, so that we can really hear from

all of the stakeholders, not just the owners of particular parcels -- how they want to

see that area west of the Perche develop.

TREECE: Any further discussion?

B296-21 was given fourth reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: WANER, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER. VOTING NO:

THOMAS. ABSENT: SKALA. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B297-21 was given fourth reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: WANER, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER. VOTING NO:

THOMAS. ABSENT: SKALA. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B315-21

B316-21

Granting a design adjustment relating to lot frontage and lot access in

connection with the proposed Final Plat of Freedom House I located on the

west side of William Street and north of Walnut Street (107 N. William

Street); requiring execution of an irrevocable access easement (Case No.

195-2021).

Discussion shown with B216-21.

Approving the Final Plat of “Freedom House I” located on the west side of

William Street and south of Windsor Street (107 N. William Street) (Case

No. 195-2021).

The bills were given second reading by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Community Development Director Tim Teddy provided a staff report.

TEDDY: So, as is our custom when design adjustments are requested as part of

subdivision process, there are two separate ordinances so that’s why there’s the

two separate bills. One is the design adjustment, and the other is the plat that

relies on it. This is Freedom House. It’s known as Freedom House I, meaning it’s the

older of two facilities, north of Freedom House II, and they provide housing for

persons with disabilities. An their desire is to tear down the building known as

Freedom House

at this location on William Street and replace it with

new

building. It would be 13 accessible apartments,

total of 17 beds in that. And in

doing the project, they want to reorient the building so it shares an access with the

project to the south or the -- excuse me -- the facility to the south that has access

off of Walnut. Just

different aerial view. It’s within the Benton Stephens

neighborhood. That’s Lions-Stephens Park that’s directly east. Freedom House II,

the newer of the facilities, which is not part of this request other than it plays a role

in the design adjustment -- that’s to the south. Just out of frame there, but you can

see some of the grounds of property owned by Boone Hospital to the south. There

are homes to the west and north of this. Part of the Benton Stephens

neighborhood.

PETERS: Excuse me, Mr. Teddy, was that last picture -- was north at the top of the

picture?

TEDDY: Yeah, north is at the top, yes.

PETERS: Okay. Thank you.

TEDDY: Yes, and that’s William Street on the east that this property has frontage on.

PETERS: Okay, and that’s the one they want to replace?

TEDDY: Yeah, the building that’s to be replaced, yes.

PETERS: Not the one on the corner of Walnut?

TEDDY: No, no, there's no changes to that facility other than they want to link these

two facilities together. We’ll show that.

PETERS: Okay. Thank you.

TEDDY: And this is

that were part of an old plat, and then there are some survey tracts. So, you’ve

heard us say this before -- we do require subdivision process to create new

modernized lot. Along with that, they’re going to grant additional right-of-way and

a fairly complex legal description for this property. Several lots

10-foot utility easement. William Street is only

40-foot right-of-way, which is

what we’d consider substandard so the 10 feet will help provide for potential

future needs with that street. You can see on this plat the footprint of the building

that’s to be torn down, and the design adjustments relate to street frontage and lot

access. They desire their vehicular access to be off Walnut across the other property

to the new building to be built here, and so that will be their primary and basically

their sole vehicular access. There is still

possibility for non-vehicular access or

pedestrian and wheelchair access to William. It is zoned multi-family district, and

it’s located also within the Benton Stephens overlay so copies of their site plan, just

for Council's information, have been submitted to that neighborhood organization.

That’s one of the terms of that ordinance -- that that neighborhood association be

allowed comment. And then there are some specific standards that modify our

regular zoning code. Covered these points -- other than the location of the primary

access as proposed, the plat conforms to our standards. So they’re waiving our

requirement that the lot access off of actual street frontage -- and I want to make it

clear that this is not a lot that’s land locked so to speak. It does have actual street

frontage on William, but it’s not to be used for the purpose of their access. And this

is conceptual site plan that supported that design adjustment. It shows

approached from Walnut, and then main building entrance facing that parking lot.

So you’re again looking north. You can see William Street on the east side. Provided

elevations to our Planning and Zoning Commission. This is floor plan. lot of

a parking lot

exhibits that we wouldn't normally require as part of the platting process, but,

again, they’re considered to be material in evaluating the design adjustment. This

is kind of

did provide this to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

supplemental memo that there was some materials that were new that weren't

shared -- hadn’t been shared with the Planning and Zoning Commission, but

reverse plan,

drawing that the applicant provided. And actually they

commented in my

believe they saw this graphic. It just shows the effect of, in essence, flipping the

building so the parking lot would be on the north side and the access would be off

of William instead of off of Walnut. They provided

just sampling here, but in the agenda packet, including links that the public can

access. There’s number of additional photographs that they’ve provided to show

number of site photographs,

this building and its setting. This is looking at the existing parking lot on the north

side of Freedom House I as it comes off of William, and this is the curved driveway

that sweeps in front of Freedom House

that driveway that we just saw. This also is

provided as supplemental information to the council. It’s

shows, basically in these colored lines, how large single unit vehicle such as fire

apparatus would maneuver around Freedom House and then on into -- beg your

that also accesses off of William and joins

diagram that the commission has seen

turning diagram and it

pardon -- around Freedom House II, the newer building, and the up into the

redeveloped building, which is shown in some colored lines there, yellow for

parking spaces, and there's

green outline of the proposed new building. So

they’re showing that with the removal of some parking spaces, it would be possible

to interconnect the two parking lots and rely on that combination of parking lot

aisles to bring a large single unit vehicle into the site. I have talked to the fire chief

about this development in particular. The Fire Department would approve of this

kind of an access, possibly not the preferred, but for Council's information, they

would approve of this. And this is

photograph looking straight in from Walnut.

Commissioners had lot of comments, not only about maneuvering vehicles into

the site, but how would residents access the surrounding neighborhood. How

would they get out to the public ways? So this is looking straight north. Freedom

House II is to the right in the image. That's their parking lot. They pointed out

there’s walkway there. They would enhance that system to create in essence

designated accessible route so that residents could access Walnut. It’s staff belief

that we ought to have another such access to William, looking at amenities like the

park, the public sidewalk there. Although there's

yard on William, we feel that there should also be an accessible route made, and it

might require some turning and twisting of walkway because there’s certainly

going to be some grade limitations to overcome there. So this went through our

process -- lot of talk about the site planning -- and the commissioners were not

a fairly steep grade on that front

convinced there was enough evidence presented to them that would justify the

design adjustment to take access off of Walnut. It’s stated in the ordinance that one

alternative we can consider is

private access easement over another property in

lieu of access to the adjacent public street, and that document would have to be

drafted and approved by Ms. Thompson and the Law Department. But -- that’s

noted in your ordinance that that would be

approve the design adjustment. But, the vote was -- no votes in support of the

design adjustment. And then they did make recommendation, 8-0, to approve the

condition of approval should you

final plat, but that would be removing the note regarding the design adjustments

because you take that away and it stands on its own. But there would still be this

issue of how they want to access the site. One exhibit,

I want to show that was

included in the supplemental materials is an additional accessible pathway, and

their representative can speak to this -- one of the things the commission said they

really wanted to see was maybe something additional that would give an indication

of how persons would access the site and leave the site. So those routes would be

from the front door at about the center of the lot, and then through a walkway that

would be delineated through the parking lot. And then they do have some

walkways adjacent the buildings. They have

sidewalk. But there’d also be rather serpentine accessible path, meaning it would

have to be curved or change direction to overcome topography so that there's no

more than five percent slope in keeping with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

But that would be way to reach William Street more directly. It’s our feeling, also,

that the front on William is important, perhaps from resident enjoyment

parallel walkway with the Walnut

perspective -- beautiful open space across the street in the form of Lions-Stephens,

which occupies that whole block, so, having some kind of means to view it. Our

Benton Stephens overlay does provide for

a requirement of a front porch, and they

have shown that there’d be a front porch on the building, and if that can be used as

a way to get fresh air and also take in the view of that park, that would be a positive

thing, we think. And, I’ll try to wrap it right there.

TREECE: So I’ve got

a substantive question, a process question. So, just back up to

your last comment -- you haven't seen any rendering or any drawing that creates

any type of William Street access to any of those units, correct?

TEDDY: Other than what I’d just shown

they’re taking out

driveway. They’re

taking out most of or all of the driveway system that’s to the north of the building.

They have a version where there's kind of a driveway stub.

TREECE: But no pedestrian access.

TEDDY: No, not directly to the building, but they have added this exhibit showing

they’d be willing to add that.

TREECE: That sidewalk?

TEDDY: Yeah.

TREECE: But there's really no way to enter the building without going through the

parking lot, correct -- in the rear?

TEDDY: Yeah,

Right now, there's a door that accesses interior room according to their floor plan.

TREECE: Just process question -- you said planning and zoning voted 0-8 on the

I see what you’re saying. I believe they’d have to add the front door.

granting the design adjustment. They did vote to approve the final plat, but without

that design adjustment, but the final plat we have assumes those design

adjustments, correct?

TEDDY: Yeah, it’s got a note on it that indicates access may be off of Walnut.

TREECE: Got it. So, if council did not -- if council rejected the design adjustment,

could we approve the final plat tonight? The final plat is wrong, correct?

TEDDY: Yeah, they would have to be directed to remove that note.

TREECE: Okay, got it. Thank you.

TREECE: Any questions for staff? Seeing none, I will open it up and ask if maybe the

applicant wants to provide any additional light here. Would anyone like to be heard

on B315-21 or B316-21?

MILLER: Good evening Mayor and Council. My name is Dianne Miller.

live in

Briarwood Lane, I’m in Fourth Ward, and I’m the President of Freedom House Board

of Directors. And I’m here representing the owners and residents. Mid-Missouri

Barrier Free Housing for the Physically Handicapped has been in business for over

40 years, serving the physically disabled. The building has greatly deteriorated, and

great team of professionals have been hired and successfully designed secured

funding to replace the 13-unit apartment building with new one. It has taken

three years, but we are ready to start construction if we can get approvals from the

City Council. would like to introduce Ken Nuernberger, our partner at NDS and

management company, who will give a brief history of Freedom House I and II.

NUERNBERGER: Again, Ken Nuernberger, NDS Consulting

Group

and

NDS

Management. Thank you for listening to this. It’s been very difficult, complicated as

you may see by the site. And so when we were hired as managers, the property was

poorly run.

think you may have heard from neighbors that talked about the

don't want to go into all of that, but we have -- and our

previous management.

manager, Michelle Fort, is here to discuss things at the end about how she’s worked

with the existing residents and dealing with the residents. But we’ve corrected

that, and then as part of that, we got to know the neighbors and we got rid of drug

problems and bad tenants and bad tenant caregivers. But the building was falling

apart, so at some point, we could only do as much as a manager unless we could get

money. So for the last three years, my consulting firm has been working with

Dianne Miller and her Board to try to find $3 million to rebuild this because

everyone whose gone through, from the architects to the gaps in the walls -- that

this would have been

achieve really what today modern codes would be for physically disabled

individuals. One of the challenges is how do you raise $3 million from small group

a lot of money to renovate it in the same position and not

that doesn't have a big fundraising capability - so you go to all kinds of places to get

it. So we’ve been eminently successful in getting money from the Federal Home

Loan Bank Board, City of Columbia HOME funds --

I just went to the IDA Board of

Boone County about issuing bonds. With tax-exempt bonds, you get four percent

credits that allow us to raise almost $2 million of equity. And then also, from

Missouri Housing Development National Trust Fund money. So if you can imagine,

there's a few sources of money to do all of this, and we’ve achieved that. So one of

the -- there was -- so over three years in trying to put all that together -- things sort

of changed. We thought we kind of had an understanding with our local architect

and engineers that the original site plan would work, and obviously, that's not true,

and that's why we’re standing here today. We actually --

I just want to point out

that when we went to the Planning and Zoning Board, I tried to see if there was any

compromise that could be worked out. They really wanted it to either meet the

code as interpreted or they really would still vote 8-0 against it, and so we realized

there was really nothing we could do. So the big issue I think that causes a lot of the

problems is Freedom House II. Because it was built later in 1995, it is under

separate -- same board members but different owner. And it has to be that way,

because that’s how HUD and almost every other finance does it today. So, these are

run as one. This one is run as one 25-unit project, but there are two different

owners. If it was one owner, Walnut would work. We’d be able to come in.

to emphasize we have made compromises, so there is an entrance off of -- and we

thought it was good idea -- entrance off of William and access to William Street

that we added in, and a better access to Walnut. And with that we -- also I want to

point out that we tried to buy the house on William. If you saw, there's little

I want

yellow house, and the owner there, to his prerogative, wanted $200,000. There was

no way we could possibly afford that and put it into the project. That would have

solved all these problems. So there are some things that solve everything, but

when we get down to it -- when you can't do it, you just are trying to make this

thing fit in there. So we have the two owners and we want to try to find -- I also

should say that, and I want to be very clear -- that there are some people that felt I

may have misrepresented something.

want to clarify that. We did meet with

neighbors. We did talk to the neighborhood’s association --

do know that the neighborhood association itself never took

couple meetings, but

vote or ever took

position. But when

I say neighbors, I have talked to most of the neighbors on the

north side, and we have tried with our architect, who will be next up here, Curtis,

to talk about how he tried to design with their interpretation and their ideas, which

was mostly -- they wanted to get the parking lot off the north side -- and that we

could have long-term

a one [inaudible] ingress and egress to control who comes in

and out for security. So we are trying to do something that will really work for the

next 40 years because this building -- they owned it for 40 years and almost had

their HUD loan paid off. So that is all interprets to how we are trying to stand on one

foot and spin wheels and do everything to make this work. So that’s why we’re

here. With that, if you’d like, I will turn it over to Curtis Goben, our architect.

TREECE: Any questions for Mr. Nuernberger?

PETERS:

Street.

I just have a question about -- you said you now have access to William

NUERNBERGER: Yes.

PETERS: Can you describe that?

NUERNBERGER: Yeah. The last --

I don't know if, Tim, you can put that up again.

Yeah. It seems to be confusing to people. If you look up in the very top right of this

map, you’ll see the squirrelly line. That's how much drop there is still from the

building to get to the highest point on William, which is the north corner -- where

the bus stop is, but the bus stop’s not there. So we are going to take the bus stop

out. So there is in fact, and we agree that we probably should always have that -- an

access to William, and then we did put a front door -- we have not, if you all agree, I

want to make it clear the door presently -- there will be

entrance. It happens to go into unit that we were just using for maintenance.

We’ll change the maintenance and make that an entrance. We just didn't go

through the drawing yet, but there's room it goes into, and that room can be an

entrance that people can come and go out of more than just straight out corridor

a door. There will be an

so they can actually go on the porch. So we did that, and I want to emphasize we

also thought it was a great idea -- what was recommended by P and Z is to have a

really good better designated access to Walnut. And you can please ask Michelle for

it or ask one of the board members who used to work there -- he will be up there

later. Almost everyone goes Walnut Street. They don’t go -- it’s too dangerous, too

hard, and there’s nothing to get on William. If they go to William, they’re going to

go down to Walnut because that's where they go -- to downtown -- they go to

hospitals or they go to the bus stop. So even if we were to move it around,

everybody would go through -- the spinning around -- people would have to go to

the back door to go to Walnut to get where they need to go. Others can better

describe that. I don’t deal with it on a day-to-day basis of course.

PETERS: Okay, thank you.

TREECE: Any other questions for Mr. Nuernberger? Thank you.

TREECE: Curtis, you want to shed some light on this?

GOBEN: Good evening. Again my name is Curtis Goben. I’m with Wallace Architects,

representing the client. To kind of go through some previous history, which some

has been already stated this evening -- was the existing property that they have

now. The facility had ultimately achieved its useful life as the building and has seen

deterioration and dilapidation throughout the structure. Let alone, the original

facility was not designed to be fully accessible.

I was, at one point, a senior living

facility and was a good facility for its time, but to meet current, today standards and

also to bring up to full compliance for accessibility, the building is deemed that it is

-- not feasible to rehabilitate the existing facility, so therefore, we propose to

various multi-step process

provide new. And, in providing new, we went through

to go through how can we best utilize this property to meet what’s required the

city, and also take into consideration the actual end user and also the neighborhood

around. So, the original team met and went through door-to-door to get some

neighborhood input from direct citizens themselves -- some of the issues they’ve

seen and what they would like to improve. Going through the process, one of the

big issues was security at this property. Let alone, management could attest to what

that security issue was as well. Based on how the original property was oriented

with the north parking lot, obviously to the north, and how it abutted the

residential property lines below that -- and also directly accessed from William

Street -- allowed for undesired pedestrian traffic to enter that street -- and tended

to be some criminal activity at times. Through various management practices, now

they have tried to divert that. But ultimately, we also want to consider how can we

more effectively make this a safer building for the tenants that will be going back in

this place. In doing so, the parking lot would be relocated to be centralized, away

from public view or meandering pedestrians, so that it is strictly serving the people

that are in this building. And to that, that also allows for buffers and such from the

parking to neighboring properties but also allows for

access and communication between the two properties as these both are Freedom

House -- Freedom House and Freedom House 2 properties they will -- they work

more direct and internal

together and they are sister organizations. Best for effective means of travel for

both the people actually living in the facility to mingle between the two properties,

and also as previously indicated by this slide up here -- is you would access through

sidewalk that meets ADA standards -- have

the least trafficked area of the parking lot, and then it again -- connecting back to

access that will lead you to William Street and more accessible path. The current

conditions at the northeast end, where we’re showing that kind of switch back

ramp scenario and why that was problem to begin with -- was not accessible in

a designated pedestrian cross through

any means nor was the drive and parking that was there accessible. So it was

actually problematic in its current state for people with accessible needs to use it --

prone to other accidents and people falling. So if anybody would currently access

William Street from the property, it’s a hazard. So that's one of the main things that

we wanted to focus on -- is improving the life safety and welfare of those on this

property, and that was one of them. In addition to everything else, with the site

and its constraints through topography, we wanted to best [inaudible] orient this

building -- that could also serve either direction of the facility and also create

a nice

aesthetic to William Street as it is directly across from the park. In doing this

process, it was kind of a leveling of the scales so to speak -- to what we can get and

compromise because we tended to not fully execute everything 100 percent. In our

eyes, what’s the best means that we can come up with through all various

scenarios, and in that, we did multiple iterations of buildings, some of which was

shown on here where we would simply mirror the building -- how does that impact

parking, what kind of retaining wall systems doe that implicate, how does that

actually affect site grading, and how does that actually affect the runoff and grading

that goes into the adjacent property? Currently,

believe there's

19-foot

difference between the northwest end of the property to the southeast, and from

the current footprint of the building, directly at the face of the building to the

street at Walnut -- William Street is just shy of

10 feet drop. So, there’s

considerable grade change for us to achieve an accessible route regardless of what

building and where we put it. So in trying to incorporate all of these, we also said,

well can we reduce the footprint of the building to gain some more leverage within

the site interiors? And, doing so would bring about the discussions of

two-story

building. Well those discussions also hinder itself to not serve the best means

possible for an accessible person that’s living in this facility because we are

providing two stories. Although we do have access and can provide an elevator, the

means in which the building is operated simply just wasn’t conducive. The

feasibility of this was trying to keep

good management and care facility to

safe means of living,

maintain the users the best that they can to provide them

and having two stories, multiple levels, was not conducive for those operations --

let alone, some of the higher costs associated with that. So ultimately what we did

was we turned this into where these two properties joined together in marriage,

relationship that’s better suited for the actual operations of the users and

management team versus having property where it’s back door is to it without

an accessible route between the two, meaning that you would have to leave the

property to go to the other property. So we’re trying to solve all these while

combining

what

our

restrictions

are,

having

some

neighborhood

input,

and

ultimately, we’re trying to improve the security of this property as well, through

various means of sight lines and accessibility, and also through the great

management team we have on board here. Additionally, the only other thing

add is that our goal is to improve this site, and that's what we think we’re doing. We

really do believe that the life safety and welfare is at priority here, and we don't

necessary believe that we’re hindering any of it -- that we’re improving this facility

for its end users. And not only that, this building is designed as being new

I can

building, another 50 years plus easily, so we hope that this relationship within this

neighborhood can continue to be strong.

TREECE: Thank you Mr. Goben. Any questions for the architect? Seeing none. You

might hang around if we have other questions. Would anyone else from the public

desire to be heard on this issue?

GOBEN: Our civil engineer, Kevin Murphy.

MURPHY: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Kevin Murphy with

Civil Group --

offices at 3401 Broadway Business Park Court. don't want to be redundant here,

but as

a site design professional on the site, I can honestly say that this proposed

layout is the -- with the requested design adjustments -- is the best option,

solution for the residents of this facility, the management of the facility, and

surrounding neighbors and neighborhood. We’ve designed hundreds of sites that

have had this kind of topographic relief, or rather, such extreme elevation

variances. And on such

buildings, and various grading that does not work for the site and/or the residents

has been pointed out. This is not health safety issue for the city as all fire

small parcel of land, has resulted in placing multi-story

department, emergency services requirements have been met and approved. It’s

plainly an issue of providing the best access for the property for much needed

housing for disabled citizens, and this proposed layout provides exactly that with

ADA compliant routes to both William Street and Walnut street without having to,

at this point, completely redesign the site and building, which would cost this

organization tens of thousands of more dollars that could be utilized so much

better for the disabled citizens of our community. The mayor had asked the -- yes,

we are -- hopefully that was pointed out that -- yes, we do have ADA access from

the building to William Street. We have

had one, again -- it will be a regular front door and front access to the building to

William Street -- the issue think that Planning may have had. We also had

vehicular access with parking space provided on the street -- on William Street.

a front door that we will be creating. We

think planning's issue was that that parking and that access, vehicular access, from

William Street does not directly go to the parking that’s needed for the site. The

route from Walnut Street to the building on this other side is the best ADA route,

mostly at two percent grade versus

a five percent out to William Street through that

circuitous route there. And, again, the bus stop is now at the corner of Walnut

Street and William Street, and not at the northeast corner of the property that

we’re dealing with. And this is how the people access it now because the William

Street access to too steep. They come out Walnut and either go downtown, go to

the bus stop, or they utilize the hospital facilities at Broadway and William. And

could go on about the topography on the site, but it’s quite drastic, and we think

this is the best fit for the site. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

TREECE: Any questions for Mr. Murphy? Thank you. Does anyone else desire to be

heard?

FORT: I’m Michelle Fort. I’m the property manager at Freedom House, and I’ll be

very brief. I just wanted to point out the tenants currently go out the back door to

Walnut, and we appreciate all the stuff that we’ve received from

P and Z because

we were able to add the switchback sidewalk to the north to provide ADA access,

and all the tenants are currently -- that we are going to move out -- they are

wanting to return so that says

a lot about the building and how they’ve -- able to

give us their feedback. The new building is offering

and their independence.

a lot safer of an environment

TREECE: Thank you. Any additional public comment?

NORGARD: Good evening. Peter Norgard, 1602 Hinkson.

President for the Benton Stephens Neighborhood Association. Also, full disclosure,

sit on the Board of Adjustment and so for that reason have kept out of this

discussion for the most part -- just because it may come before the Board. Just to

shed little bit of light on the process that the neighborhood association has for

seeing projects -- typically that’s triggered when building plan is submitted.

Because this is not building plan, the neighborhood was never officially given by

the city any drawings as far as know. So our participation has mostly been

unofficial and invited at the request of Freedom House I, which have to say three

am the neighborhood

years ago we sat down with them and had

a nice roundtable conversation and some

of these same plans then are appearing now. And they have been receptive to

changes that various members of our neighborhood have requested. But again, the

neighborhood association itself did not chime in on this.

as can tell the neighborhood is agnostic on this design adjustments. I’m not really

sure that our neighborhood really fully understands that but think anybody that

I don't think that -- as far

has walked through that building knows that it is in very poor shape. So, take that

for what you want, but -- I don't have anything else to add.

TREECE: Thank you, Peter. Ms. Fowler?

FOWLER: It’s not

a question. Well, it could be a question for you. There's a -- the

Benton Stephens overlay -- what would the overlay require of this building that

that's not currently shown in their plans or discussed in their plans? I know it needs

a front porch.

NORGARD: Yeah, it needs

whatever zoning designation this receives, it would have to have sufficient parking

as long as it’s residential. So our overlay only touches on residential. Since this is

residential facility, think that it would receive some form of residential

designation. I’m not sure if the overlay actually touches on anything other than R-1

through R-MF. But it would be required to have porch and 50 percent greenspace

and -- don't think that it would comply with the 50 percent green space, just

front porch. We need sufficient parking. So for

looking at it, but, you know, that’s just by eye.

FOWLER: I can also ask Mr. Teddy to weigh in on that question.

NORGARD: Right, and like

designation that they are going for.

FOWLER: Thank you.

say, it could be dependent on the exact zoning

TREECE: Thank you. Any additional questions? Any further public comment?

POWELL: Good evening. My name is Krystall Powell, and am

a tenant of Freedom

House I, and I’d like to address each of you as a member and collectively from each

of the tenants. I’m speaking for them. We want to address the grade of the

driveway. We’ve talked about this

a lot this evening, but it’s difficult to maneuver

as tenants, because -- I’ll give you an example. Over the winter, with the snow and

ice on the road and on the parking lot, for me personally, I drove around the block

and tried to get up the grade of the driveway, and I slid back down. It took me four

attempts. Finally the fourth time,

finally got enough of

run and made it up.

wheelchair,

However, there's another tenant that lives in the building that is in

and I’m not sure what exactly happened, but he ended up sliding down that steep

driveway headed to William Street and tipped over. What happens if he hadn't

stopped and tipped over? Would he have ended up in the street? That's our

concern with the driveway on Walnut --

I mean on William Street. So there's serious

concerns for us, as the residents and the tenants of that building. These conditions

are not safe for people who use a wheelchair, a walker, who use a cane, to be able

to get to that street to the sidewalk. We need an alternate path to get to

area, and that's not it. We need something different. All of the current tenants of

Freedom House have seen the design plans of the new building that have been

a safe

submitted, and they like how the parking lot is on level ground. This will ensure

that each tenant, whether ambulatory, deaf as in my case, or one that uses

wheelchair, cane, walker, or etc. will be in safe getting around the property and to

use the sidewalk to go to do their personal business. With the current plans, this

will have

centralized office, centralized parking so that everyone is aware of all

the tenant's movements on the property and can use caution to promote safety for

one another. And that's what we promote there -- for each one of us is safety, and

we look out for each other. Thank you for your time.

TREECE: Thank you for coming tonight. Is there any further public comment? Please.

There might be a microphone here on the side that is accessible for you.

EBERT: Oh, over here. Thank you

My name is Matt Ebert. am

also tenant there for between 9 and 10 years. That was the first place

after having been -- after becoming paraplegic. And, it was the first time living

alone as disabled -- specifically as paraplegic person. That site, its proximity to

Conley Road, its proximity to Boone Hospital, to downtown, to Stephens Lake Park,

just down Walnut, and to Stephens-Lions, right across the street -- never myself

thank you very much, that's great. Good evening.

member of the Board for Freedom House, but was

moved to

used to be a porch sitter and within the first few months of sitting there, I sat out all

fall and all spring and all summer watching the kids play at Stephens=Lions Park.

And that became even

a communal thing. You’d sit with other people and you got

to know your neighbors. And the size of this building is ideal. It promotes a sense of

community because you do get to know everyone that’s in the building with you as

opposed to

for this kind of housing because it’s not just

sense that they live together, but they’re all there for shared reasons. They’re all

there for common set of struggles, and that promotes an extra level of the bond

of community that is formed in place like that. When happened to be there --

200 person multi-story kind of thing. And,

I think that's a special thing

community of people in that the

that was prior to the current management and there were management problems

and tenant problems, and of course the building is in really bad shape, but its

function and its purpose was still quite clear and came through to me when

needed it most -- which is a place that I could access and that was adapted to my

new living situation that was also newly getting accustomed to. It gave me place

to feel like I could function on my own. And, at that point in time, you know, I was

still in my late 30s, mid to late 30s. I had lived alone before but never in this new

state of being. And what was provided for me by Freedom House existing, even in

the condition it was and still is in, was invaluable. And

I knew at that point that

when they asked if I would like to be a board member that I wanted to advocate for

that building and the concept of why it’s meant to exist because it did something

for me when I didn't really know I was going need something to be done that much

for me, and that building and its community provided that.

I think that continuing to

help promote this sort of place and to advocate for it is vital, not just for the

residents, but the community that those residents live in. Thank you for your time.

TREECE: Before you get away, you mentioned the front porch on William Street and

how much you sat there looking at the park. From the rendering I’m looking at now,

it doesn't look like there would be that type of amenity on this. Do you have any

thoughts or suggestions?

EBERT: I think the biggest thing is if there’s an access to William Street that is safer

than what there is now -- and to speak to the lady that was up before me, I have

seen people slide all the way down and spill out into the street. That needs to be

fixed. If there is any way of access there, you will find that people will start to

gravitate to hang out around that.

I don’t know if that’s considered a negative thing.

It might not be a porch, but if there's an area where you can see across the street.

And just having access to the park, even if that means going down to the sidewalk

and crossing the street and sitting in the park. People would be more apt to do that

with

direct access to William Street than to cut across the Walnut parking lot and

left and

hit Walnut and go down to the corner of William and Walnut, and make

head to Stephens-Lions Park. If you could go out the door of the building and go

right down to William Street and be directly across the street from the park, that to

me -- when I lived there -- and I saw that was often the difference for people as to

whether they engaged with that park at all -- it was could they get to it. And a lot of

people didn't like trying to go down the driveway, but they didn't want to go the

extra longer way out around Walnut so they sat on the porch and watched the park

from the porch. And you know there are some people who that would be what they

would just want to do anyway, but

initially went down to the park if they felt they could safely get down the driveway

and across the street. And going around, if you’re in manual chair pushing yourself

all the way around Walnut and then down to the corner, it’s longer hall around.

I think the people that I started to sit around

And, you know, that's sort of kind of what the purpose of that building and its

property is to me is access. It’s just sort of what it means in the most generalized,

idealized scope is access. And if that’s access to William Street and that little park

across the street, that’s to the betterment of the people who will live there, and

saw it. It was for me, and I saw it in other people who took advantage of the access

that they had and still have right now at the time, which is not safe. If you really

want to get out and you don’t want to be inside all the time, you’re willing to take

that chance of trying to go down the driveway.

TREECE: How long did you live there?

EBERT: Nine years.

TREECE: Wow. Do you know what the average length of stay is there? Is it

someone’s permanent home, is it transitional housing, is it --

EBERT: When I was there, there were people that were there when I moved in who

were still there when

moved out.

don't know how many of those people are

had had years of negative experience of

there, but for someone like myself,

several problematic tenants, and fighting with those tenants for years via going

through the old management, who turns out was friends with those tenants and

wasn't filing any of the complaints about them and such. I sort of hit my rope where

it was no longer a fun place to be. It was not -- my life wasn't better being there,

and that wasn’t from the facility standpoint. It was purely

have taken care of now.

problem, which they

TREECE: Right, and you’re still on the board obviously.

EBERT: Yes, and I’ve seen the difference in the place now versus -- and it feels

different to go in, just the tenant feeling -- the mood is a different thing than it was

when I was there, and it’s a better thing. I’m so hopeful for these people that have

signed on to go get displaced for a year and a half or a year whatever it would be

and come back -- that they’re coming back to

a new place that still has all the

benefits of that place's location, but all of the problematic tenant issues are gone

and a lot of security issues are also have been resolved. It’s a hopeful thing for what

these people are going to be returning to whenever the project is done, and that

makes me happy as someone who used to live there because

I know what it meant

for me, and I got the benefit out of it when it was in its really dilapidated state. So

for people that are going to be coming back into it as a new facility, I just think it’s

really going to be spectacular for those people.

TREECE: Thanks. Thanks for sharing your story.

EBERT: Thank you for letting me run long. I apologize.

TREECE: Any further comment? Anyone else from the public want to be heard?

Anything you want to clean up, Curtis?

GOBEN: The information here is not clearly shown via the lack of graphics, but it is

shown on the William side street. On this elevation if you look at the bottom right

corner, that would be the front porch seating area that would over look William

Street and the park across. That was actually just shown as

a rectangle on the plan

that you saw before, but that is indeed captured.

TREECE: Alright. Thanks. will close the public hearing. Any council discussion?

Anyone want to start us off? Dr. Peters.

PETERS: Sure, I’m happy to because I’ve

-- I drive by there pretty frequently, and I

would agree that circle drive on William Street is massively dangerous because it is

very steep. can't imagine going down there in wheelchair. Initially had thought

that they needed access from William Street just as like u-through, you know,

some kind of pass through especially for the Fire Department, but if the Fire

Department feels that they can do okay without that, then I’m alright with just that

Walnut Street entrance.

have. I’m sort of bummed to see all the trees that are going to have to come down

when they move the building north, but think the security will be improved with

I so think this sounds like an improvement over what they

all the parking in the middle and just, you know, more eyes on what's going on. So,

for me, I think this is an improvement, and I’m okay with it.

TREECE: Tim, can you clarify that Fire Department did review the shared parking lot

and access issue there?

TEDDY: Yeah,

a conversation with Chief Woody just last week -- we discussed it and

he brought his fire marshal into the discussion and said access approved.

TREECE: Alright. Thanks. Any further Council discussion. Ms. Fowler?

FOWLER: Can

take this opportunity and ask Mr. Teddy about the Benton Stephens

front porch on the north end of the side elevation

overlay? So, we’re looking at

that faces William Street. What other requirements of the Benton Stephens overlay

that are consistent with the UDC are in effect here?

TEDDY: Well, that are consistent with it?

It’s consistent with both. It’s consistent with the UDC and Benton Stephens on

height. That’s two-story building maximum requirement. Mr. Norgard mentioned

parking. The parking ratio we would use for this -- because it is facility for

I mean there's one that modifies height.

disabled persons, it would meet our parking standard. Haven't done top to bottom

review of the Benton Stephens overlay standards as part of this plat though so

things like open space ratio, we’d probably have to look at that separately.

FOWLER: Would you do that review when the --

TEDDY: Oh yeah. I mean they building plans in so -- yeah, that review does need to

be done, so if there are any deficiencies, that would have to be reported to the

applicant.

FOWLER: And they’ll have to take care of that as far as the open space or the green

space.

TEDDY: Yeah, they’ll have to take care of it.

THOMAS:

read the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes, and

understand

why that body kind of feels

very strong allegiance to the letter of the Code and

the need to uphold, you known, what it says, and what the most likely

interpretation of that is. But, I think we know that all of our codes are at some level

imperfect. And we’ve already had one unanimous vote tonight to grant

a waiver on

the length of cul-de-sacs and so on, in response to another -- to an adjustment that

the developer offered. So, it’s very clear to me that the best outcome is the one

that’s being proposed with the less steep access to Walnut Street, and the

applicants have gone an extra step and designed

William as well as the porch being there so this seems like a very good request.

PITZER: Yeah, so the improvements -- mean it sounds like these have been since

less deep access down to

the Planning and Zoning vote. Correct? The porch, the additional --

THOMAS: [inaudible] Yeah.

PITZER: And then there's the issue of the permanent easement -- access easement

- to Walnut.

THOMAS: Oh yeah, so there has to be like a legal document for that.

PITZER: Right,

mean

think all these things are improvements over what

and

looked at. Are they reflected in what we’re voting on here, or is that

separate

process or review of the building plans? That's kind of my question. Is there

anything legally binding in what we approve here?

TEDDY:

adjustment based on the presentation.

have that second access. They’ll have the front porch. The front porch,

was represented as part of the building. However, it didn't have any kind of

walkway system. There was short driveway one of the speakers mentioned

coming off of William, and that would just be a place for someone to transition to a

vehicle. But other than that, believe that porch was on there. They’re going

strengthen the internal linkage to it. was basically accessed through, think they

described it as maintenance space, and that’s what we saw in the floor plan as

well. They’ve indicated to us that they’re going to change that. So think they’re

think we’re saying to them that you really should recommend the design

mean they’ve represented that they’ll

believe,

good for that change. You know, I will expect to see it as part of the building plans

going forward.

TREECE: I’m a little torn. I mean I think it’s close the -- and what concerns me is over

riding

a 0-8 vote of Planning and Zoning. If this was not a disability, for lack of a

better term, group home, would we allow -- if this was students, would we allow

going through someone else's parking lot to get to their parking lot, and only

entering the unit from the parking lot.

I think the front porch ameliorates some of

that, but the porch is so small. Given Mark's comments to us, I think what is going to

end up happening here is people are going to sit in their rooms and look out the

window, and they’re not going to have that sense of community on the front porch.

don't know if that could be approved at all. I do like having the connectivity with

the park with some more permeability or some more outdoor space there, you

know. I agree with everything here. I think it’s really close. I wish you all could buy

the yellow house and do what you want to do there. So I’ll probably end up going

with the majority.

THOMAS: Do we need to take any action regarding the access across the other lot?

THOMPSON: No, once -- if you grant the design adjustment, then the next step is to

ensure that they have adequate documentation in place to make that happen. If

they don't do -- if they don’t get adequate documentation that’s approved by my

office, then that can’t happen

THOMAS: Got it.

THOMPSON: So in essence, it could prevent that from going forward even if you

approve the design adjustment because we to approve the alternative access and

appropriate covenants across one property to get to the other.

THOMAS: But that would be initiated the applicants?

THOMPSON: Yes, in working with my office in order to make sure that language is

okay.

TREECE: Any further discussion? Any inquiries? Council Member Waner?

WANER: And just to clarify, the 8-0 or 0-8 -- the denial from Planning and Zoning

about the adjustments -- there was additional discussion and

site plan as a result of that meeting, correct?

redrawing of the

PETERS: I think they did the walkway. You know, the zigzag walkway. I don’t know if

they did anything else.

WANER: So Planning and Zoning did not vote on that particular piece.

TREECE: Is that right, Curtis?

GOBEN: Yes.

TREECE: And you added the front porch and serpentine path.

GOBEN: Yeah, [inaudible] the front porch on either corner of that end and

presented both, but as far as the -- showing the actual, on paper, the two new

routes of how that will meet accessible, no we did not, and they did not have that

at that time.

WANER: Got it. So, that came as

result of that discussion during Planning and

Zoning.

GOBEN: Correct.

WANER: So maybe their vote might have been differently had that been there.

TREECE: Curtis, is the topography -- assume that east side elevation there that

we’re looking at now -- is that all flat? I mean have you thought about adding -- not

to micromanage this too much -- but have you thought about adding some

additional columns on those other peaks and extending that front porch the length

of that?

GOBEN: We can make the front porch larger. I mean -- it’s not -- Ken, can help speak

to that -- but, I mean, yes. You can make that gable larger and it’s a matter of adding

some columns.

TREECE: Make it look some more residential, front-facing on that streetscape so it’s

little more -- not all those windows need to be doors obviously.

I appreciate what

you’re trying to do with security access there, but --

PETERS: It would be nicer if there was length to that porch so people could sit out

there. More than two people crammed together on one corner.

NEURNBERGER: Can I speak a second?

TREECE: Sure, Ken.

NEURNBERGER: We did not do nearly -- we weren't aware how the presentation

should have been done for the Planning and Zoning so Curtis wasn't there. It was

sort of -- not nearly as succinct as this was. We wanted to make sure [inaudible] so

one of the things about the P and Z -- trying to figure out what they could do and

not do became confusing a little bit for all of us, and I was there. And, we have in

fact -- I think it wasn’t clear that we had planned in a porch. I think the idea of the

porch -- we can -- we’ll work to expand the porch. That’s never been

frankly. We heard that they wanted the porch and the access --we wanted to figure

out how to do it. We couldn't do all the grade standing at platform like this

a problem

figuring out how many feet it was exactly from that corner. So that’s why -- so there

is new information, and I think it is helpful. Had we done it like this, it might have

been

different result, because

didn't find much negative

you know, intense

negative. It was more about -- gee we don't want to go over this zoning district this

way -- and even mentioned the architect looked [inaudible]. He wasn't there to

explain all the things that you heard tonight either -- all the options that we had

gone through prior to even meeting with the neighborhood and figuring how to do

it. Thank you for that.

PITZER: Seems like this plan is improving throughout the process and it continues to

improve tonight even as we sit here.

I agree -- you known I have a little bit of

concern about overriding a 0-8 vote. I mean is it worth having P and Z take a look at

it again and -- with all of the new information that we have.

TREECE: That's up to you. Do we have

approving the plat?

natural gap anyway with respect to

THOMPSON: This is - you’re talking about a gap as far as it coming back?

TREECE: Is the plat in front of us reflective of the current iteration? Does that make

sense?

THOMPSON: You are going to have to answer that.

TEDDY: [Inaudible]

THOMPSON: Right, so you’re granting -- on the plat, you’re granting the design

adjustment.

TREECE: Got it.

THOMPSON: Not necessarily --

TREECE: Not necessarily their renderings.

THOMPSON: Correct. You’re not approving the renderings because --

will tell you

this, all of the renderings are little bit inconsistent at this point in time. That’s

going to have to really be managed as it comes through planning -

TREECE: As building codes.

THOMPSON: Building permits.

TREECE: If you want to make that motion, Mr. Pitzer. It’s certainly in order.

know that given where we are at if it is necessary, but --

I don't

PETERS: It just seems like it’s just an extra step. Somewhat of an unnecessary step,

although agree with everything you said regarding -- don't like to overrule

planning and zoning, but I don't know that they want to see this again either.

THOMAS: I’m not sure they’ll change their minds actually. mean I think it was a

very principled vote. From my reading of the script, there was a lot of sympathy and

desire to find a way to help the applicant. I kind of felt they felt they had to vote it

down so I probably would oppose the motion to send it back.

B315-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: WANER, THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER.

VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: SKALA. Bill declared enacted, reading as

follows:

B316-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: WANER, THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER.

VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: SKALA. Bill declared enacted, reading as

follows:

B322-21

Authorizing a cooperative agreement with the State of Washington, on

behalf of its Department of Enterprise Services, for the purchase of transit

buses.

The bill was given second reading by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

Acting Public Works Director Shane Creech provided a staff report.

CREECH:

This is an agreement requested by the State of Washington in order to use

their transit bus purchase contract. This will save the City approximately $20,000 to

$30,000 per bus. The City does this frequently with the State of Missouri and has

done the same with other states when deemed beneficial. Following execution of

the agreement, staff will purchase three 35-foot CNG buses. It will take up to one

year for the buses to be produced and delivered. Councilman Thomas asked earlier

today about the lifetime costs associated with CNG buses versus electric buses.

electric bus currently costs approximately $750,000 while CNG bus runs just over

$500,000. The City currently has four electric buses, and we've had them for about

one year. Each of those buses has one-year warranty. To date the electric buses

have performed well with low maintenance costs and significantly better fuel

efficiency. However, it's my understanding that the city had really bad experience

with first generation electric buses and would like the additional time with these

electric buses before adding additional ones to the fleet to gauge long-term

reliability.

Currently, the City has four electric, three CNG, and 14 diesel buses. The

three CNG buses purchased under this contract will replace three of the existing

diesel buses. Happy to attempt to answer any question.

THOMAS: Yeah, so -- am

correct in understanding that if this proposal was

changed, and you purchased three electric buses to replace the three diesel buses,

they'd be, you know, a significant cost increase to the city to do that, at least at the

time of purchase?

CREECH: Purchase price wise, you can buy three CNG for the price of two electric

buses, apparently.

THOMAS: But you also said that the maintenance and fuel costs, certainly the fuel

costs for the electric buses are very low, and that's that brilliant rechargeable

battery business -- when the bus is continually accelerating and decelerating and it

just keeps pushing the energy back and forth. It's a beautiful piece of physics. John?

GLASCOCK: That's if they work.

THOMAS: That’s if they work, yeah.

GLASCOCK: So, we had

a very bad experience with electric buses the first time and

we sent four of them back, and many cities sent those back as well, not just us. So,

we would like to really try them out first before we start investing heavily in them.

We'd love to invest in electric, but they just -- we just haven't had

experience.

good

THOMAS: But you got four more a year ago.

GLASCOCK: I believe it's -- three or four?

CREECH: We have four right now.

GLASCOCK: Different brand.

THOMAS: And things are going okay, so far?

GLASCOCK: So far.

THOMAS: Yeah.

GLASCOCK: But so were the others for a year.

THOMAS: I see, it was after a year that we started seeing problems.

GLASCOCK: Yeah,

used them.

I mean, we had two of them down for two years solid -- never

THOMAS: And wasn't it partly about availability of parts?

GLASCOCK: Well, no. And we didn’t mechanic wise and, you known, that stuff. We

had one catch fire, you know, from the brake-drum. So, mean, we really want to

test these out. We've had really good luck with the CNG since 2007. We also own

the CNG station in town, and so you know, we've had good reliability in that --

trying to get rid of the diesels.

THOMAS: Now, we do have

a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan looking to reduce

city emissions, think by 50 percent by 2035, which is the time period that these

buses will be operating.

GLASCOCK. And this does help with that. I mean it's less than diesel.

THOMAS: So CNG is an improvement over diesel for sure, yeah. We did discuss a,

quite recently, some kind of

a new entry on the council memos to say what the

climate impact -- has that been approved? Are we definitely doing that?

GLASCOCK: I don't think Eric's come up with it yet -- of what he wants to measure.

THOMAS: Okay, because that would be helpful here. Great. Well, that's all the

questions that I have right now. Thanks, Shane.

TREECE: Any further questions? Mr. Pitzer?

PITZER: Is this an agreement to buy

agreement to work with the State of Washington if we choose to buy buses.

CREECH: Just cooperative agreement with the State of Washington in order to use

their better deal on buses.

certain number of buses or is this an

PITZER: Okay, so there's no requirement that we actually do anything. Okay. Thanks

GLASCOCK: And it helps us get in line to get a bus.

TREECE:

I’ll open the public comment.

Would anyone like public desire to be heard

on B322-21.

AMPARAN:

Good evening, again, Carolyn Amparan, speaking on behalf of the

appreciate

Sierra Club Osage Group and its Columbia members and supporters.

you took this off the consent agenda so it could be discussed, and we would like to

ask the Council to stop buying compressed natural gas buses. It's important -- and

the other thing is, if you can't feel like doing that right now, it's really important

that whenever we look at buying new vehicles for the city, we always look at the

lifecycle cost of those vehicles. It was mentioned earlier in the staff report about

the upfront cost. According to research, those fuel costs and those maintenance

costs together add up to about

a savings of $400,000 over the life cycle, comparing a

CNG bus to less expensive electric ongoing operations costs. So you can see that it's

really important not just to look at those upfront costs. Additionally, we would like

to ask that all lifecycle analysis for costs include the social costs, not only of the

impact of the greenhouse gas emissions, but also the impact of the air pollution

because CNG buses also produce more nitrous oxides and particulate matter than

electric buses.

understand the comment about, you know, that they've only had

the new buses for about a year, but a lot of cities are investing in these buses and a

lot of school districts are investing in these buses for their school bus

transportation. So,

think with probably some research, we could find some

communities that have had the buses we are interested in buying for more than

year and find out what their maintenance and operating performance has been. So,

we would really like to ask the Council not to approve these buses. As Ian pointed

out, these buses are going to have

a service life of at least 12 years, and that will

take us up to the first deadline for the municipal operations cut of 50 percent that's

due by 2035. And right now, there are really no specific plans for the City of

Columbia and how we're going to get there, so every single one of these decisions

begins to be important. The other thing I wanted to point out is that there are a lot

of government funding programs that are helping municipalities buy electric buses.

There's been

administration is all in on this conversion, so

there would be funding to help pay for electric buses, but not CNG buses. And it's

also important that we stopped buying fossil fuel infrastructure to send message

variety of state programs, there's federal programs -- the Biden

think that we could anticipate that

not only to the public that we're committed to our Climate Action and Adaptation

Plan, but also to city staff. Thank you for your time.

TREECE: Thank you. Any further public comments? Mark, good evening.

HAIM: Good eveing, my name is Mark Haim.

I live at 1402 Richardson Street and I'm

here speaking on behalf of the members of Mid-Missouri Peaceworks. I'll keep this

very brief. Everything Carolyn said we agree with. Beyond that, when the

compressed natural gas facility was being debated several years back, we said that

this was not

very good idea because whenever you invest in fossil fuel

infrastructure, you intend to use it for an extended period of time. So it's not just

the immediate impacts but the overtime impacts that you look at, and when it

comes to greenhouse

gases,

compressed

natural

gas

not

much

improvement over diesel as some people think it is because of the fugitive

methane issue, and that is something to keep in mind. We should be phasing out

our compressed natural gas facility rather than buying new equipment that's going

to need to use that facility. And, it really is

a thing. If we're serious about meeting

the goals of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, we've got to take action now

that will impact the future and get us to those goals in a timely way. I'll leave it at

that. Thank you.

TREECE: Any further public comment? Mr. Creech, do you know if the Washington

State cooperative agreement only applies to CNG buses or does it apply to electric

buses too?

CREECH: I am not sure on that. I could check and get back to you though.

TREECE: Thanks, it may not be necessary. Any further public comment? I'll close

public hearing any Council discussion? Mr. Thomas?

THOMAS: I got a question for staff just to clarify then. So, this bill tonight is simply

to sign an agreement to position ourselves to purchase some vehicles at

a particular

price, and if staff wanted to go ahead and actually purchase those vehicles, that

would come back as another bill? Or not?

TREECE: The council memo says staff will proceed with procurement of the buses

once the bus cooperative agreement has been executed.

CREECH: Using

a grant that was previously approved by Council. But we need this

cooperative agreement in order to use the State of Washington's costs. So we'd be

able to move forward if approved.

THOMAS: Okay, and when the Council approved the -- was it the acceptance of the

grant that we approved? Was -- is that with the explicit understanding of what kind

of buses these would be or is it for any public transit vehicles that we should

choose?

CREECH: We received

federal grant and council authorized appropriation of those

funds at the September 7 meeting.

THOMAS: But with no particular specified purpose. Okay, great. Thank you.

TREECE: My sense was that grant was to replace diesel buses. We didn't say with

what.

THOMAS: Right.

FOWLER:

I see Mr. Glascock nodding his head -- so we could use that grant to

replace diesel buses with electric buses.

GLASCOCK: If Washington State has an electric bus contract that we can get on.

FOWLER: That’s part of their --

GLASCOCK: And, you’d get two not one, or three, I mean.

THOMAS: Or we could not even go through Washington State. Presumably, we

could buy electric buses through some other --

GLASCOCK: Probably not as quick as they can. Because we,

that many buses. They buy lots.

I mean, we don't buy

PETERS: Do we need new busses?

GLASCOCK: How many diesels do we have?

CREECH: About 14.

GLASCOCK: Fourteen, yeah, we need busses because those diesels are at the end of

their life and some of them are past their life.

THOMAS: We only run six bus routes now, with one bus on each.

GLASCOCK: We still need buses,

quite often. And we have --

mean they're down. The diesel ones are down

think 25 percent spare ratio is what we try to run,

somewhere around there -- 15 to 25 percent.

PETERS: If the City quit supplying -- if we got out of the natural gas business, which I

know at the moment we're not planning to do, how would we fuel these buses.

GLASCOCK:

Well, that station is going to stay there probably. Clean Energy was our

partner and they’ll probably operate it long after if we get out of it.

PETERS: Okay.

TREECE: Any further discussion?

GLASCOCK: They have them all over states so.

TREECE: I’m probably not inclined to support this if it means we're buying CNG

buses.

THOMAS: I'm the same.

TREECE: I’m inclined to support it if it gives us a better price on all of the above, and

we come back with what those all of the above options are.

THOMAS: So we get to vote again on any choice of a particular type of vehicle.

TREECE: Well and assuming if four council members say that.

I mean, it's -- I can't

imagine Washington State transit bus cooperative agreement is solely limited to

CNG buses, but the memo suggests that if we approve this, they're going to pull the

trigger on

a purchase order and they're going to make two buses that we're then

going to buy after we've already ordered them.

THOMAS: It’s just all going to happen one step after another.

TREECE: Welcome to divining the will of the Council Mr. Creech.

PITZER:

So I'd want to understand just the financial implications. I mean, there was

$1.6 million dollar grant to buy those three buses, and then the City matches it

with like $200,000. So, you know, I'm not sure that we can afford $1.8 million. But

we're only putting up $200,000 here for these three buses according to the memo

from September 7. So, if we don't do this, do we lose that $1.6 million and -- or, you

know, are their strings attached that -- it could only be used for the CNG buses, for

example, and then we have no buses.

TREECE: I'm willing to learn more about that. I just --

PITZER: So, do you want to defeat this or you want to learn more?

TREECE: I'm inclined to pass this as long as staff comes back with the choices of

here's what we can -- after further review -- we can do this on the electric side or

this on the CNG side. My sense is that grant was to replace three diesel buses,

which we would be doing anyway. It’s just with what. And if the technology isn't

there yet on the electric side, I'm okay with that too, because

better than diesel, electric maybe better than CNG.

I do think CNG is

PETERS: So would we be better off, like, tabling this and asking the staff to come

back with more information.

TREECE: Fine with me.

THOMAS: Maybe rather than amending it.

PETERS:

I don't want to amend it because I don't know. I mean, I sort of feel like

we're getting in the weeds.

TREECE: I agree.

FOWLER: So, but what's the timetable on the grant? I'm looking at Mr. Creech about

this. So if we table this or we ask for a different bill to come back, where does that

put us in relation to being able to receive that grant and use that grant?

CREECH: I'm not aware of any issues with timing of the grant. It's more when we get

the agreement with Washington approved and then issue

purchase order, it's

The thing I’d add

about a year before the buses are received. That's the biggest lag.

is, by cost, we’d only be able to replace two buses whereas we're looking to get

three here.

FOWLER: Yeah, we understand that.

GLASCOCK: Mayor?

TREECE: Yes, Mr. Glascock.

GLASCOCK: So what I'm hearing is, and what I would tell you to direct me to do, is

pass this with the understanding that we're going to bring back to you

the cost of State -- Washington State, and I'm going to bring back a diesel cost, I'm

going to bring CNG cost, and electric costs. How’s that? And, whether the grant is

a report on

available for all of them.

TREECE: Yep, and if we have transit funds to supplement the difference.

B322-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: WANER, THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER.

VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: SKALA. Bill declared enacted, reading as

follows:

VII. CONSENT AGENDA

The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were

read by City Clerk Sheela Amin.

B317-21

B318-21

B319-21

B320-21

Rezoning property located on the south side of Vandiver Drive and east of

Centerstate Drive from District PD (Planned Development) to District M-C

(Mixed-use Corridor) (Case No. 255-2021).

Granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to University Centre, LLC

to allow for the construction of a free-standing drive-up ATM facility on

property located at 111 S. Providence Road (Case No. 234-2021).

Vacating a utility easement on Lots 1 and 2 within the plat of MPC Station

#94 located on the east side of Providence Road and north of Locust

Street (Case No. 159-2021).

Authorizing a right of use license permit with Wyndham Ridge Homes

Association for the construction, installation, maintenance and operation of

private neighborhood identification signs within portions of the Thornbrook

Terrace, Abbington Terrace and Leighton Drive rights-of-way.

B321-21

B323-21

Authorizing a right of use license permit with Midwest Petroleum Company

for the installation, maintenance and operation of a 12-foot driving lane and

landscaping within a portion of the Providence Road right-of-way.

Authorizing construction of sanitary sewer rehabilitation project #8 in the

Parkade Boulevard, Lynnwood Drive and Albert-Oakland Park areas;

calling for bids through the Purchasing Division or authoring a contract for

the work using a term and supply contractor.

B324-21

B325-21

Authorizing an intergovernmental cooperative agreement with Boone

County, Missouri and The Curators of the University of Missouri for a

chemical analysis sampling project as it relates to the Hinkson Creek

collaborative adaptive management (CAM) implementation process.

Authorizing an agreement for study services with Midcontinent Independent

System Operator, Inc. to provide an estimate of cost to allow the

interconnection of the Boone Stephens solar facility with the City’s

electrical system at the Bolstad Substation.

B326-21

B327-21

B328-21

Authorizing an amendment and renewal of an intergovernmental user

agreement with St. Louis County, Missouri relating to a prescription drug

monitoring program.

Authorizing a contract with the Missouri Department of Elementary and

Secondary Education for the Healthy Families Missouri Home Visiting

program.

Authorizing a memorandum of understanding with Office of State Courts

Administrator to establish guidelines for participation in the debt collection

and tax offset programs.

R160-21

Setting a public hearing: proposed reconstruction of the pavement, curb,

gutter, sidewalk and driveway approaches along Walnut Street between

College Avenue and Old Highway 63 North.

R161-21

R162-21

R163-21

R164-21

R165-21

Setting a public hearing: proposed construction of a sidewalk on the west

side of Audubon Drive between Azalea Drive and Shepard Boulevard.

Setting a public hearing: proposed construction of the south parking lot

expansion project at the Columbia Regional Airport.

Authorizing an agreement with Enterprise Leasing Company of STL, LLC

for the lease of a car wash facility at the Columbia Regional Airport.

Authorizing a cooking matters satellite partnership agreement with

Operation Food Search, Inc.

Authorizing an agreement for professional services with Trekk Design

Group, LLC for surveying services associated with the Stewart Road,

Edgewood Avenue and Westmount Avenue Private Common Collector

Elimination (PCCE #30) project.

R166-21

R167-21

Authorizing Amendment II to the grant award agreement with The Missouri

Foundation for Health and Columbia Center for Urban Agriculture to

supplement the construction and programming costs associated with the

Clary-Shy Community Park - Agriculture Park.

Authorizing the use of a design/build process for construction of a bridge

as part of the Perche Creek Trail Phase I: MKT Trail to Gillespie Bridge

Road improvement project.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read by City Clerk Sheela

Amin with the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: WANER, THOMAS, PITZER,

PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER. VOTING NO: NO ONE. ABSENT: SKALA. Bills

declared enacted and resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

VIII. NEW BUSINESS

IX. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING

The following bills were introduced by Mayor Brian Treece unless otherwise

indicated, and all were given first reading.

B329-21

B330-21

B331-21

Voluntary annexation of property located on the south side of I-70 Drive

Southeast and west of St. Charles Road; establishing permanent District

M-C (Mixed-use Corridor) zoning (Case No. 271-2021).

Rezoning property located on the west side of John Garry Drive and north

of Cedar Lake Drive from District M-OF (Mixed-use Office) to District

R-MF (Multi-family Residential) (Case No. 256-2021).

Rezoning property located on the west side of Commercial Drive and

property located on the south side of Cedar Lake Drive from District M-N

(Mixed-use Neighborhood) to District M-C (Mixed-use Corridor) (Case No.

256-2021).

B332-21

Rezoning property located on the east and west sides of Executive Drive,

the east side of John Garry Drive, and the south side of Southampton Drive

from District M-OF (Mixed-use Office) and District PD (Planned District) to

District M-N (Mixed-use Neighborhood) (Case No. 256-2021).

B333-21

B334-21

Rezoning property located on the south side of Southampton Drive and

west of Executive Drive from District M-OF (Mixed-use Office) to District

M-N (Mixed-use Neighborhood) (Case No. 256-2021).

Granting design adjustments relating to the proposed Arbor Falls PD Plan

No. 4 located on the south side of Pergola Drive and west of Talco Drive to

allow a longer cul-de-sac length, a longer block distance, and private

residential streets to deviate from required design specifications,

right-of-way dedication and street widths (Case No. 140-2021).

B335-21

B336-21

B337-21

B338-21

Approving “Arbor Falls PD Plan No. 4” located on the south side of Pergola

Drive and west of Talco Drive; approving a revised statement of intent

(Case No. 140-2021).

Granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to White Oak Investment

Properties, LLC to allow a “bar” use on property located at 504 Fay Street

in an IG (Industrial) zoning district (Case No. 274-2021).

Authorizing construction of Fire Station #11 to be located north of the

intersection of Scott Boulevard and State Route K; calling for bids through

the Purchasing Division.

Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the agreement for professional

engineering services with Allstate Consultants, LLC for additional materials

testing services during construction of the Discovery Parkway extension

project.

B339-21

Authorizing 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; calling for bids

through the Purchasing Division.

B340-21

B341-21

Authorizing the acquisition of an easement for construction of the

Lakeshore Drive and Edgewood Avenue PCCE #23 sanitary sewer

improvement project.

Authorizing an agreement with SuperSonic Transportation, LLC for the

reimbursement of eligible project costs under the Missouri Department of

Natural Resources Air Pollution Control Program Volkswagen Trust

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Program for the construction of a

Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC) station on Creekwood Parkway.

B342-21

B343-21

B344-21

Accepting conveyances for temporary construction and sewer purposes;

accepting Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Covenants.

Accepting conveyances for electric utility and underground electric utility

purposes.

Authorizing a first amendment to tower co-location agreement and

memorandum of first amendment to tower co-location agreement with

Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, for the lease of City-owned

property located at 1808 Parkside Drive (Solid Waste Utility - Storage and

Mulch Site).

B345-21

Authorizing a program services contract with the Missouri Department of

Health and Senior Services for WIC local agency nutrition services.

B346-21

B347-21

B348-21

Authorizing Amendment No. 1 to the program services contract with the

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for the COVID-19 and

Adult Vaccination Supplemental project.

Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the program services contract with the

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for public health

emergency preparedness services.

Authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the program services contract with the

Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services for HIV prevention

services.

B349-21

B350-21

Authorizing an agreement with Columbia School District No. 93 for teen

outreach program services.

Amending Chapter 27 of the City Code to establish an electric standby and

supplemental service rate for industrial customers.

X. REPORTS

REP75-21

Request for an amendment to the ordinance related to the Columbia

Sports Commission and the appointment of hotel or motel members.

Convention and Visitors Bureau Director Amy Schneider provided a staff

report.

SCHNEIDER:

just wanted to ask that the Council consider asking -- allowing us to

change to the ordinance. There's been lot of residency

bring this back as

changes within our hoteliers in the past year. We have some hoteliers that could

have applied for this, but they live in the county instead of the city. All hotels in the

city -- all hotels are in the city limits that collect the five percent lodging tax that

funds our department. So, we feel that because the hotels are inside the city limits

that it would be okay to have the hoteliers in the county.

TREECE: And they're on the commission by virtue of their employment of the hotel.

SCHNEIDER: Correct.

TREECE: Any objection?

PETERS: That sounds reasonable to me.

TREECE: Seems reasonable. If you can put on the Consent Agenda, that'd be great.

REP76-21

Request from the Building Construction Codes Commission to review the

2021 International Codes.

The Council asked questions of Community Development Director Tim

Teddy and discussed the report.

TREECE:

operating on 2018 construction, 2017 electrical.

concern would have is, are there other energy and environment related changes

So, this seems to be

perennial debate to update. Sounds like we're

didn't go through here. The only

that you need Council's direction to reconcile with those two Commission's --

climate action adaptation committee before they come back to us?

TEDDY: No,

or board discussion, and there is

constituency. So, yeah, so they'll give the energy code as well as all the other

think the expectation is that we'll have that kind of inter-commission

member also of the BCCC who represents that

volumes in the model code of

that they want to make.

going over and discussing any local amendments

TREECE: Mr. Shanker, anything you want to add to that?

SHANKER: [Inaudible.]

TREECE: Any objection to ask building construction codes to reconcile those

international codes. Ms. Fowler?

FOWLER: Yes,

wanted to add something to the conversation, and

know we do

a member of

have member of the Historic Preservation Commission who's also

the Building Commission, the Building Construction Codes Commission. But there's

been conversation at the Historic Preservation Commission and from various

members of the public that there is a portion of a code that the city has not adopted

or not reviewed that would encourage the restoration of existing structures as

opposed to the construction of new structures. Do you know what they are

referring to when they say that?

TEDDY: Well, there's

model, Existing Buildings Code, that's part of the international codes commission

family of codes. So that could be it. Years ago, that was handled in particular

separate volume. So that's

a separate volume called the Existing Buildings Code. There's a

chapter of International Building Code, but now it's

one.

FOWLER: And has the city incorporated that into its review when it has these

periodic every three year, every four year reviews.

TEDDY: Yeah,

thought we had adopted all of them in some form with

amendments. So, and I believe it was a separate code in 2018. So, I’ll have to look at

-- look and see if that's actually in the approving ordinance.

FOWLER: Can we add to this?

TEDDY:

I think we use them all. I mean, we use the Property Maintenance Code,

that's one of them -- slender volume that one. But the fire code, electrical.

FOWLER: So in my conversation earlier today with the City Manager,

I was talking

with him about whether or not, as part of this process, we look at the ways in which

we encourage versus discourage the restoration of existing structures, particularly

historic structures, which by our definition is more than 50 years old. And that

should ask specifically, that we ask that this review that is about to be undertaken

include a review that looks at that.

TEDDY: Yeah, in other words, what code adaptations are specific to the needs of

existing buildings, buildings that might have been built before there was any

building code - that sort of thing.

FOWLER: The overall goal being that we're not in an environment where the only

choice that people have is to take down a structure with a historic facade that adds

to the character of our community. So, Mayor, how would I include that in?

TREECE: I think all we're doing is asking -- well, so in the past, we've asked Building

Construction Codes to interface with Energy and Environment.

ask them to interface with Historic Preservation Commission to see if there are --

mean, we went through this when I was on that HPC with exposed brick walls, open

stairwells creating chimney, mean, other areas where that building and building

code may conflict with adaptive reuse. So, don't know that we need to adopt

I think we could also

separate code. It'd be nice if maybe there are some key takeaways from that that

HPC might help inform Building Construction Codes opinion.

FOWLER: Or that the Building Construction Codes could inform --

mean, it's

mutual -- to everyone's mutual benefit. Yeah,

cooperative endeavor that looks at it from that perspective.

would like for us to have

Mayor Treece made a motion directing the Building Construction Codes

Commission to review the 2021 International Codes in liaison with the

Climate and Environment Commission and the Historic Preservation

Commission. The motion was seconded by Council Member Fowler.

Mayor Treece asked if there was any objection, and no one objected.

REP77-21

Early resubmittal of permanent zoning involving 2550 and 2700 E. Gans

Road.

Community Development Director Tim Teddy provided a staff report.

TEDDY: Yeah, this is called early submittal of permanent zoning, and there's

provision in our Chapter 29, Unified Development Code, and it's actually been in

Chapter 29 for many years. found the same language as in our 2004 zoning

ordinance so it wasn't feature that was added with the UDC amendments. But it

basically says that an applicant for rezoning cannot submit an application within

one year of the same or substantially the same application for zoning if that request

was recommended for denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission and then

withdrawn, which is the case we have here, or denied by Council -- and,

flipped the language that says denied by Council or withdrawn after

think

negative

recommendation by the

P and Z, but that's the idea. And so this applicant would

like to proceed earlier than the anniversary date of the application that was

recommended for denial by the P and Z and then later withdrawn.

TREECE: And, so that anniversary date is what?

TEDDY: It's February 8 -- that’s when they filed it.

TREECE: So, of February 8 of 2022. If we granted this waiver, we're already in the

second meeting of October -- we're basically talking about November, December,

January -- three months advantage. Any discussion on the report?

PETERS: I'm not in favor of going for,

February. I don't think we need to do this early.

I mean, I would -- I'd let the wait until

FOWLER:

the time that they submitted or this matter was voted on?

than that that it went to P and Z. How do we -- how does the clock start ticking?

just had

question about how we calculated the one year. So it's from

thought it was later

TEDDY: It most certainly did go to

February 8 of this year so --

P and Z later, but the application was submitted

FOWLER: And so that's what controls --

TEDDY: The way I read that paragraph.

FOWLER: -- when the clock starts ticking?

TEDDY: Yeah, it says it can't be the same or substantially the same as an application

that was submitted within a year of -- and then the event is -- the event is denial

and withdrawal or -- because then -- if it's not that, then is it the date of the

meeting, is it the date the withdrawal. You know, it’s that kind of ambiguity.

FOWLER: I understand. Thank you for clarifying.

TREECE: So, I'm trying to reconcile Mr. Crockett’s letter or request with Robin

Rotman’s

thoughtful

analysis

during

scheduled

public

comment.

they

resubmitted -- what’s councils attitude if -- and so, Mr. Crockett makes the -- so the

ordinance says substantially similar zoning. He says what it really means is

substantially similar development and this is not substantially similar. If, without

coming down one side or the other on that, if they came back with a PD, that would

different zoning. Would we have

a different attitude about that in terms of its

definition? Maybe. And,

wasn't at the last meeting where you all talked about

administrative delay and where we're at on that.

potential for growth and transportation improvements.

mean, we're -- this area has

don't know the best way.

don't want to stick my head in the sand with respect to everything that could

happen here. But we ought to be thoughtful as to how we're contemplating stuff on

the other side of the city limits as well, so I'll just make that comment.

PITZER:

haven't weighed in on this specific issue.

but it was withdrawn before we took any action. So, I'm not sure exactly what that

means other than there's, think, still some uncertainty on where this Council

wants to go on this project and then what you’re saying as well. And don’t know

exactly how to handle that. You’re right it’s -- you know, we're talking about few

agree with that.

think one of the interesting things here is that we

mean there's been lot of discussion,

months at this point. I mean it does look like what was proposed is fairly different. I

mean it looked like they were responsive to some of the concerns they heard and

came up with -- almost completely redrew the portion of the site that was most in

question. So, I would throw that out there. And I'm not sure what’s best to do here.

It’s kind of a complicated situation, but I'll just -- but I do just find it striking that we

haven't weighed in on this yet.

TREECE: And

don't know that the applicant should necessarily be disadvantaged

could see not granting the

public hearing. We’ve had lot of

because they chose to withdraw. Had we denied it,

waiver. At this point, we haven't even had

public comment, but no public hearing.

PETERS:

Well, the other thing is that we have talked a little bit about doing a south

know I've talked to the County again about that. don't know that

area plan.

Ashland’s interested. I'm not sure where we're going to get with any of that, but

think we do need to have a better plan than just waiting for whoever shows up that

wants to develop this. mean unless our decision is we're willing to develop all the

way up to the edge of, you know, Rock Bridge Park or whatever, but don't think

we've come to that decision either. So think it would be helpful if we could get

some weigh in on where we ought to go. Right now this is in the County. It's not

even in the City. It’s sort of messy.

FOWLER: As far as proceeding this evening, it would be my preference that we deny

the request for

a waiver and that we move forward in forming a body to start

looking at the conservation overlay that -- as requested by the community, given

the sensitivity of the wild area as an irreplaceable asset to the State of Missouri and

to us, living proximate to it in Boone County.

Council Member Fowler made a motion to deny the request for a waiver

and to move forward in forming a body to start looking at a conservation

overly. The motion was seconded by Council Member Waner.

TREECE: Any discussion?

PETERS: Fine with me.

TREECE:

So again, in terms of process,

don’t know how the City Council

contemplates an overlay for land that’s not in the city limits.

PETERS:

help.

That’s really more of the County job, but I think the County would like our

We have a meeting with the County coming up at the second work session

TREECE:

in November. I, you know,

feel more strongly about the potential roadway

improvement on Gans road and how that eventually connects to South Providence,

and what that means for development on both sides. And right now, city limits just

go to the north side of that. I've long believed we can't stop planning in the center

of the road because if we -- the unintended consequence, and Mr. Pitzer,

I thought

your point on this was well taken -- it's going to develop under County standards

and then when it does come into the City, it's not something that meets our

expectations or our community's expectations. So, I'm not opposed to the planning

process.

I just think we ought to be well aware of all the potential impacts there,

not the least of which is a NCAA national cross country meet there in 2025 and that

landscape could look a lot different then. So, I don't know how to proceed with that

process without a lot of stakeholders at the table.

PETERS: Is this something we could discuss with the county at the second meeting?

I don't know what else might be on the agenda for that meeting.

TREECE: I just think it may be the first opportunity we have to visit with them.

PETERS: Well, and maybe in discussion with them, we can decide if we can get

something together jointly to look at this as

a city and a county issue. Realizing our

reduced [inaudible] in the middle of the road at the moment, and we might want to

address that.

TREECE: Yeah, and I'm not sure we can impose a conservation overlay on anything.

PETERS: No, but we can work with them to come up with something that works for

all the citizens and the County and the City, hopefully.

THOMAS:

I think we can create the conservation overlay for an area on a map that

would be triggered if it comes into the City. I think that's the purpose of the group

that's asking for that. We're not imposing it on the County. We're just saying that

under the conditions of which this land is annexed into the City, this applies.

FOWLER:

meeting.

PITZER:

would agree with that statement.

have

copy of it from the last

just think that -- to my point from the last meeting, that just encourages

that development to occur outside of the City, potentially, and in this specific case,

we're talking about relatively small portion of land. For instance, mean, the City

does come to the other side of the street. It is two parcels to the east with the park.

And so it's relatively narrow sliver of land, and the City’s not going to jump past

Rock Bridge State Park anytime in our lifetimes. So it's only -- in a sense it's natural

to plan for whatever is going to happen there. I'm just not sure that that is -- I’m not

sure that's going to get us where we want to be. Not sure what it is. But I'm not sure

that's that.

TREECE: Well not to be too prophetic here, but

moratorium on the billboards, and before the bill took effect on August 28, that

summer they built whole bunch of new billboards that got grandfathered in. And,

lesser developer would step up and do something that none of us

I remember when the State put a

you know,

want.

FOWLER: I'm not persuaded by this argument that it needs to come into the City so

we can manage that development. am former Boone County Planning and

Zoning Commissioner, and they have zoning they could build on now in the County

that would be much less dense and more protective of the wild area, which is

irreplaceable. So I've never -- that argument has never held much sway with me.

think we have in front of us an opportunity for planning process to engage with

the County. Gosh knows, we need to engage with the County on a lot of things right

now. And so, they probably have heard from our community, both Boone County

residents just over the line in the City and City residents about the importance of

this area. So let's pursue that with them when we have this work session with them

in November and let's let the applicant wait out their year.

TREECE: You’ve made a motion. You’ve seconded it. Your --

THOMAS: I support the motion.

TREECE: You support that. Everyone okay with that?

PITZER: What, talking about this in November and waiting for the year.

TREECE: Talking about a planning process in November.

THOMAS: Actually I’m not sure it matters. Don’t there have to be four votes to --

TREECE: Yeah, I don’t see four votes here for granting the waiver request.

THOMAS: And could that even be granted tonight based on an item on a report?

TREECE: I don’t know. I thought that was curious too -- why the request ended up as

a report.

THOMPSON: Yeah, that's actually the process. The process is to get Council’s

consent. All they need is Council’s consent, which can be done by motion.

TREECE: So Dr. Peters, you're kind of in the swing seat here. With respect to denying

the waiver and having some discussion on November 15 with the County on some

planning process, I assume you're okay with that.

PETERS: Yes, I’m okay with denying the waiver and discussing it in November. Yes.

TREECE: Okay. Very good.

The motion made by Council Member Fowler and seconded by Council

Member Waner to deny the request for a waiver and to move forward in

forming a body to start looking at a conservation overly was approved by

voice vote with Council Member Pitzer and Mayor Treece voting no.

REP78-21

Request of the Climate and Environment Commission to explore options to

increase the accessibility of Home Energy Scores.

Sustainability Manager Eric Hempel provided a staff report.

HEMPEL: The report that's attached to your memo tonight is from the Climate and

Environment

Commission,

and

describes

the

benefits

improving

public

accessibility for the Home Energy scores. This improved accessibility meets --

supports several Climate Action and Adaptation Plan actions as well as an existing

Columbia Water and Light incentive program. That Water and Light program, the

Home Performance with Energy Star Program, has been providing home energy

scores to participants since 2012. At that time, there was no platform to make those

home energy scores publicly available. Now, and since 2018, the green building

registry is

a web based map interface that allows Home Energy scores to be publicly

available. In the intervening years between 2012 and 2018, there were around 4,000

homes that received Home Energy scores. Those scores are not publicly available so

that reduces the potential value of the scores to current and prospective

homeowners, renters, and the real estate market. So the Climate and Environment

Commission report asks for Council support of city staff’s development and

implementation of opt-out policies and processes for existing and future home

energy scores on the green building registry, provided those processes and policies

are found to be consistent with federal and state law as determined by the city of

Columbia legal counsel.

FOWLER: So help me understand why we have to have opt-out at all because if you

have -- and I’m going to give you an example and tell me if this is -- if my analogy is

correct. So if I have a rental property and I have a rental certificate, the fact that I

have that certificate is public information.

HEMPEL: Correct.

FOWLER: So, the fact that my property may or may not have violations against it is

public information if

she’s nodding.

have

a rental certificate. Maybe -- I’m looking at Nancy and

THOMPSON: Correct.

I mean, all of this is public information so when he said that

it's not publicly available, it is publicly available, but it is not published on the City's

website. So it is all public information -- the home energy scores. It just isn't

published on the website. What they're asking you to authorize is program where

it's automatically published on the City's website as opposed to the current policy --

is -- someone has to opt in to have it on the City website. What they're asking is to

change that to an opt-out, so if someone did not want their information published

on the City's website regarding the home energy score that their home received,

then they would have that opportunity to opt out.

FOWLER: So my question is about why would we allow them to opt out if it's public

information -- and that we're going to bring it and make it easier for the

community?

I mean, why would we even have an opt-out feature? I like the idea. I

can't wait for you to put this up. In fact, I remember there was a period of time I

could look this stuff up even though there were some inaccuracies in it. So why do

we have to have an opt-out?

HEMPEL: You know, that's just the --

think it was the most publicly accommodating

case where homeowner, property

approach that we came up with. If there is

owner, did not want the results of their home energy score to be public, that that

would be an option.

FOWLER:

-- as

public policy matter, I'm troubled by that even though

understand the reasons why we're moving forward with it. Because if we're trying

to establish that we're serious about climate action, that we're serious about our

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, that we're serious about bringing these things

forward, then we should use every tool in our toolbox to get us closer to cutting our

greenhouse gas emissions by the appointed years in the schedule that's in the

Climate Action Plan, and this sounds like

a great tool in the toolbox and we should

just go forward with it without any opt-outs. That’s my opinion, but I'm in support

of what you want to do.

provision.

just wish we didn't even have to have an opt-out

GLASCOCK:

I would just say it's still public. You can still get it. It's just not on the

website. And so, you know, it's still public information, if that person doesn't want

to publish it -- their score -- I don't see a problem with that. I don't get -- because if I

want it, I can go down to City Hall and get it.

FOWLER: Maybe as part of that, if we're going to offer an opt-out, we could also

have instructions saying, here's how you get it, if you can't find it on the website.

Here's how you can also inquire of it.

GLASCOCK: Yep, I mean --

FOWLER: Okay, just give our public as much information as they can to determine

those things for themselves and make their decisions accordingly.

HEMPEL: Certainly, and that is the intent behind this.

FOWLER: I understand. I didn't mean to give you a hard time, Eric. I just think that --

this is a tool we need to be maximizing.

HEMPEL: I appreciate the discussion.

TREECE: Does the rest of Council agree?

PETERS: Fine.

REP79-21

Utilizing the Wabash Station as a warming center.

Acting Public Works Director Shane Creech and Public Health and Human

Services Assistant Director Scott Clardy provided a staff report.

CREECH: At the previous council meeting, there was discussion regarding the use of

Wabash Station as

a warming center and the possible desire to adjust the forecast

temperature used to determine the evenings the facility would be opened for use.

Last year, Wabash Station was open nine times using

below nine degrees. There were also concerns expressed regarding if increased use

of the facility would violate any Federal Transportation Administration

forecast temperature of

requirements. Staff reached out to FTA staff, and while they did not specifically

approve the use, they only require that it not interfere with normal transit

operations. Staff asks the Council provide direction on what forecast temperatures

should be used for the 2021-22 winter season.

CLARDY: Scott Clardy, Assistant Director of Public Health and Human Services.

Wanted to give you just a little bit of an idea of how this process works. When the

warming center is activated -- we go through

process where City Council is

notified, Community Relations is notified so the word is put out, Police Department

is notified so they can provide security. The warming center when it opens -- we've

been partnering with the -- let me get the name right -- the Columbia Housing, I’m

sorry, the Columbia Homeless Outreach Team

to actually open the center and

bring -- when people come in, their role is basically to make sure folks understand

what other warming centers may be available at that time and also to talk to them

about appropriate behavior while they're going to be there. What we have seen --

and they're usually there for

Horizons and Phoenix that have been doing this. What

year, on the first night that we opened this, we had four people there. And by the

time -- the last time we had it open, there were 19 people there. We think that

couple of hours. So this has been primarily New

would tell you is that last

big reason for this is because our policy on in and out privileges is different than

that of RADI -- of Room at the Inn. Room at the Inn, you come in, you stay, If you

leave, you stay out. You don't come back in. We don't allow that -- or we don't have

that. We allow in and out. And so, we think because of that, we’re seeing more and

more people come to this facility that to my understanding was originally meant to

be a, you know, a sort of a facility for those who can't go anyplace else or won’t go

anyplace else. So

I wanted to make you aware that. Also, we had several nights in

February where we were open and this -- New Horizons and Phoenix were not able

to come all those nights. That's not sustainable. Frankly, what happened was we got

called at the last minute on

there and open the place up. I'm just being honest. That's of concern to us because

we don't have people who are trained in opening shelter and dealing properly

with folks who are experiencing homelessness, folks who are experiencing

substance abuse, folks who are experiencing mental illness. So my reason in telling

you all this is, don't know how sustainable that would be. think eventually, we

a couple of those nights, and Steve had to go down

would have to look at bringing some staff on that were properly trained to open

this facility if the Columbia Homeless Outreach Team was not able to sustain

continuing to do this.

I don't mean to be passing judgment in any way. I'm just

telling you what our experience was last year so you could use that to be informed.

I'd be happy to answer any questions.

PETERS: Have we talked about Columbia Homeless Outreach group to see whether

they think it would be appropriate to raise the temperature when we open this

homeless shelter, and if they think they could staff it.

CLARDY: I haven't talked to them. I believe Steve has, and I think that's where some

of the concern comes -- that it would not be sustainable if we would have even

more nights. And

I thought I would, if you're interested -- we actually did a cursory

look at how many more nights that would have been over the past two or three

years. In 2019, that would be 18 more nights, in 2020, it would have been six, and in

2021, it would have been seven more nights. That was a very cursory look today. We

tried to get

a report from the National Weather Service and they told us they’d get

back to us in a week. So we went back and did some checking on our own, and that's

what we came up with.

THOMAS: Scott, have you correlated with Room at the Inn that there were empty

beds some of those nights that you were open, and there were?

CLARDY: Yes, yes.

PITZER: Have you -- are you going to -- would you continue with that same policy

allowing in and out?

CLARDY: I think so. I mean, if we don't -- if we would do the same thing as the Room

at the Inn then we're basically just imitating Room at the Inn.

again, my idea or my understanding was that this was to open

You know, the idea,

shelter for people

who could not go to Room at the Inn because of various behavior issues or other

issues. And so, if we would have those same rules in place,

benefit it would be for us to have this facility, although I understand your point.

don't know what

TREECE: So let me naively ask -- if it's nine degrees out, why would someone want

to leave the facility?

CLARDY: Our experience is that that's related to substance use issues.

TREECE:

I mean, this is -- it's a challenging population, and my understanding is they

defecate on the -

CLARDY: On the bathroom walls. That's why we had to stop that.

TREECE: And porta-potties companies will not come relieve that, and so Scott gets

out, or Steve gets out there with

a bottle of hot water and an ice scraper and

scrapes it down and cleans it for the next person.

CLARDY:

that?

I believe -- didn’t we have some janitorial staff that actually resigned over

GLASCOCK: Yes.

TREECE: Well-intentioned people bring soup. People fight over the soup. People

ingest the soup, throw up in the lobby. We clean that up. And again, I'm just trying

to illustrate. There's no easy solution to this. And this is the population that doesn't

fit with our hotel vouchers, with Salvation Army, with Room at the Inn.

CLARDY: Right. The way Steve always puts it is that these are the most challenging

folks. This is the most challenging subpopulation of this population.

TREECE: And they're still human beings.

CLARDY: Absolutely. Other questions?

TREECE: Thanks, Scott.

REP80-21

Renaming Columbia Regional Airport.

The Council asked questions of Economic Development Director Stacey

Button and discussed the report.

PITZER: Yeah, so this is the second time it's coming to us. I mean, and I agree with

the idea that if you're going to do it, you know, this would be a time to do it. I guess

I'm not overtly persuaded. We had two groups,

I mean -- the Airport Advisory Board

didn't even initiate this. There was another group that initiated it, and then they

came to the Board. The Board didn't agree with them so we’ve - so there are kind of

competing recommendations on what that name should be. And so it doesn't seem

a completely cohesive process in getting to us. So I understand, you know, that

the idea be behind removing Regional from the name and implying that there's

more -- get wherever. You know, the other side of that is the idea that we want to

work with other partners within the region. You know, so there's some connotation

there. So,

I don’t know. I get the desire and the intent. You know, if there was a

more -- I guess if everybody was on the same page, I would feel better about doing

something. PETERS: Could we see what Stacy has, if she has any comment?

TREECE: Director, anything you want to add?

PETERS: If you don't have anything you want to add, that's fine too. But

thought I'd ask because you're more involved in this than --

just

BUTTON: Thank you.

appreciate that. There was

a letter included from the Airport

Advisory Board chair, But

think Council Member Pitzer covered their rationale

from that. So, no, I don't have anything else to add.

PETERS: Okay.

TREECE: You know, I would -- my preference would be to be a little more thoughtful

about this. And not that this is an off the cuff recommendation, but I would suggest

that any name change of the airport ought to be driven by some type of marketing

study, focus group -- does it -- are people not buying tickets to inplane or deplane

at Columbia Regional Airport because of the Regional moniker? Are we going to sell

more tickets if we dropped the Regional monitor? Is it more reflective to be

something else or do we just say, Columbia Airport, and drop the Regional and not

add National?

I get the sense that before we order signage for this new building

that it would be timely to do it, but I think we're a ways -- I think we've got a few

months to do that. I'm just not sure that we want to -- I'm not sure that we're the

best decision-makers when it comes to -- and whatever we do ought to improve

the marketing and marketability of the airport.

REP81-21

Ward Reapportionment/Redistricting.

The Council discussed the report.

TREECE: We had

work session on census and ward reapportionment/redistricting

options. Any discussion on the potential drafts and next steps?

PETERS: Well, I'm the one who asked for this. So, and I don't really -- we can do it

one of two ways. I think the B option would work fine. It moves a little bit out of

Mr. Pitzer’s ward and connects it to Ward 4, and it moves a little bit out of Ward 1 to

Ward 2. And I don't really think it should be that big a deal to do that. However, if

people feel that we really need to get

committee together and have someone

committee to determine that, that's

don't know what everybody

from each ward to get together and sit on

fine too. So, you know, my -- I would just do it, but

else thinks. So, what do you guys think?

FOWLER: Well now that the census data has arrived, which was my objection earlier

to moving forward with whatever we call it -- taskforce or committee or

otherwise -- I think we're positioned now to go ahead and move forward with a task

force or committee or an advisory group, and to begin the process. And that would

be my recommendation.

TREECE: Anybody else agree with that?

THOMAS: Yeah, at the very least,

any other council members who want to to, you know, discuss the proposals in

more ad hoc way, but I think I agree with you, Pat. I think we should go ahead and

set up task force to look at these options and make sure that people plenty of

I would want to have some time for myself and

time to review them. We're not in

to happen until after April.

a hurry to implement this because it’s not going

PETERS: Well, one thing to think about, though, is, if we were to forward with B, we

would have -- we are going to have to ask the Law Department to come back with

this anyway -- so we're going to end up having

because it's going to take two to four weeks or six or eight weeks, however long it

takes, is going to give people chance to have discussed also, although perhaps not

a public hearing on it. And that,

as specifically as a commission.

THOMAS: Yeah, but if we direct staff to come forward with an ordinance, we’re like

making a decision without getting public input first.

TREECE: But we would get public input at the public hearing.

THOMAS: Right, but I don't think that's adequate for a decision like this.

TREECE:

guess my sense -- as someone who wanted

a more robust process earlier

this summer, I'm surprised we haven't seen

dramatic shift in the wards, and it's

relatively simple task to rebalance that as we've seen, especially in the Trial

discussion draft. I'm not sure we need to reinvent the wheel for something that is

fairly simple solution. And,

dramatically. I'm not sure you could say the same thing after April.

PITZER: Yeah, wanted to see the data also. That was why

forward earlier in the summer. think the data showed that there's, you know,

there are some ways to fix it, or change things relatively easily. I, you know, did

like the process that think Jefferson City went through because they just went

through this believe or maybe they're still wrapping it up. But they actually had,

think four options -- because they were in similar situation where there were

some minor population shifts that needed to equalize the wards, and they had four

options that did that. And then they had an open public input meeting, not city

council meeting, just -- sort of public work session where the four options were

I don't know that it changes the makeup of this Council

I didn't want to move

presented, and anybody could come and provide feedback and input on those. And

then, you know, the City Council received all that input and processed it. And that

seemed like

reasonable way to get public input on relatively small-scale shifts

that addressed what needs to be done in terms of changes to populations. So we

don't have four options. There were two that were presented. You know, maybe

there are two others, maybe there's some other number that would be an

appropriate number to put forward in a plan like that.

WANER: I like it when Matt and I agree on things. It makes things helpful. I do agree

that the Jeff City process is something that could be replicated, scaled here, you

know, for transparency and accountability purposes.

don't want us drawing our

own districts and wards without public input so the opportunity to present some

options and get public feedback -- I would be supportive of that. I don't -- I wouldn't

want to see just one city council meeting where it's

beginning.

public hearing at the

could

would like an entire meeting of some sort dedicated to that so

get on board with that.

TREECE: And who would host that?

PETERS: Do we want to have

committee then.

mean, we could do a committee

with one person from each ward and then one person sort of presiding, and which I

guess we've done the last two ten-year--

TREECE: But that's not what I'm hearing Jeff City did. I'm hearing --

PETERS: Yeah, but then they could come up with that, or they can look at that and

have a public engagement.

TREECE: You're suggesting just

this room, but outside of this meeting process, we have

because would like to hear from the neighborhoods that are being moved from

different -- outside of, not necessarily outside of

listening post on --

to 4 and 1 to 2, and --

WANER: Does the mall really want to join the Second Ward? I don't know.

PETERS: No one lives there though so they don't care.

FOWLER: It's not just the mall. There’re residents involved in there.

THOMPSON. You know, the only complicating factor you have at this point is that

your election filings are going to happen and begin before you can establish new

ward lines. What the trial maps showed you today were where each one of the

existing council members resides in order to make sure that you don't redistrict

someone outside of their ward. We're not going to have that information for you

for some time, until after the -- really until after the election. The complicating

factor that you have is that when you start shifting those boundaries, even if you

don't make it until after the April election, you may have to start taking into account

where the candidates are located as well, which may get very complicated

depending upon what happens between now and the close of filing.

AMIN: And the close of filing is January 11, 2022 in case --

PETERS: But

I think Ward 4 will be the only real issue because it did not sound like

Ward 3, unless someone comes up with something really -- really wants to redraw

the ward lines in this strange way, Ward 3 was like the only ward that didn't need to

move anything.

TREECE: Right, and the reality is with respect to the city attorney's comment is that

we’re only making it possible for more people to be eligible to be candidates in

Ward 4 before or after the election, and since 1 or 2 are not open in April, there's

really no jeopardy there and no one is changing -- we're not changing 3 at all.

PETERS: And the mayor is --

TREECE: At large.

THOMPSON: Yep, that is true. That is true when you consider the affected wards

and which wards will be up for election. You would just be expanding the

opportunities in Ward 4.

TREECE: Ms. Waner, do you want to make your suggestion in the form of a motion?

See if there's support for that. Or maybe a joint motion between Mr. Pitzer and Ms.

Waner?

WANER: Let Matt do it this time. It's only because

that’s why.

I didn't have the phrasing so

PITZER: Right, right, no, I'm just trying to think of exactly what we're looking for.

mean, if -- we only had the two options, and so maybe there are -- I'd like to have

more than two choices. So I guess the motion would be to look for a couple of other

additional choices.

PETERS: Well Mr. Glascock says we can get

few more.

mean the GIS guys did

other.

TREECE: This is also

a smart community. We can crowd crowdsource. I am confident

this community can crowdsource a different map for us to look at.

PITZER: That’s a different process though if you’re asking for --

FOWLER: That's a committee or a task force. Yes.

PITZER: So my motion would be to come back with

a couple more choices, and to

set up some sort of a process to have community and public input on those choices.

And then we would consider that input and decide what we want to do after that.

Council Member Pitzer made a motion for a couple more choices in

addition to what was provided tonight, and for some sort of process to

obtain community and public input on the choices that could be considered

when the Council made a decision. The motion was seconded by Council

Member Waner.

TREECE: Discussion on the motion?

PETERS: Do we have any kind of timeframe? I mean, do we want to look at this in

January because we, you know, what -- do we have a timeframe?

WANER: January being after filing closes?

PETERS: Well, yeah, it can be after filing. I'm just trying to think of getting

something organized and getting information out to the public, and then, you

know, the holidays where nothing seems to happen.

TREECE: So this is the second meeting October. I could see staff taking the month of

November to generate

couple more trials. Don't want to do anything in

December. We’ll get criticized for that. I think we come back -- Madam Clerk - when

does filing close.

AMIN: January 11.

TREECE: So, let's come back after January 11. And, we know the trials aren’t --

mean potentially the trials may not jeopardize -- well

anything. But let's come back up after January for that public hearing.

don't want to presuppose

WANER: And the different trials that we could hope to see from the GIS folks,

think -- in our pre-council, we talked about whole count census data -- and I’m

looking directly at you -- whole count census data in conjunction with maybe

something like the ACS data to create

map based off of both of those -- is that

possible? Or options?

census data.

mean, just thinking about what we're limited to with the

TEDDY: Yeah,

think the maps will be drawn with the population data, but you can

way to help you evaluate that.

bring in some other themes and look at those as

And it could be ACS data -- it could be other aspects of the redistricting, like the

voting age percentage, which would theoretically give certain weight to the

population.

WANER: That's how my brain works is -- the equality of the population numbers,

but also looking at income, looking at racial status, looking at voting age household

-- all of that together, I think would be helpful to overlap it.

FOWLER: So I'm going to oppose this motion.

brought forward five different options that

worked on, and that they discussed, and they had public hearings.

speaking at at least one of them.

the materials that Mr. Teddy provided to us, they gave us some guidance on how to

avoid challenge to our districts, after they made couple of disparaging remarks

about lawyers that tried to ignore. They got to standard criteria includes

I think that by -- the last process

the

reapportionment

committee

remember

remember attending several of them. And, in

population of quality, compact districts of contiguous territory, retention of

existing neighborhood boundaries, retention of precinct boundaries, cohesion of

other existing communities of interest, desire to retain historic boundaries, and

consideration of incumbency. Those are the very things that our reapportionment

committee worked on and then brought forward recommendations to City Council,

and

I think that they play a valuable role in considering all of those things -- and

having the ability to invite the public in at various times, particularly the

neighborhoods that would be affected. So that’s why I’m going to vote against this

motion and go back to the idea that we focus on a reapportionment committee.

TREECE: Any further discussion on the motion?

THOMAS: Could you state the motion again?

PITZER: So we're going to come back after January 11 with more than two choices,

and we'll look at them, and then we'll have

meeting, but just a process --

a public input process. Not a council

THOMAS: Like

council work session, like we did in June with the ARP funds?

Before the council meeting and everybody coming up?

PITZER: Well, I'm envisioning.

PETERS: Informal.

PITZER: Yeah,

I mean, more informal. We would receive the options, but then there

would be some other type of meeting that's not a council -- so we wouldn't be --

THOMAS: -- which would be organized by staff.

PITZER: Yeah, the City would organize it and be open for everybody, and there

would be other ways to provide public input. You know, like when the schools

redraw their boundaries, they have a series of - they have public meetings.

THOMAS: Open houses.

PITZER: Yeah, open houses. Yeah.

TREECE: It may not be unlike

interested parties meeting where they have

different engineering renderings and people fill out forms, comments.

PITZER: Yeah, yeah.

TREECE: Any further discussion on the motion?

PETERS:

I think I sort of like Ms. Fowler’s idea better. I know surprising. Because II

think it gets more input perhaps than just the GIS guys coming up with some other

options.

TREECE: It's -- we could still go there after that, but -

PETERS: Start with this?

TREECE:

desire.

would suggest we start with this and just see if that's the community

PETERS: That’s a thought too.

THOMAS: If we go with your option, Pat, then we will have to go back to the kind of

resolution that Brian brought forward and

and --

process for making the appointments,

FOWLER: Uh-huh. It's a well-worn path.

THOMAS: We’ve done it before.

FOWLER: Yes.

The motion made by Council Member Pitzer and seconded by Council

Member Waner for a couple more choices in addition to what was

provided tonight, and for some sort of process to obtain community and

public input on the choices that could be considered when the Council

made a decision, was defeated by voice vote with only Council Member

Waner, Council Member Pitzer, and Mayor Treece voting yes.

TREECE: Motion failed.

PETERS: Can I make a motion then that we have -- that we set up a commission or

committee as previously recommended, where we have

representative from

each ward and we have one person that’s the ad hoc member of that commission so

we have seven members and ask them to look into this?

Council Member Peters made a motion to establish a seven member ward

reapportionment committee. The motion was seconded by Council

Member Fowler.

TREECE: Discussion on the motion?

WANER: Is when is there

a process by which we determine who is an appropriate

candidate for us to put on that commission, committee, whatever it's called.

TREECE: If you want to follow the well-worn path, each council member selects

member from their ward, and the mayor selects an at-large member, who shall be

chair.

WANER: There's no particular background, expertise criteria. It’s just anybody in the

Second Ward.

PETERS: It sort of depends who's done this before. I mean --

TREECE: I would suggest to you that there -- we may not want to be prescriptive, but

there are probably some intersectionalities with respect to citizen engagement,

map-making, political science, equity that we -- gender diversity, geographic

diversity, professional diversity that that will enhance the product. Would you

accept an amendment to your motion that this task force complete its work of no

later than March 22?

PETERS: I could. Why would you want to do that?

TREECE: Because

I do not want to politicize the process with the April election. And

you have two people on this body that are not running again that have no vested

interest in how these lines get drawn.

PETERS: Okay.

TREECE: Other than for the good of the city for the next 10 years.

PETERS: I would accept that amendment. Yes.

TREECE: And if this committee can conclude its work and submit a map to us for first

reading and second reading in March, I'll support that.

PETERS: Does that sound reasonable?

FOWLER: Can I ask a question, a process question? So folks will go through and they

will file their papers to run for office. And because we are 14% off, rather than

being less than 10%, off, somebody’s got to move.

And so when -- if we conclude

this work before the election, not knowing who those representatives will be for

two wards that have geographic boundaries, are we making that more complicated

-- by trying to finish that before? Would it be less political to set it up and expect

that they would finish their work after the election and come back with maps that

they would recommend to us at that time?

TREECE: I don’t think you want to do that.

FOWLER:

I don't understand why not. Can you help me understand that you? You

are the master when it comes to political understandings that I --

TREECE: It probably requires more conversation than we have right now.

FOWLER: Okay, but I'm concerned that we're throwing

election as a result.

a level of complexity into the

TREECE: We are. That’s why it would be easier to do Mr. Pitzer’s motion.

FOWLER: I know, I know, but I don’t think that’s acceptable to the public.

TREECE: I think, you know, not again, I don't want to pre -- a what if scenario would

be. If we do Dr. Peters’ motion, we go through this process. What’s going to happen

after the election is that we will elect

a new Fourth Ward representative. And, the

reality is those -- it's the Fourth Ward and the Second Ward that need to be

rebalanced. And after the election, some new constituents are going to be added to

the Fourth Ward. Where they come from or what that word looks like, we don't

know. But if one of those categories is incumbency, and I don't say that in the form

of incumbency protection, but obviously we’re not going to draw

new Fourth

Ward that doesn't include the representative. Right? The reality is they're just going

to have 900 more constituents at some point during their term.

PITZER: We didn't have a say in electing that person.

TREECE: They can come to the meetings. The motion’s been made and seconded.

Are you okay with my amendment? Ms. Fowler, are you okay with my amendment

with respect to --

FOWLER: I still have that uneasy --

THOMAS:

I also don't really understand the need for it, but I don't have a huge

objection to it. It seems like that should be a reasonable time frame for all of this to

happen.

FOWLER: It does seem like it’s a reasonable time frame.

PITZER:

guess my concern would be -- well, just the uncertainty. So you're

number of additional influences into the process. That will be

introducing

coinciding with an actual election for

the mayor's race.

a couple of -- for two of the ward seats and

THOMAS: But we're not going to adopt those boundaries until after April.

TREECE: No. No, we will adopt them before April.

THOMAS: Oh, no.

PETERS: But they won’t go --

THOMAS: I thought you just said that the committee gives us its recommendations.

TREECE: In time to first read in March and approve the second meeting in March, or

before.

FOWLER: Be done in February in order to make that.

THOMAS: But that opens a can of worms that you know --

TREECE: No, it avoids the can of worms by not injecting politics into this discussion.

PETERS: So they will not become -- that would not become active until after the

April election.

TREECE: It would not affect the April election.

PETERS: It would not affect the April election.

THOMAS: Okay, well we agree then. So they will not become --

TREECE: It won’t be effective, but they will be effective in 24.

THOMAS: As long as they don’t become effective until 24.

FOWLER:

thought Nancy told us that as soon as we vote on it, it happens

immediately. Can we vote on it, Nancy, with it’s effective as of this date?

THOMPSON: Yes. You can delay an effective date.

FOWLER: Alright, we’re good.

PITZER: My real point was that you're going to have people in the process looking at

who's running and drawing lines -- they could draw lines based on who is running.

TREECE: Yeah, that's why

I think your motion to have the nonpartisan demographer,

right? For different maps and we have a hearing on the is more --

PITZER: I don't know that's going to happen. I’m saying it's possible.

PETERS: Well, we can always vote it down, but that’s my motion. So let's -

The motion made by Council Member Peters, seconded by Council

Member Fowler, and amended by Mayor Treece to establish a seven

member ward reapportionment committee whose work will be completed

in time for a decision to be made by the Council at the second council

meeting in March of 2022 was approved by voice vote with only Council

Member Pitzer voting no.

TREECE: When can you bring back -- so we have a draft ordinance as I recall.

AMIN: It's a resolution.

TREECE: We have a draft resolution. Can we have that on the agenda for November?

THOMPSON: We can be on your next agenda.

TREECE: Thanks.

THOMPSON: And what

would -- based upon your conversation

would propose

that task force submit their report to Council no later than February 15 so it can --

their report can be on your meeting for February 21. We can have an ordinance then

for the two meetings and -- looking at the calendar, that's all I can come up with.

TREECE: Thanks.

REP82-21

Residential Curbside Yard Waste Collection.

The Council asked questions of Utilities Director David Sorrell and

discussed the report.

FOWLER: So, since asking for this, we haven't gotten

a lot of mail, but we've gotten

mail about the fact that taking yard waste to the landfill is a bad idea from a climate

action point of view. And, one of the things that came back in staff’s report --

there's no option there -- and,

I can understand that there's some cost involved --

there’s no option there for there to be yard waste pickup to go to the mulch site in

the staff’s report. It's, we can pick it up, we can take it to the landfill. So, I don't

know that that's the outcome that I was hoping for. The idea -- a lot of people have

suggested that we should just mow our leaves down and leave them on our yard,

but not everybody --

I would do that in a heartbeat -- but not everybody else will.

There'll be lots of bags to collect. So, do you have anything additional to -- is there

any way we can get to the place where we're putting stuff up and taking it to

mulch site on behalf of our end user.

GLASCOCK: I’d probably create a new route, but --

SORRELL: David Sorrell, Director of Utilities. We’d need more than one new route

because when people are putting leaves at the curb, in bags, it's not uncommon to

drive up and see 30-50 bags of leaves. It would probably require five or six

additional routes just to do that, and, I did a vacancy report this morning. I got 19

vacancies in the solid waste division alone. Fifteen of those are refuse collection

positions. So, we literally could develop the routes. We don't have the staff to do it.

Just could not be done physically with the staff that we have.

FOWLER: I’m going to ask

question that

already know is painful Mr. Sorrell and

that is -- remember when there was

a big storm and there were all these limbs

and your staff was out, our staff was out, on Sundays picking up limbs because of all

the storm damage.

SORRELL: That would have been Public Work’s staff that was doing that, not solid

waste staff. With backhoes and putting it into dump trucks and such, that would

have been Public Works and the sewer utility doing it. Solid waste does not have

the equipment to actually pick up limbs and put them in dump trucks and we don’t

have dump trucks. So, that's kind of an emergency situation. That's

weather-related event where Public Works, sewer utility -- there might have been

some folks from water and what have you that would have gone and done that. But

that was

one-time event. That's not something we're going to schedule to do

multiple times in a season.

FOWLER: I understand.

PITZER: Question Mr. Sorrell,

few years ago, didn’t we look -- didn’t we study

whether -- you know the environmental effects of putting organic material in the

landfill versus composting it or mulching it?

SORRELL: Yes, we did do an organic waste study that Burns and Mac completed, and

their results were that we would be better off to compost it in our backyards than

to haul it across town and put it in the landfill. That we'd actually produce less

emissions by composting it at our homes.

PITZER: Okay, did they look at whether we composted in

putting it the landfill? Or was that not --

a central location versus

SORRELL: That was not part of the study, no. We don't have enough of a market for

the compost that we generate to make that feasible at this time. We make a lot of

compost. Not very many people come and purchase it. But, I mean, they had a lot of

different scenarios in there, and one of it was compost -- well actually, they did

have

a deal with composting it and then hauling it to agricultural land and applying

it on that property, and it still didn’t work out to be more environmentally

beneficial. I can get you a copy of that report. I'll send it to John tomorrow.

TREECE: We don't really take public comment contemporaneous with reports, but

will tell you that Council received call this afternoon that has been forwarded to

you and your 4 pm -- that people should -- that yard waste is biodegradable and

plastic bags don't make sense, and people should just compost them.

THOMAS: Are there any private companies that, for

and take it to a composting facility?

a fee, will pick up yard waste

SORRELL: There are private companies that

up in pile and then they vacuum them up, chop them up, and put them on

trailer. Where they take them, I don't know.

THOMAS: Yeah, well, mean, it's better if people just composted in their backyard

like Burns and McDonnell said.

I know will basically blow your leaves all

WANER: Forgive me. I'm new still. Is this a problem every year?

THOMAS: We have a new system.

SORRELL: We have a new system.

WANER: That’s my question.

SORRELL: We have

a new system. In previous years -- this went into effect last fall,

where you had to put everything in bags, so it still wasn't an issue last fall. And then

in February of this year, everything has to be in a bag with a city logo. Prior to those

two changes, you could put anything you wanted at the curb and we would pick it

up.

THOMAS: Including 30 bags of leaves.

SORRELL: Or two bedrooms, a sofa, and a kitchen.

REP83-21

REP84-21

RubinBrown LLC Final Contracts Audit Report.

Mayor Treece understood this report was provided for informational

purposes.

TREECE: We had

work session on this at our previous city council meeting.

assume this is the final report for that.

Finance Report.

The Council asked questions of Finance Director Matthew Lue and

discussed the report.

FOWLER:

I have a question for Director Lue. On the business licensing rebates, you

and I talked about earlier today that there was a low response to that.

LUE: Yes.

FOWLER: I'm bringing it up just so that it has another opportunity to be amplified

out to our business community that those things are available, and that the sum of

money that we set aside to use for that purpose, including COVID-related expenses

from hotel, motels, and event venues has not been tapped, That money is still

available.

LUE: That’s correct. We've used close to $200,000. I think we have $600 set aside.

FOWLER: And do we have a closing date yet as to when people can stop applying for

that money or that rebate?

LUE: We have advertised it three different times now.

have personally emailed

DBE/MBE/WBE companies. So,

I would really like to probably wrap this up -- end of

October. I mean, we could probably do the end of November at the latest, and then

find another -- repurpose, whatever funds are left because

they’ll be used up.

don't have faith that

FOWLER: Thank you for providing us with the report.

TREECE:

appreciate the cash balance report. It's an unprecedented look at where

we are for the public and Council for that matter. So, thank you.

LUE: Thank you.

XI. GENERAL COMMENTS BY PUBLIC, COUNCIL AND STAFF

Rebecca Shaw, Rick Shanker, Sue Tillema, and Eugene Elkin spoke, and

the Council discussed various topics.

SHAW: Good evening, Rebecca Shaw, 2615 Vail Drive. I’ll start by saying thank you

for the appointment to the Housing and Community Development Committee. I'm

excited to work on that

- start -- hoping to understand things better. I wanted to

comment on transportation this evening. So it happened last week that my car had

to be in the shop, and it was finished around lunchtime, and so I thought, I'll be a

good citizen and I’ll take the bus because there's

a bus stop right by the hospital.

However, the black line that runs past the hospital only had one bus on the route

that day, and it was a -- looking at the time on the app, my app wasn’t refreshing,

one, to tell me where the bus was at any point in time. And

minutes at the bus stop by the hospital. still saw no bus, however, five buses on

the Trowbridge and Campus Parking Loop passed me while stood there. So, just

I waited about 30

general comment that our transportation system is focused heavily on our student

population in this town, and not the needs of others. There should be more than

one bus that’s going from south Columbia to city center on any given day. I'd like to

say that

Station during colder weather.

as a city, because just showing a little bit of compassion for people can mean a lot.

And, understand that no one wants to work in the conditions that were described.

However, we have to do something for those people still so there's got to be

solution. Creative thinking, right? know that Phoenix care and others -- there are

realize that there are

lot of complications in opening the Wabash Bus

hope that we can find

way to work through that,

lots of citizen volunteers that work with those same individuals all the time. Reach

out to your public. Start that partnership with them. Listening to the ward

reapportionment discussion earlier -- it just so happened that in the zoomed in

version that Mr. Teddy showed of the switch from Fifth Ward to Fourth Ward, part

of that was my neighborhood. And the crossover of Forum where Fourth Ward

would then extend, actually kind of cuts my neighborhood in half it seems. So that

is one thing to consider. I know that, Dan, I believe it’s his name, worked on a lot of

different things. I know that there are a ton of things to think about, but as we do

this task force and this committee, and as the board makes decisions, we just need

to remember to keep our homeowner’s associations in tact if possible and our

neighborhoods because everyone in that neighborhood is experiencing the same

issues and concerns generally. So we wouldn’t want to have to split between two

members. Thank you.

THOMAS: May I respond to one of Rebecca's comments?

TREECE: Yeah, sure.

THOMAS: Thank you. Not only does the bus system cater to the students, but caters

to students that own cars and drive cars. Every person on every one of those

Trowbridge buses had driven their car to some parking lot location to then get on

the bus, and it is an infuriating way to run a transportation system. Thank you.

SHANKER: [Rick Shanker]

something about the codes. When the code commission meets to look at new

codes, we look at different aspects of all the codes. It’s public forum. Everyone’s

live at 1829 Cliff Drive.

just wanted to clear up

invited. Municipalities can either adopt or deny the codes, or they can adapt them

to their own situations, which we do. We look at costs and safety, and the public’s

more than invited to all the subcommittee meetings. In regards to the historical

portions, there are ways by which someone who has

the code can come appeal to us, and typically, we’re really lenient about that.

When all the alleyways were being developed, lot of the ceilings weren’t up to

project that doesn’t meet

the code, and obviously, you can’t dig a hole to make them deeper. So there’s a lot

of accommodation for that. In regards to the City Council, the City-County meeting

you’re going to have, we have talked -- Dee Dokken and

I and Jan Weaver - talked

to the County. They actually have conservation allowance in their zoning, and so

you might want to about that, and we would like to be a part of that conversation,

that work session.

TILLEMA: Sue Tillema, 306 Westridge Drive.

things. I'm very glad that you voted not to give the -- to make the proposal for

Canton Estates to wait another year. voted, I'm sorry, presented when county

I was going to comment on a couple of

zoning went in and we tried to get different places protected, and that's why there

is only one house for everything ten acres currently in the County. That is currently

where Canton Estates wants to be placed. They have some protection, and if they

wanted to change it to get a higher density, they have to go and get checked -- they

have to get the zoning for that property changed there. The other thing I would like

to say -- I was staying last time and this time to try hear everything that was going

on -- and because there were things late in the discussion, and when you were

talking about how you were going to spend --

can’t remember what they were

came away

called, but the money that’s been given because of the pandemic --

feeling it was going to things that were going to help the less fortunate males at

much greater extent than females. We talk a lot about the homeless, but we have a

lot of working mothers with children that do not appear to be necessarily the one

that are as visible as the homeless. However, there are many more of them. They

are our -- the children are the future of our City and our country, and they need to

be considered seriously.

And,

think there is too much discussion that doesn’t

think of the women that are working out there that don’t get a lot of the help that

they need.

TREECE: Thanks, Sue. Sue, before you go, what would be some of your suggestions

there? Child care, family leave?

TILLEMA: Childcare is one of the big things I think that was probably, or -- and to be

sure that there's after school care because it's not just the full time. I was talking to

my daughter and she said -- I didn't realize that it had gotten so expensive. My girls

are in their 40s. She was saying it was $1,200. Now this isn't local. I don't know what

it is here for a month.

WANER: I’d say it’s pretty close.

TILLEMA: So I don't know how people afford it. So, I know what's happening in a lot

of cases -- is you're depending on neighbors or you're depending on --

some of the communities, it’s just that they don't pay it. It's more of

think in

barter

system. And,

I remember when one of the women that had used to clean with us

regularly, and she was African American, and she’d keep kids overnight. And, I’m

pretty sure that that wasn't necessarily much of a payment. So I think --

TREECE: Transitional housing for women with children?

TILLEMA: Yes, very definitely.

TREECE: Specialized housing for domestic violence?

TILLEMA: And, also, I think -- I haven't been working at Loaves and Fishes, but when

it was in the public housing, women did not feel comfortable coming there, nor

children, so it was almost exclusively males. We did sometimes have people come

and try to get containers of food to take home -- and sometimes they’d even send

their kids, to take home to eat in their homes. So I think trying to figure out some of

these things that some of you have much more exposure than I do, but I -- that was

just what I was hearing of how you -- I think you want to look at the -- some of the

senior citizens, but there are more avenues available to them than the folks that

are more 20-60.

ELKIN: Eugene Elkin, 3406 Range Line. I’m glad this lady’s talking about the women.

I’ve talked about it many times. One of my stories tonight is -- possibly in May or

June of this year,

story took place right after church.

conversation because it’s only the second time I’ve talked the person, and

told

story here at city council --

particular individual. This

very normal

was

approach her, thinking I’m having

very impressed with -- she tells me about her background and what all she’s been

through. And suddenly before my eyes, she spins around, pushes her clothing

down on the back side, and starts saying I’ve got

boo-boo. And she repeats this

said, you

over and over and over. So this past week, did come across her, and

know, I've been concerned about you, I never saw you again. Lord, she had family in

Columbia, Missouri, that finally took her in and she's not on the streets and she is

looking at getting

disability for her mental, drugs, all these different issues that

we have no idea -- we the ones that actually approach them. Well, they sound

pretty normal. Some people can say, you know, like two plus two adds up to four,

and some you wouldn’t even talk about intellectual because they’re so strung out

on different issues. The reason

I brought that up is -- thank God one woman had

family to get her off the streets. As far as I know, we do not have a women’s shelter

in Columbia, Missouri. We might have in our past on Range Line, but as far as I know

that’s full or no longer being made available for the women. Homecoming,

regretfully stand here and have to tell this, but was in downtown Columbia late

night Thursday and Friday night -- and on Saturday night, when all this ruckus took

place. Only problem is I witnessed too much on Friday, and that’s kind of the reason

didn’t go on Saturday.

watched cars burn rubber, and this rubber I’m talking

about apparently was a special tire on a large black car. And, the guy would put his

breaks on and peel and peel and peel, and the Broadway and Tenth Street corner

going to the north would definitely have showed two very dark black marks where

he was showing off. Well, this went on repeatedly. And we’ve talked about, do we

need more police? What do we need? I’m think we’re needing more visual walking

officers because when they see the cop car is gone down here, okay now. You don’t

see

reality, knowing that the Saturday night that

different shootings. I'm sorry that talked until the red light came on, but my point

cop one, anywhere. And we tried to turn our backs on this violence when in

didn't go down that there were two

is please, please address the violence. There's that one thing and the City could use

it too. If you're using, you're causing the violence in Columbia, Missouri. There's

just no way around it. Using means using illegal, and we have legalized one piece,

and that's all that's supposed to be legalized or legally used. Thank you.

FOWLER: Yeah, wanted to follow up on conversation we had at the end of the

last meeting, which was talking with the League of Women Voters about what their

plans were now that we have the census data. Census data applies to more than

reapportioning the wards. It has lots of other implications. And so they did respond

positively back that they're interested in partnering with the Daniel Boone Regional

Library and other organizations, including the Health Department and the school

system and other stakeholders, the County, about hosting

program, probably in

mid-January. So I think that -- I am a League Member -- I will join their efforts and

keep you posted as to how that's developing. But this is the kind of thing the

League does really well, so.

THOMAS:

about

directly, and there's really no way to do that. And,

had

few times. People would like to contact the boards and commissions

just wondered if we could

a request from a constituent, and it's something that I've thought

consider creating -- you know, we create seven email accounts for the seven

members and put them on the website -- could we create an e-mail account for

each board and commission and give the chair of that board access to receive those

emails, respond to people, incorporate that input into agendas, and so on? Is that

something that Council would support and that staff could organize?

WANER: We have that.

THOMAS: Oh, you do?

WANER: In some capacity, that exists, because that's how

I used to receive emails

on the Human Rights Commission -- was we had HumanRights@CoMo.gov and that

went to my staff liaison.

THOMAS: Okay. Well

Commission.

don't think there's one for the Bicycle/Pedestrian

WANER: Maybe not.

THOMAS: Maybe it's something your commission requested?

WANER: Don’t know. It was in existence before I got there, but I only mention it to

say the framework exists at least.

PETERS: Could we get

a report back that would address how to expand that if we

need to or how to give citizens the information if it already exists?

reasonable?

Would that be

THOMAS: Could we request a staff report on that?

TREECE: Is there sufficient support on council to do that?

I mean, as a former chair,

that seems -- I'd rather have

out there.

a alias HPC@CoMo.gov than my personal email address

THOMAS: Yeah. That’s what I was thinking.

FOWLER: I’m supportive of this.

THOMAS: Just like our Ward 4.

TREECE: I don’t know that we need a report. Do you want to ask the chairs if they --

we need a report, Sheela says. We will get a report.

PETERS:

just have --

did meet with some of the neighborhood associations and

to address the administrative replat

the first thing that we identified was wanting

that can happen in residential areas where we combine two properties that Mr.

Teddy or whoever is in charge or whoever is the director of planning and

development can approve without anybody knowing about it.

So, I did not know

whether we need a report to see how we can change that or if we just need to go to

the Law Office and ask them to come up with a change? So I'm going to ask you, Mr.

Glascock, what you think, and then I guess the Council -- if you guys are okay with

moving forward on that. That seems to be somewhat

do. It affects a number of the neighborhoods.

a reasonably simple thing to

GLASCOCK:

think we'd probably do

report first and then direction to bring

something back.

PETERS: Make sure we don't have any unanticipated consequences of changing this

out of the residential areas?

GLASCOCK: Correct.

PETERS: Yeah, okay.

TREECE: It is my understanding that on Thursday, October 28, the Mayor will be

narrating

helped craft.

FOWLER: I am the author of that, yes.

a spooky tales tour. I believe based on a script that Commissioner Fowler

TREECE: We will be starting -- stay tuned for additional information, however

believe we'll be meeting at the columns at 7 pm on Thursday, October 28.

AMIN: Which columns?

FOWLER: Good question.

TREECE: Excellent question, the University columns. And then we will go from there

on a short walking tour. I hope you all join me.

XII. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Treece adjourned the meeting without objection at 11:17 p.m.