City of Columbia, Missouri

Meeting Minutes

City Council

Council Chamber

Columbia City Hall

701 E. Broadway

Monday, November 15, 2021

7:00 PM

Regular

I. INTRODUCTORY ITEMS

The City Council of the City of Columbia, Missouri met for a regular

meeting at approximately 7:08 p.m. on Monday, November 15, 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 IAN THOMAS, Council Member MATT PITZER, Council

Member BETSY PETERS, Mayor BRIAN TREECE, Council Member PAT

FOWLER, Council Member ANDREA WANER, and Council Member

KARL SKALA were present. 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,

August 16, September 7, September 20, October 4, October 18, and the

November 1 regular meetings.

Council Member Fowler asked that B361-21 be moved from the consent

agenda to old business.

The agenda, including the consent agenda with B361-21 being moved to

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

Mayor Treece and a second by Council Member Skala.

II. SPECIAL ITEMS

None.

III. APPOINTMENTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

BC11-21

Board and Commission Applicants.

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

were appointed to the following Boards and Commissions.

AIRPORT ADVISORY BOARD

Hunter, BJ, 4310 Montpelier Place, Ward 5, Term to expire December 1,

2024

Poses, Jon, 224 E. Parkway Drive, Ward 4, Term to expire December 1,

2024

CITIZENS POLICE REVIEW BOARD

Hamilton, Jordan, 1314 White Oak Lane, Apt. 103, Ward 4, Term to expire

November 1, 2022

CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENT COMMISSION

Becherer, Roni, 103 N. Stadium Boulevard, Apt. 114, Ward 1, Term to

expire November 30, 2024

Kaufmann, Ryan, 1908 Park DeVille Place, Ward 1, Term to expire

November 30, 2024

Ludden, Matthew, 1905 Newton Drive, Ward 2, Term to expire November

30, 2024

Navarrete-Tindell, Nadia, 2116 Grant Lane, Ward 4, Term to expire

November 30, 2024

Norris, Jessica, 2413 Cimarron Drive, Ward 5, Term to expire November

30, 2024

COLUMBIA SPORTS COMMISSION

Kunz, Kristopher, 417 Hillsdale Road, Ward 3, Term to expire December

31, 2022

COMMUNITY LAND TRUST ORGANIZATION BOARD

Rhoades, Shirley, 104 Lynn Street, Ward 1, Term to expire December 1,

2025

Trotter, Jeremy, 1108 Rear Coats Street, Ward 1, Term to expire

December 1, 2025

FOWLER:

think we need to confirm my continuation as the liaison member. We

could do this -- I don’t know when the right time is but I was advised by the Clerk.

TREECE: It’s timely.

FOWLER: Okay.

TREECE: Does anybody else desire to serve as the liaison?

PETERS: I’d be interested in it.

TREECE: You would be? How would you all like to settle this?

PETERS: Rock, paper, scissors.

TREECE: I would like to have more liaison. I’m not sure who -- I don’t care who it is. I

just -- I would like for Council to take a more active role in the Land Trust or at least

know what’s going on there or at least have our liaison there have the consensus of

council for -- I’d just -- I’d like for that communication to be a little more bilateral as

we continue to address what is, by all means,

a housing crisis. We’ve got a lot of

HOME CDBG monies coming in. Do you all want to work it out and come back to us?

PETERS: Well, I’ll work on something else this year, and leave it to Ms. Fowler if she

wants to keeps doing that, and maybe I’ll come back to it next year if she’s ready to

[inaudible].

TREECE: Is everyone okay with that?

[Everyone seemed agreeable.]

It was determined Council Member Fowler would continue to be the staff

liaison to the Community Land Trust Organization Board.

CONVENTION AND VISITORS ADVISORY BOARD

Walls, Richard, 4705 Valhala Court, Ward 5, Term to expire September

30, 2023

HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION

Teagarden-Monk, Alexandria, 2208 Bluff Pointe Drive, Ward 6, Term to

expire December 31, 2023

MAYOR’S COUNCIL ON PHYSICAL FITNESS AND HEALTH

Hawf, Christopher, 1104 Hulen Drive, Ward 4, Term to expire November

30, 2024

Miller, Susan, 412 Maplewood Drive, Ward 4, Term to expire November

30, 2024

PERSONNEL ADVISORY BOARD

Barth, Jennifer, 2803 Pine Tree Lane, Ward 5, Term to expire November

30, 2024

IV. SCHEDULED PUBLIC COMMENT

SPC65-21

Bill and Judy Weitkemper - Master Meters or Individual Meters.

Judy Weitkemper spoke.

WEITKEMPER:

and live at 4007 Day Flower Court in Columbia, and

important matter on behalf of my husband Bill who has difficulty speaking due to

Parkinson’s. Bill has devoted good portion of the past 16 years to this matter.

Mayor and Council, my name is Judy Weitkemper. My husband Bill

will be presenting this

Master metering should be prohibited. Master metering of residential dwelling

units for electric service was prohibited by section 27-111 of the City Code for 52

years, from 1964 until December 7, 2015. Section 27-111 stated, “each residential

dwelling unit must have

the residential dwelling unit shall be measured for billing by the department.

Metering of electricity supplying more than one residential dwelling unit through

separate meter through which the electricity supplied

single meter for billing by the department (master metering) is prohibited.” On

December 7, 2015, Section 27-111 was amended by adding the following text,

“except in plan zoning districts where in the sole discretion of the director, master

metering is in the best interest of the city due to the utilization of the planned

development of alternative power sources which are incompatible with single

metering.” On January 16, 2016, Jim Windsor, Assistant Director of Columbia

Utilities, wrote -- buildings can have three-phase electrical service which would

support residential units. These have been allowed for commercially zoned areas

for over 40 years.

Code as building or portion thereof with kitchen facilities designated or used for

residential occupancy, including but not limited to such units when [inaudible] or

A residential dwelling unit is defined by Section 27-36 of the City

part of one-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings, boarding and lodging

houses, apartment houses and apartment hotels, but not hotels or motels except

where the units are occupied by the same individual or group of individuals for 30

days or more. Bill has not been able to find the definition of

a commercial dwelling

unit in the City Code. The electric utility was wrong to conclude that

dwelling unit constructed on property zoned commercial becomes

residential

commercial

dwelling unit. On August 8, 2017, Section 27-111 was amended yet again by

replacing the text that was added in 2015 with the following text, “except where in

the sole discretion of the director, master metering is in the best interest of the city

due to the utilization of alternative power sources which are incompatible with

single metering.” Ordinance 27-111 should not have been amended in 2015 or 2017.

Master metering is not in the best interest of the City. In addition to the increase in

electric, water, and sewer revenue that individual meters would bring the City, it

has long been established that by replacing master meters with individual or

submeters,

building utilities usage can be reduced by 15-25 percent. This is just

one example of many where the City ordinances have been manipulated, changed,

or simply ignored to make someone wealthier through the inequitable treatment

of many. Every customer of the City should be treated fairly. Every customer should

have an equal opportunity to take advantage of the savings that could result if they

were individually metered. Who will step up to address this inequity? My husband

will leave

a few copies of the final draft of his document titled Master Meters or

Individual Meters that explains in detail why master meters should be prohibited

on the table in the back by the room, or contact him and he will send you a copy.

Thank you.

SPC66-21

Julie Ryan, COMO Safe Water Coalition - Columbia's Water Treatment

Plant: A study in complacent and ineffective leadership.

Julie Ryan spoke.

RYAN: Julie Ryan, COMO Safe Water Coalition, 5301 Regal Way.

want to speak

little bit from the heart tonight. I want to tell you a little bit of a story. In 2008, the

City incurred its first violation from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources

for our water treatment plant for disinfection byproducts, and experts were

engaged to determine what we should do. And

a short-term solution was provided,

and that's what we pursued. But long-term recommendations were given. That's

where we were. Fast forward to now, and we are about to spend $23 million on the

same short-term solution. And that really gets at us, as people who have, for the

last five plus years, advocated for the members of our community who cannot

afford filtered water, who cannot afford to do something different. Because while

we may say that we have safe water, it is not as safe as it can be and as it should be

for our community. The regulations that are in place are not what we know they

should be. There have been no updates in decades. We know that we have people

within the City who are willing to admit that we finally do have influence of surface

water, and that is where the plans for the design for the new treatment plant

facility will guide us. However, because we know that we are not

true

groundwater facility, the changes that are going to be made -- all of the new

treatment units that will come into place -- will not allow us to resume free

chlorine disinfection. What that tells us, at

a very bottom, granular level, is that we

will still have dirt in our water after spending $23 million to fix the plant as it should

have been fixed many, many years ago. We will not be able to resume chlorine

disinfection. We have asked for granular activated carbon to be included in the

filters of the new treatment facility as it is repaired, and that has not been

included. We have included our expert in discussions with staff and the consultant,

and we are not given clear indication of why this is the case. And so we beg of you,

council members, to ask those questions. Why is this not important to our citizens,

to our community, to the health of our citizens? The decision-making process

seems to be bouncing very clearly. We are often told, “ask staff.” We are told, “ask

Council.” We are told, “ask consultants.” We are never -- we are told, “ask the

Water and Light Advisory Board.” We really aren't given

clear indication. But,

recently when we've been having these conversations, we've been told Council has

the wherewithal to make these things happen, and so we come to you tonight

saying, “please make these things happen for our community.” It isn't just our

economy. It isn't just the business development of our community. It is our health.

These things are options and somebody or somewhere these decisions are being

made, and we can't get a clear answer as to why those decisions are being made --

as to why we can't get these things included in this iteration of our water treatment

facility. We are paying for repairs that should have been done over

a decade ago,

and we're not getting the true water quality accomplishments that we should

because we are told it is either too expensive or it is just not part of the solution

right now, and that is not okay. And so we ask you, “what do you want for your

family?” What do you want for the people you care about in this community? And it

shouldn't be just the status quo and it shouldn't be just to avoid violation. It should

be the best that we can offer, and it should be what we owned our citizens

decade ago. Thank you.

SPC67-21

Walter Minner - Concerns on Blackfoot Road.

Walter Minner spoke.

MINNER: Biggest main concern is safety on Blackfoot Road. Does everybody know

where this is? You know it’s off of Route E. It's like going to LA Nichols Golf Course,

on your right, and the road going to your left -- it starts Blackfoot. Now that road is a

narrow road.

I was almost run off the road because of those wide big trucks, the

dump trucks and the concrete trucks, 18 - wheelers. They go over the yellow line

and I'm afraid someone is going to get hurt or killed. And doing -- we need to do

something about the safety on this road.

trucks. They just paved new pavement around that really bad corner last week.

So, who pays for all that? The public, I guess. You know on taxes. Well to avoid that,

have solution, possible solution, of taking care of the maintenance part when no

They also tear up the road, them big

trucks go down that road. My purpose here is to see if we could stop those trucks

from going up and down Blackfoot. They do have their own entrance and their own

exit. And why they may not use it is because there’s speedbumps, and I don't know

if that’s the reason, but they got speed bumps going out their own road that they

have built for themselves. So why don't they use theirs instead of Blackfoot? It's

nice wide road and everything, going in and out. A solution may be, if that would be

the problem, remove the speed bumps so they would be happy to go up and down

their own road. Did you have

that’s -- have close encounters with these trucks and almost had to go off the road.

One sides big bank and one side is just big drop off where there's trees and

brush and all that. We get run off, someone's going to get hurt. To avoid big

a comment? No, okay. As I know several people --

lawsuit, we need to do something about it now, before somebody does get hurt.

And I've got a possible solution -- is to put a sign down close -- there’s entrance and

exit there at close to the bottom of that big hill. And the beginning is to have a sign

put up saying who could go down and who can't, like dump trucks, concrete trucks,

18-wheelers, the big trucks that are too big for that road. I know it would be pretty

costly to put a whole new road in and widen it up, but -- and then have it patrolled

now and then by the city police. Give out the tickets, and that revenue from the

tickets can help maintain that road -- that’s one solution. There was

them here. But if you need a petition, I will go door to door getting signatures from

voters, registered voters, who are concerned of Blackfoot -- traveling that. have to

a couple of

travel that every day. I know I can go down Wilcox Road, but Wilcox Road don't have

guardrails around that creek that's down there, so

Blackfoot.

I don't go that way. I go down

TREECE: Got it. Thank you very much for being here tonight.

MINNER: And so, I just need some help in trying to get that place safe so that we

don't have to get hurt, and I have a gentleman here that had a close call if you want

to hear him testify on what happened to him. And his name is Clifton Smith. And

just need help in trying to make that place safe.

TREECE: Thank you bringing in our attention. We'll follow up with staff.

MINNER: So, if

I can get help from the City Council -- helping me and finding out

what we need to do. What is the next step? See I don't know how this is all done,

but --

TREECE: We’ll make sure someone follows up with you. I want to make sure I’m fair

to everyone that has a chance to speak tonight. Thank you, Mr. Minner.

SPC68-21

Traci Wilson-Kleekamp, Race Matters, Friends -Transparency: 2022

Mayoral Candidates and City Manager Finalists -- Who gets to know about

the city manager finalists when the information is considered confidential?

Traci Wilson-Kleekamp spoke.

WILSON-KLEEKAMP: Good evening, Mayor Treece and Council.

not to swear. can’t promise you won’t. Tonight I'm discussing transparency and

cultivating discomfort. want to begin by thanking mayoral candidate, David

will try very hard

Seamon, for saying, today, to KOMU, about the tragedy we had over the weekend,

that understanding community violence means you have to consider all factors --

poverty, low wages, inadequate housing, and systemic racism.

also want to add

most white Americans, admitted or not -- they consider Black people both to be

deserving victims and the dangerous vectors of violence, who bear the burden and

the blame for much of the nation's exceptional record of death and destruction.

was happy to see that the chief of police did say today -- with the community's help

detectives were able to quickly identify the suspect and take them into custody.

This is -- I’m glad he came to senses overnight because yesterday he accused the

community

effectively with others across cultural differences is

to be seen as an under-qualification for anyone tasked with leading

otherwise diverse workforce. It is result of white supremacy that has not always

of not being cooperative. The ability to understand and work

critical skill. Lacking it ought

racially and

been understood this way. And finally, I want to say the concept of peace over truth

versus truth over peace affirms that culturally many white people tend to avoid

conflict, to agree to disagree, as

people tend to surface and address conflict directly, even if it's uncomfortable.

want to ask that the Mayor and Council consider, very soon, developing process

way of keeping peace. Conversely, many Black

for the public to be made aware of what is going on in the City Manager's search

process. We did it last time. I think you can do it again. I don't understand, like, the

absolute no update on what's going on. But

also wanted to comment on

was

thought it was sanctimonious.

thought it was inappropriate to

trauma, and it became

transparency in terms of how we engage the public on difficult issues. So

unhappy with the press conference yesterday.

thought it was paternalistic, that was lecturing.

blame somebody when someone had died and there was

spat with a Black business owner. That wasn't the time for that. I didn't like it that

we threw one of the council members under the bus because she wasn't in town

and that wasn't stopped.

I also didn't like it that I heard that we have money set

aside to do community violence intervention, but we're not doing anything yet, but

we have a fire. So, it appears that this body has made a decision not to spend the

money that’s set aside to put out fires. But we've given [unaudible] fires.

The

hypocrisy really stuck with me yesterday because at the last council meeting, you

all voted to basically gut the Citizens Police Review Board and you voted for the

Police Bill of Rights. But at the same time, the chief and the Mayor were

complaining yesterday about the public not being cooperative, not helping them

out. It seems to me you can't have it both ways. At some point, you have to

remember that we don't have community policing not because of the public, but

because the police department’s leadership shot its own self in the foot. They were

the ones who were against it. They are the ones who drag their feet. They are the

ones who struggle with the idea of being guardians. As the chief said, we have a lot

of guns on the street. You can get 100 more cops, and that's not going to detour all

the people that have guns. We have people have more guns than we have children

in this country, practically. So the question is -- is the council willing to invest

resources in community violence interventions that ameliorate asking the police to

do things that they have zero skills to do with.

The City does

have the money to

interrupt structural barriers, inequities, but they have chosen not to spend that

money. I want to note that in a document I got a few months ago, it says -- it's an

update to the Mayor's Task Force on Community Violence, which we haven't talked

about publicly -- it says city social services funding is at its lowest level since 2008.

No additional city social services funding has been made available since it was

decreased by five percent in 2008. So, it seems to me that this body is making

political decision, number one not to invest meaningfully in marginalized

communities, and when there is violence, you're mad and blaming the very

community that is being subjected to the violence.

want to close briefly -- and I know I’m a little bit over -- I want to say something

about discomfort because feel like this anxiety that white people have about

I think that has to change. And I

dealing with difficult issues makes them shut down. To feel uncomfortable is

precisely to be affected by that which persist in shaping the bodies and lives.

Discomfort is hence not about assimilation or resistance, but about inhabiting

norms differently. The inhabitants is generative or productive and so far as it does

not end with a failure of norms to be secured but with possibilities of living that do

not follow these norms through. It is not so much that discomfort becomes radically

transformative by breaking away from norms completely, but rather, discomfort

shows us how to abide differently within these norms. Because discomfort is also

passage through which we are moved by a lack of ease with the available scripts for

living and loving toward others. Perhaps no less discomforting, possibilities for

collective life. So, hope that you'll think about that -- with violence that you have

to invest in it. You just can't keep blaming the people who are affected by violence.

You're going to have to do something different. Thanks.

V. PUBLIC HEARINGS

PH44-21

Proposed reconstruction of the pavement, curb, gutter, sidewalk and

driveway approaches along Walnut Street between College Avenue and

Old Highway 63 North.

PH44-21 was read by the City Clerk.

Acting Public Works Director Shane Creech provided a staff report.

CREECH:

Shane Creech, I'm the Interim Director of Public Works. This is a major

maintenance

project

along

Walnut

Street,

between

College

Avenue

and

Old

Highway 63. The project includes reconstruction of pavement, curb and gutter,

sidewalk, curb ramps, and drive approaches in various locations. The project also

includes an asphalt overlay and new pavement markings along the entire length of

the project. An online interested parties meeting was held in June of this year and

an person IP meeting was held on September 29. Three residents attended the

in-person IP meeting, and no written comments were received as part of that

process. Easements are not anticipated to be necessary, and construction is

currently scheduled for completion in the summer of 2022. Total project cost is

estimated at $388,000, and funding will come from the quarter cent capital

improvement program sales tax. Allison Anderson and Elizabeth Farr, two of the

city's engineers on this project, are with me tonight, and we are happy to answer

any questions you may have.

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

Peter Norgard spoke.

NORGARD: I drove on that section of the road to get here tonight, and I can tell you

it's in great shape. That's sarcastic. It's in pretty bad shape so I would agree with this

project. One thing that

the south side, which has an appearance of favoring Stephens College. There are no

ADA improvements planned for the northern side, and that seems little odd to

me because Freedom House is on the north side. So -- know that there was

I would say -- most of the ADA improvements are going on

certain amount of money allocated to this project back in 2015, and I would ask that

you consider taking some of the surplus and using it to make some ADA

improvements on the north side because those sidewalks are very narrow, and,

would say, difficult for people in chairs to navigate if there's oncoming pedestrians,

and there's a lot of pedestrian traffic on that street. I don't have much more to say.

If you have any questions --

TREECE: I appreciate your personal experience.

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

The Council asked questions and made comments.

SKALA: This is a Third Ward project. But I just want to ask a question of staff now

that it was brought up by Mr. Norgard -- is there

reason why the ADA

improvements were primarily featured on the south side and there was no -- not to

the extent -- that there were not as many improvements on the north side?

CREECH: It was purely done by survey information. We did survey, and the locations

that were in need of repair -- the ramps and such. Those were the locations

SKALA: So, survey in terms of the topographical aspects of the ground, but not

necessarily in terms of any kind of pedestrian traffic -- or there was no -- there's no

sense of that.

CREECH: No, it was based solely on the needs based on land survey.

SKALA: Thank you.

Mayor Treece made a motion directing staff to proceed forward with the final

construction plan specifications for the Walnut Street resurfacing project. The

motion was seconded by Council Member Waner and approved unanimously by

voice vote.

PH45-21

Proposed construction of a sidewalk on the west side of Audubon Drive

between Azalea Drive and Shepard Boulevard.

PH45-21 was read by the City Clerk.

Acting Public Works Director Shane Creech provided a staff report, and

the Council asked questions to which staff responded.

CREECH: This sidewalk project has been on the City's sidewalk master plan since

2007 and is considered

priority sidewalk due to its proximity to Shepard

Elementary School and Shepard Park. The project includes the construction over

1,200 feet of sidewalk along the west side of Audubon Drive to fill in the sidewalk

gap between Azalea Drive and Shepard Boulevard. The preliminary design includes

five-foot sidewalk and three-foot green space between Azalea Drive and Mallard

Court, and six-foot sidewalk at the back of curb between Mallard Court and

Shepard Boulevard. This work also includes the reconstruction of eight drive

approaches to accommodate the new sidewalk and the replacement of an existing

curb inlet. An interested parties meeting was held on September 28. Two residents

attended the meeting and four written comments were received, three against the

project and one supporting the project. Temporary construction easements will be

necessary to complete the project which is scheduled for completion in the

summer of 2022. The estimated total project cost is $300,000. And funding will come

from the quarter cent capital improvement program sales tax.

questions you may have.

Happy to answer any

PETERS: Yeah, I have a couple of questions. Has anyone done a -- like a traffic study

-- or looked to see how many people would be using the sidewalk?

CREECH: Not to my knowledge. There is

a traffic calming project in the works. For

probably next year -- you'll probably see that come across, but as far as use of the

sidewalk -- not to my knowledge.

PETERS: Because this has been like -- what fourteen years ago? So that seems like

that hasn’t been a problem -- or has it been a problem to not have a sidewalk on

the west side -- because the schools on the east side, right?

CREECH: Correct. It's

a neighborhood collector. We strive to have sidewalks on both

sides of the road. It will allow them to get up to Shepard Boulevard. That's another

location in the future we’re looking at, you know, adding sidewalks to both sides

there. It has been in the works for a while and it takes us a while to get to them.

PETERS: And this just wasn't put in when the road was put in?

thanks.

I guess not. Okay,

TREECE: So, there is a sidwalk on the other side. Can you back up closer to -- I seem

to recall we had some public comment, either at the beginning or an end of the

meeting from

a mom who had kids that lived in kind of the new development on

the front end that is on Mallard Court, and is -- so there's no sidewalk on the west

side. Is that right?

CREECH: Correct.

TREECE: Up until you get to the first --

CREECH: This fills in a gap from Azalea to Shepard so there is up to Azalea.

TREECE: Is there a crosswalk across?

CREECH: There's a crosswalk on each end of the block the school is on.

TREECE: Is there a crosswalk from that -- is it Mallard Court that I'm thinking of or is

it --

PETERS: It could be Mallard Court.

I know someone had commented that there was

no place for the school kids to cross the road safely.

TREECE: Okay. Alright.

PITZER: It looks like on your plans there, you're -- so you're removing several trees

along that side. Is that right?

CREECH: Correct.

PITZER: Are those like larger mature trees or what are you talking about?

CREECH: It's an older neighborhood, so yes, there are some large, mature trees.

There's one in particular that we're working with the property owner on to attempt

to save. That's one of the reasons we brought the sidewalk in up against the back of

curb for

a portion of it. But there's some that are close enough that either way to

put in sidewalk, you’re --

PITZER: Like six -- am I counting that right? And then you replace those?

PITZER: It's not typically in in the budget. We could definitely look at that if it’s

something we’re directed to do.

PITZER: Okay, thanks.

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

Paul Huesgen, Tim Rich, Roger Caffrey, and Lauri Rich spoke.

HUESGEN: Thank you for your skepticism and thank you for the appreciation for the

trees.

TREECE: Would you mind to state your name?

HUESGEN: My name is Paul Huesgen.

Shepard, or sorry, Meadow Lark. And, here’s the thing,

corner of my yard if the crosswalk made it safer. Now, if any of ya’ll have ever

worked at job where something was designed that wasn't quite what the people

who lived or worked there use, you'll get what I'm saying. This sidewalk will make

things much more dangerous. And know every study you will see will say that

Shepard -- or that putting sidewalks near schools will make things safer. Shepard is

one of the places that did my student teaching at. love the neighborhood. If

will go back to

lived right on the corner of Audubon and

would gladly to devote

ever decide to not run Flat Branch Pub and Brewing anymore,

elementary school teaching and this is the school of my choice.

TREECE: Which do you like better?

HUESGEN:

when, when students let out, even though, there's

there's sidewalk -- this is where all the parents line up to pick up and drop off

appreciate that. So, here's how it's going to make things unsafe. Now

no parking on one side, where

their kids, whether it's in the morning or in the nighttime. It's fine, but it's on one

side. There's a no parking on this side -- sign, but it's kind of a gifted -- this is where

we’ll park, this is where the students come out. That's fine. If you do that on the

other side, that's where they're going to park. It's going to narrow it down to less

than

a lane or maybe a half a lane where people are going to be letting off their

kids, and they're going to be going in and out of traffic. Right now, there is no spot

on the other side of the road for people to drop off their kids, nor would anybody

expect their kids to be picked up in somebody's yard. So, it'll make it much more

dangerous for people dropping off and picking up their children along that road

because people will drop off their kids and pick up their kids where there’s

sidewalk. Dangerous point number two, you're backing out of your driveway -- if

there's kids getting dropped off there and picked up there, there's going to be kids

running back and forth. There is absolutely not jaywalking issue at all because

there aren't kids walking in our driveways or walking in our front yards. If you put a

sidewalk there kids are going to jaywalk. If you really want to make this area safer, I

suggest speed bumps. The map kind of doesn't quite tell you how it's

a completely

straight street, and even though there is a, you know, blinking sign up that says

you're driving over 20 miles an hour -- I've seen in the three years that I've lived on

the corner that small crosswalk sign get taken out 2-3 times by somebody going

40-50 miles an hour. If you really want to make this safe, you got to put up some

stop signs. And actually, you'll note that catty corner from where my place is,

there's

largely misunderstood kind of triangle where people don't know what's

roundabout, put stop sign up there, put crosswalk up

going on. Turn it into

there, do something, but the sidewalk doesn't make things safer. It makes things

much more dangerous and that’s just the kids. The whole idea is that the only thing

that this is going to do is make things safer for the community, but it doesn't. It

does the exact opposite. It makes things very unsafe for anybody in the

neighborhood. If you go down Meadow Lark, right there, you'll notice that there are

no stop signs in that entire neighborhood. We have

community and everyone takes their kids out walking constantly. My fear is that if

you put sidewalk right there, that's just going to encourage people to jaywalk left

and right, whereas, that's not a problem right now. Put a stop sign up one way, put a

speed bump, put another crosswalk --those are much more budget friendly. And

very friendly family

think Peters and Pitzer brought up that -- 2007 was the idea that this is going to

connect us up to the park. This doesn't connect us up to the park. There's still no

sidewalk that goes down to the park. down where Shepard is. This is also the

church, the Presbyterian or Unitarian. There is

church at the end of the road.

There's no sidewalk that goes up to it. That's where we all vote. So, it increases

jaywalking. You put a no parking sign up there, but there's already a parking sign on

the other side of the street. Backing out of the driveway is going to make it really,

really unsafe for anybody walking up and down the street.

TREECE:

I appreciate -- I'm going to ask you a couple of questions, just to kind of

wrap it up. So, I seem to recall now -- I started looking at the overhead map. We had

mom from Stratford Chase Parkway express concern that there's no way -- there’s

little dead-end sidewalk that that developer put in when they -- probably

because they're required to -- when they built that, and it doesn’t connect to

anything. And then there’s no crosswalk to actually get on the other side of the

street where there is sidewalk. And so, the hearing notice says on the west side

of Audubon Drive between Azelea Drive and Shepard Boulevard. Well Azalea is not

even on the west side. It's Stratford Chase there.

HUESGEN: There’s sidewalk right there. There’s no way to build an entire sidewalk.

TREECE: Wouldn’t some crosswalks that connect the neighborhood over to where

the sidewalk is --

HUESGEN: -- or stop signs or roundabouts -- anything that stops the speeding. The

speeding is the main danger of that road. It's not people crossing the street. And

then on the aesthetics, the removal of the trees

neighborhood.

it’s

really, really pretty

TREECE: Actually, makes people go faster. Yeah.

RICH: My name is Tim Rich. I'm

corner of Meadow Lark and Audubon. And,

say, my neighbor. We've been in that house for nearly 22 years now and have not

seen problem at all in terms of the sidewalks. would suggest, and my

resident 2516 Meadow Lark Lane, right on the

rise also to support what Paul had to

recommendation would be, instead of spending the nearly $400,000 or more to put

a sidewalk in, that we install a crosswalk up at Stratford Chase to get on the side of

the street where the school is, where there's already

all the way to the school. I also am concerned that taking out a large tree, which is

right outside my house, and putting in six foot sidewalk from the curb -- right

a sidewalk that is accessible

banked up against the curb -- is going to put that sidewalk directly under my

bathroom window and probably not more than 15 feet away. That seems too close

for me and for my comfort, and

I don't understand why that has to be done with

these old trees that have been in this neighborhood forever. This is one of the

younger ones, but it's still a very mature tree, and we would hate to lose that. Also,

am concerned about the speed at which vehicles travel through this community

and through our neighborhood. It is problem day and night, 24 hours day. We

have motorcycles that pop wheelies and speed down through the neighborhood at

night. And when we have teenage kids in the neighborhood who are crossing back

and forth going over to the park at the school, going up to the park, at the pocket

park at Shepard Boulevard, across from the school -- we have garbage trucks -- and

I've complained to

flying through there in the morning at 40-50 miles an hour trying to get the garbage

picked up at the school. And think this is absolutely irresponsible that we would

have garbage trucks anywhere in the City who are speeding, and so, what would

a previous city manager about this -- garbage trucks that come

like to see you do with those funds, which are our tax funds, is to cut down the

expense -- to put in the crosswalk at Stratford Chase, to put in speed bumps,

perhaps even

a stop sign at the corner of Meadow Lark and Audubon -- something

that would slow these people down that go through our neighborhood. Many of

them are visitors. They do not live in the neighborhood. And this has become the

most important safety issue of my family and has been for the 20 years that we've

been there, and still nothing has been done. And now we're being told it might be

done next year. They were out there

concrete, and expected they were putting something in, and then they came back

and took them all out. So, hope that you would hear the concerns of the

neighborhood, and that you would put the children's safety first and slow down the

traffic and allow crosswalk to go in, which will save the taxpayers money as well.

a couple of months ago, drilling holes in the

Thank you for letting me speak this evening.

CAFFREY: My name is Roger Caffrey.

live in 1005 Audubon Drive, on the west side,

completely agree with.

will add that there are four written

directly across from the school. What’s already been said,

I've also done the written comments. And

comments now in opposition, not three. That was done by Mr. Harrison back here.

Of our block, there are six houses on that block. Four of us have written comments

in opposition to this for all the various reasons. I have talked to two people who did

not -- they are also opposed. That makes all six houses and residents along that

block opposed to doing this.

because live right where the buses come in and leave. If you start allowing --

causing people to start parking on my side of the street, you're putting that bus into

very sharp -- because they’re parking on the east side already. And what you're

going to do is create a hazard that way. This is not needed. I have lived there since

1991. have lived in the area since 1981. You know, don't know why this was

actually proposed because there is no need for that sidewalk whatsoever. The

other side has perfectly good sidewalk. If you put in few crossings up at Chase

might also add there’s another safety concern --

where they said, you'll take care of the problem, and it's not certainly going to cost

you $300,000. And put in maybe a stop sign and the speed bumps, and you will take

care of those problems. I see this is not needed, at least in my block -- not wanted,

and basically,

a waste of $300,000. And what I have heard here tonight, there seems

to be other places where you can spend that $300,000 and do more for the public

than you would by putting in this sidewalk.

RICH:

My name is Lauri Rich and I live at 2516 Meadow Lark Lane. And, we've lived

am concerned like the rest of them, but -- you have to

there for 23 years.

understand --

I had a daycare there for ten years. And, our biggest concern is the

speed. So however you can do it, that is the main problem -- is getting those people

to slow down. Even the buses are flying down those roads. You have to remember,

this community is all about riding

that want to ride bikes, and they're not going to ride

need to slow the traffic down so that these people and these young families

have these families -- our families are turning over. We're getting whole -- people

bicycle, okay, and we have

bike on a sidewalk. So we

a lot of neighbors

are dying and so we have a lot of young families. I'm sorry -- I don’t know how else

to say it -- but they’re turning over, and so we have a lot of young families, a lot of

young kids, and we want it to be a really vibrant community, but I can't let my kids -

I can't let my grandkids who ride their bike -- I'm lucky enough to have my

grandkids lived two blocks away from me, and if they ride their bikes, I’m, like,

don’t go this way because you might get hit by a car. You know, so I think -- I get

what Stratford Chase is saying, and they definitely need some type of crossing, and

they need -- a four way stop is what they need up there. But don't put one of those

stupid green signs up because they're just going to knock it down, you know. So

those things are just a waste of money. But

I think that if you really want to save

some cash, what you need to do is put in some stop signs and put in some bumps of

some kind. But thank you -- if you could slow the traffic down, you’re a winner.

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

The Council asked further questions and made comments.

PETERS: I’ll start since it's in my ward.

would think after fourteen years of no

know we like to

sidewalk on the west side -- know that neighborhood. Although

have complete streets, and we like to have sidewalks on both sides. After fourteen

years, I'm not really sure that that’s necessary. There is a good sidewalk on the east

side. I do agree that we need to do something about the speed that's

downhill. From Stadium, it comes down hill and hits to Meadow Lark, and then it

goes back up hill to the school, and would agree -- and we've talked about this

a -- it goes

before -- putting some kind of speed bumps in. I think of the ones over on Stewart

Road. Those work really well because you really can't hit those things too fast or

you don't do it more than once. You know, and perhaps asking our street engineers

to look at side or crosswalks or other ways to slow traffic versus the money for this

expanse of sidewalk -- I don’t think it's needed.

TREECE: I'm going to defer to the representative of this ward, but

I would tend to

agree. And I know that -- I used to live south of there as well. And I think what she

was really -- what the public comment was really asking for was just

her kids across the street safely. And I think there's a couple ways to do that.

a way to get

PETERS:

think our engineers can do that.

mean, that’s -- we’ve got good

engineers.

TREECE: Mr. Thomas.

THOMAS: Well,

should have been designed in in the first place. Having said that, speeding is

serious problem and adding sidewalk is not going to address that car speed on

Audubon because the road’s too wide and it's dead straight and there's no visual

interruption looking ahead. So, since the residents in the area don't want

sidewalk, it probably doesn't make sense to build it there and spend all that

money, at least at the present time. If we don't do this, though, think that the

speeding issue should be addressed. At the very least this should be graded for the

think every street should have sidewalks on both sides, and they

Neighborhood Traffic Management Program to see how, you know, where it ranks,

and either speed bumps or -- my strong preference to speed bumps is what's called

horizontal deflection, using bump outs that narrow the road, and those work very

well in combination with

pedestrian crosswalk. Narrow it down to about 20 feet.

That's enough room for two cars to pass, but quite slowly because it's quite narrow.

And then those pedestrian bump outs are waiting areas for the vehicles to stop,

and then there are marked crosswalks or central islands and medians. And

I will say,

I've just seen a plan for, I think it’s Smith Drive, which shows a combination of those

kinds of narrowings from the edge and central medians. And

seen suggests those are quite effective at slowing traffic.

I -- the research I've

TREECE: I'll just chime in on that, and suggest that removing the trees -- we’ve seen

THOMAS: I agree with you.

TREECE: We’ve seen every that shows --

THOMAS: We want that visual deflection --

TREECE: -- canopy slows people down. It shades the street. You naturally go slower.

I'm going to make

meeting without the sidewalk on the west side -- that it includes

crosswalks. You can do the bump outs. I'll defer to the neighborhood on that. But

suggestion that we direct staff to redo the interested parties

series of

re-engage that neighborhood with respect to speed tables, like what we did on

Stewart Road and see if we can’t come in under budget on this and actually give

them what they want, which is slower traffic and a safe way to get to a sidewalk.

SKALA: Just

a comment. I was persuaded by the testimony of the folks -- they kind

of know what they want and they've lived here for a long period of time. What they

want is some sort of speed mitigation strategy and crosswalks, and we know that,

but

I think it's a good idea to have an interested parties meeting to get a whole

report essentially back for some of the best strategies to accomplish those goals.

TREECE: Ms. Peters, are you okay with that?

PETERS: I think that would be lovely.

PITZER: So, they did send out the email just before we came in here about the

interested parties meeting on December 13 for traffic calming Audubon Drive and

Shepard Boulevard.

TREECE: Great, so let's use that one.

PETERS: They're so efficient. Okay, let's do that.

TREECE: Okay, that completes the public hearing.

PH46-21

Proposed replacement of a sanitary sewer under U.S. Highway 63 and

south of I-70.

PH46-21 was read by the City Clerk.

Utilities Director David Sorrell provided a staff report, and the Council

asked questions to which staff responded.

SORRELL: David Sorrell, Director of Utilities. This project consists of installing

approximately 720 feet of new sewer pipe and three access structures. The purpose

is to replace failing sewer underneath the Highway 63 connector. That sewer’s

failed, it’s settled. It accumulates solids and grease, and we have to clean it often.

This accumulation increases the potential for us to have sanitary sewer overflows in

the area. Replacement of this sewer, while eliminating the need to do all the

additional cleaning and -- it also aligns with the goals in our strategic plan related to

infrastructure replacement and goals included in the stormwater and wastewater

integrated

management

plan.

held

virtual

interested

parties

meeting

between May 25 and 28, 2021. No negative comments were received as part of that

meeting. Since then, we've talked to one property owner that’s generally

supportive of the project. The majority of it's located within MoDOT right-of-way,

and we've talked with MoDOT staff, and they're not objecting to us completing this

project. It’s estimated to cost approximately $625,000 and will be paid for with

sewer utility funds. With that, I’d be happy to try to answer questions, and

realized - but that's where we're talking about.

TREECE: What's your timetable?

SORRELL: We don’t actually have

timetable. If you tell us to proceed, we'll go

ahead and do the plans and then come back with authority to construct.

TREECE: Would you be interested to know that MoDOT is engineering that right now

-- to redo the 63-70 interchange?

SORRELL: We'll talk with them and see if this will have to be relocated. If it would

have to be relocated, we'll postpone.

TREECE: Could you coordinate with them. They want to have those done in early 22,

spring of 22.

SORRELL: Yeah, we'll coordinate that with them because

have to do it twice.

definitely don't want to

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

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

Mayor Treece made a motion directing staff to proceed with the sewer

replacement project located at the US 63 connector, south of Interstate 70. The

motion was seconded by Council Member Skala and approved unanimously by

voice vote.

PH47-21

Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Bearfield Road

and north of Woodhaven Road (4000 S. Bearfield Road) (Case No.

7-2022).

PH47-21 was read by the City Clerk.

Community Development Director Tim Teddy provided a staff report, and

the Council asked questions to which staff responded.

TEDDY: Tim Teddy, Community Development Director, and this

request for

annexation and also permanent zoning brought by Central Missouri Subcontracting

Enterprises. They are the owner of 4000 South Bearfield Road, and have submitted

a petition. This is about two-thirds of an acre. As you can see, the location is across

Bearfield Road from Bearfield Meadows Subdivision, which is in the city limits. To

the west is other facilities owned by this owner, Central Missouri Subcontracting

Enterprises, and it's their desire to add this to their property. Along with that,

they've requested mixed-use office zoning to facilitate the possible future addition

of offices and classrooms, according to their testimony. And this zoning graphic is

color-coded. Generally speaking, the colors are city jurisdiction, so you can see this

property does sit contiguous to city boundary on three sides. The heavy gray is

actually also

enterprise behind it. And this is property that was formerly owned by the water

district. It's currently in an agriculture district. Being utility function, that was the

city zoning district, the industrial -- it is an industrial nonprofit

only zoning that was needed. City roadway jurisdiction, city utilities, and again

contiguous on three sides -- all council needs to do tonight is convene the public

hearing on the annexation. There is

bill that is on your agenda for first --

introduction and first reading that will rezone the property, and as it’s annexed --

and that is scheduled for consent at your next meeting and that's because this

received

strong recommendation of approval from the Planning and Zoning

Commission as to the zoning. Try to answer any questions you might have.

THOMAS: So, Tim, just --

dashed line on that.

I see the black line. I guess that's city limits -- the black

TEDDY: Yeah, there's

but otherwise, you have Bearfield Meadows, which is

and then newer subdivision, Villages of Bearfield -- is to the south there. And

then you have the old -- think it's the old Woodhaven property that’s now

privately owned outside the city limits.

rectangular piece on the west side that not within the city,

fairly large neighborhood

THOMAS: The area that is outside the city limits is the rectangle? Oh, okay. It's the

rectangle that’s zoned A-2. The subject property, which is A-1, and that area that is

C-GP and R-MP -- and that's like a couple of islands right there inside the city.

TEDDY: This will even out the city’s boundary on the south side, and again, it’s the

same owner that already has their main facility within the city limits. They had

acquired this quite recently from the water district. It was surplus property.

THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

PETERS: Can I just ask -- is this -- the Giving Gardens is just east of that, correct? So,

this is what you see as you pull into that area. And is this the same owner?

TEDDY: Yes. EMSE, for short.

PITZER: And then further to the east there, that lighter blue, larger parcel. Is there a

-- where’s the access to that? Is there a city street or --

TEDDY: Yeah, I think it comes off of Nifong there. There's an old road. I don’t have a

good aerial so I apologize for that.

GLASCOCK: It’s the old Woodhaven driveway.

PITZER: Okay.

Mayor Treece opened the public hearing.

Dee Dokken spoke.

DOKKEN: Dee Dokken, 804 Again Street. And,

report about this that something that was in the

and that was that this site and the surrounding areas per the future land use map

are all located within sensitive area. This overlay designation identifies the

recharge area for Devil’s Icebox. Preservation and protection of these areas should

be encouraged to mitigate negative impacts on community resources. think that's

good information to have. And, originally, was just going to maybe say protection

of these areas should be required, not just encouraged. So, I'm just bringing that

point up. But in general, you know, this seems like good project, but it’s good to

just noticed reading in the staff

and staff report was missing,

keep in mind that this is the area that we’re trying to protect by plan. Hopefully,

getting some planning in the area. Thank you.

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

VI. OLD BUSINESS

B356-21

Approving the Final Plat of “Fyfer’s Subdivision, Plat No. 2” located on the

north side of University Avenue and east of William Street (1617 University

Avenue); authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 268-2021).

Discussion shown with B358-21.

B357-21

Approving the Final Plat of “Fyfer’s Subdivision, Plat No. 3” located on the

north side of University Avenue and east of William Street (1615 University

Avenue); authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 269-2021).

Discussion shown with B358-21.

B358-21

Approving the Final Plat of “Fyfer’s Subdivision, Plat No. 4” located on the

north side of University Avenue and east of William Street (1611 University

Avenue); authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 270-2021).

The bills were given second reading by the City Clerk.

Community Development Director Tim Teddy provided a staff report, and

the Council asked questions to which staff responded.

TEDDY: These are three properties. It'll be familiar to the City Council. We've had

two prior applications involving this same area. And, what I've shown here is the

three -- the site of the three lots that are under review tonight. In one rectangle

form there, it's about 200 feet wide and not quite 230 feet in depth, zoned

multi-family. This is on the north side of University Avenue. There's three assigned

addresses tied to this, 1617 East University, 1615 and 1611 East University. In the

aerial photo, there's

there. That's been torn down. We do have

that. This is just general aerial, just showing some of the addresses in the vicinity.

house shown on the east edge of the site. That's no longer

more recent aerial photo that’ll show

Again, the 1617 University address and the 1611, and the property in between are

the area to be platted -- so, north side of University, between William and Ann. This

down, so it's been removed from the base map there -- just to give

indication of how the topography runs in this area, and one of the purposes in

showing this is to indicate that there's fairly deep ravine at the east end of the

topographic exhibit and that does show that the house had 1617 had been torn

general

platted alley. It’s not improved anywhere near to that point, but there have been

questions about use of alley, so Council should know that it'd be very difficult to

carry that alley all the way to Ann Street considering that typography. Also you get a

sense of the general drainage across these lots. It's sloping to the east, to the

northeast or southeast, depending on where you're at on the property. We had

remarked in

previous staff report that the stormwater ordinance would not apply

just want to state that we would apply the

because of size of this site, and

stormwater manual and the City stormwater ordinance to this tract. Overall, it's

over one acre in size, 1.05. So, we did get comment that expressed objection to that

and our last session on this, so I just want to make that clear. And then this is

zoning exhibit that shows that north side of University. This block, generally

speaking, zoned R-MF, which is multi-family residential district, and there is

lighter shade of yellow that indicates R-2 that is directly east of this property. And

then there's one lot that is R-1, which is one-family. First plat, called Plat 2, is on the

east side there, so this would be the 1617. These are approximately equal in size,

all three lots at about just shy of 67 feet width, and again that depth is nearly 230

feet. So, that's called Plat 2. And each of these plats references the other two lots

so there are placeholders showing that two other lots are being created out of this

1.05 acres. This is the one in the middle. There was

was demolished some years ago. That's the plat. So again, the one the middle --

similar dimensions. And then, the one on the west side -- there is house

occupying that lot, and this is called Plat 4. And this would be 1611 University

Avenue -- plat. And, it’s requirement of our ordinance that any existing buildings

a house that existed there that

be shown -- the principal buildings that is. You don't see other types of

improvements, like driveways and such, but this will be an indication that at the

time of recording there was

house on the property. So, these are classified as

subdivision of this block that

replats. As we've mentioned in the past, there's

goes all the way back to 1910 called Fyfer’s Subdivision of Fyfer’s Addition, and

these plats are, basically, creating sites for -- to become real estate or building

sites. Basically, it's

issued that there be legal lots of record there, and since these are all -- all three

sites are portions of the old Fyfer's Subdivision of Fyfer's Addition -- it is required

requirement of our ordinance that before any permits are

step in the development process. And staff has reviewed these plats, They do

comply with our ordinances as far as the required content of re-subdivision plats.

We’re highlighting

a section here that's been a discussion piece for Council and the

public in the past, and that's that there are some criteria that indicate that a plat is

subject to finding at Council that they are not removing any condition to the

existing plat that may have been relied upon by the City and neighboring property

owners, that the replat is served by adequate infrastructure to meet the increased

demand generated by the resubdivision, and the replat is not detrimental to other

properties in the neighborhood, or if alleged to be detrimental, the public benefit

would outweigh the alleged detriment to the property. So, I'll leave you with that,

and try to answer any questions.

TREECE: Just

quick procedural question -- Is there no jeopardy to administrative

replats? mean, it seems like this Council has already rejected this twice. And here

they're coming back -- the third time in six months with yet another iteration of

this. I seem to recall on a recent, I guess it was an annexation and zoning, there was

jeopardy that if the Council rejected it, they couldn't come back for

pushed back when they tried to come back and say have you worked with the

neighborhood on this? mean, keep getting emails in opposition to this. Is there

a year. Staff

no barrier to them attempting this again, and again, and again?

TEDDY: No, there's not Mayor. We do have that provision for zoning changes. So, if

they're changing the -- proposing to change the zoning map, and they brought the

same request back to you three times in the same year, that would not be allowed.

For

consolidation plat. So that was one lot with the site that you see there. Then they

came back with two 100-foot lots. That was denied. So now it's three lots. So, do

controversy associated

a plat, I mean, clearly Council spoke on the first version of this, which was a

see those as different requests. Recognize that there's

with them.

THOMAS: So if passed, these ordinances would create three legal lots on which

development can be permitted to take place. What is there right now? Are there

any legal lots within this 1.05 acres on which development can take place -- can be

permitted and take place?

TEDDY: No, within this site -- these are -- been modified by some old deed

transfers, so the lots have been modified. The original Fyfer’s lots were

approximately 70 feet width. There are four lots on the east end of this block,

actually two of them are together in that ravine area, but there are four lots that

preserve that 70 foot dimension. And then also on the north end of this block,

across the alley on Anthony there, you find,

pretty much intact from when it was Fyfer’s Subdivision, but -- we require this now,

in multi-family district, when we see lots have been adjusted by just deeds,

I think, -- there's four lots that are

transferring pieces of property.

THOMAS: Okay.

TEDDY: And, the reason is you try to avoid either creating

kind of transfers or something that's substandard.

a superlot through some

THOMAS: Basically land has transferred in ownership through private deals that

have not been recorded by the City.

TEDDY: Right. It's way to modernize the description of the property. There’ll be an

easement across the front of the property. There's small alley dedication, 2 1/2

feet -- that's in keeping with our new standard, which is to have residential alleys

just bit wider than 15 feet. And then, standards for the description of the property

are much better on a modern plat.

THOMAS: So, at the present time, it is not possible --

without doing a replat like

this, it is not possible for the owner of this land to get a permit to build anything on

any of this land.

TEDDY: Yes, that's a prerequisite to building.

THOMAS: Okay. So this would create three lots about 67 feet wide. What are the

widths of the other lots along the north side of University?

TEDDY: The other widths -- I think it varies. The ones that are 70 are to the east, but

I'd have to look at the -- they're similar in width.

I know one consolidation that

resulted in 100 feet. That's there, but again, that's to consolidate, and that's part of

this request.

THOMAS: And,

width of 60 feet.

I think I saw in the notes somewhere that there's a minimum lot

TEDDY: Yeah, that’s right. Lots that are newly created, 60 feet in width.

THOMAS: That’s part of the zoning district, R-MF requires that.

TEDDY: Right. That's actually our single-family width standard. Now, there is

provision that if lots are legally created prior to the effective date of the ordinance,

and they happen to be smaller -- you know, in other words there’s an old

subdivision -- those lots are considered legal and legal lots of record. There are

some examples of this in East Campus on Rosemary, for example, there’s some 50

or close to 50 foot lots. Farther west on University block or two --

THOMAS: But at this time in order --

TEDDY: So, a few examples of lots that are intact from an old subdivision.

THOMAS: Because this has zoning district R-MF, in order for this to be developable,

then the lots have to be at least 60 feet wide.

TEDDY: That’s what our code says

THOMAS: And then, what are the setback requirements for buildings on these lots?

TEDDY: Well, it’s -- in this particular case, there's going to be

a deep front lawn. I

was going to say, normally, it's 25 feet minimum in multi-family district. It will be

50, close to 55 feet, to match the existing fronts of the houses. That's an averaging

of neighboring -- you can see it's pretty uniform on that north side of the block. You

do have kind of the opposite condition on the south side of University but -- so

there would be a similar averaging there.

THOMAS: What about the side setbacks.

TEDDY: Sides are 10 for multi-family, and then 25 in the rear.

THOMAS: 25 in the rear, and the owner -- if this is passed, the owner wouldn't be

able to build a single building across these new lot lines.

TEDDY: No, we don't permit that anymore. So, what you're going to get are

buildings separated by side yards.

THOMAS: Now, are there any form requirements on the buildings that are built in

terms of architecture, windows, building materials, height --

TEDDY: There are some things -- there's what's called use specific standards for

multiple-family. Use specific standards for multiple-family -- so there are some

requirements for some articulation of the building. Entrances facing the street,

certain amount of modest embellishment of the front door, so it stands out little

bit. If it's longer building, there's requirements for some articulation of the

facade. In East Campus, there has to be a pitch roof, 4/12 pitch roof, so not a terribly

steep roof, but a flat roof would not be permitted.

THOMAS: In general terms, how to the foam requirements compare with the form

requirements in M-DT downtown.

TEDDY: It's not a form district so not as detailed as all that.

THOMAS: Would it be theoretically possible to create an overlay that required form

standards that matched in some way that historic nature of the buildings already on

the street?

TEDDY: Yeah,

wanted to continue that there are

couple other parts of the

ordinance besides the so called use specific standards. There’s the design

guidelines, again, it's similar -- required features on facades basically is what the

Code is saying so that there is some interest. There's not

of a building facing a street, you know, or a neighbor that kind of thing. So we have

those, but, yeah, think, an overlay to work in the same way the downtown form

think you'd want to involve the entire block if not the entire

a flat and featureless side

base district does --

neighborhood in that.

THOMAS: But, theoretically --

TEDDY: Because you don't really do that on a on a street segment basis.

THOMAS: No, understand that. But that is something that could theoretically

happen. Okay, I think that's all my questions for now.

SKALA:

been

just had

question. It occurs to me that in this R-MF setting, there have

in another neighborhood, in Benton Stephens

some circumstances

neighborhood, whereby -- and we've talked about not being able to cross lot lines

and so on with the building footprints and the setbacks -- but there have been

some occurrences in that neighborhood where there was two buildings built on the

same lot, just one in front of the other. And in this case -- is that is that permissive

in this circumstance -- where there could be two buildings built on each of these

three lots?

TEDDY: Yeah, I don't think there's anything -- if it's owned by the same party, I don't

think there's an issue with that. If it were to be subdivided, you would have issues

because of --

SKALA: Right, as long as the setbacks are appropriate, there could be more than one

building on these lots.

TEDDY: Yeah, parking has to be accommodated here too. I mean, there’s not just the

building envelope depending on how many bedrooms are put into the residential

dwelling units, there’ll be onsite parking required.

SKALA: Thank you.

PITZER: So

a couple of questions. So right now, there is -- looks like approximately

like 100 foot wide lot and then two 50 foot lots -- is that roughly right?

TEDDY: Yeah, that's if you look at how the parcels have been rearranged. Yes, sir.

PITZER: So on the 100-foot lot, which meets the minimum width requirement -- that

would -- so just that one lot -- would that -- that would still have to go through the

platting process?

TEDDY: It would, yes,

PITZER: And would that be -- since that isn't changing in size or nature or anything --

would that be an administrative process or would it come to the Council?

TEDDY: We had sent something very similar back to the Council on that.

PITZER: It was just the one.

TEDDY: -- the 100 foot.

PITZER: But not the combining of lots. It’s just the one as is.

TEDDY: Yeah, that was one of the two 100 foot lots that the Council last saw was

doing just that. So yeah, I would think I'd bring it back to the Council.

PITZER: Okay, and then my other question is probably for Nancy. On this -- the

clause in the regulations that Mr. Teddy referenced -- that third one about the

approval of a replat is to subject to Council finding that the replat is not detrimental

to other properties in the neighborhood. Could you just tell me or explain where

that language comes from -- what the origin of it is? Is that common for, you know,

any replatting ordinance, like in Missouri -- and just kind of the legal basis for that?

THOMPSON: So,

I don't know that it's uncommon. I don't know that I can give you

really an analysis of how often you would see that kind of language. And I think the

focus of that language, because it's in the platting -- it deals with a plat -- is -- when

it says it's not detrimental to the neighborhood, it's the layout of the lot that's not

detrimental. It's not the underlying use. It's not -- this isn't

a zoning decision. And

you'll often see that similar language in zoning decisions so it can kind of be

confusing or kind of turning into a diversion of the conversation. So, I would say just

focus on that on the layout of the lot.

PITZER: Have there been any court cases that you're aware of that defines more

precisely the use of the word detrimental in this case?

THOMPSON: Not in this kind of case. I'm not familiar with that. There are cases out

there that talk about factors for consideration of various land use actions. And

think you all have been provided with some documents from kind of attorneys on

both sides of this issue, but none of them are specifically related to platting

actions. The Guffy case that is cited is

a special use permit where there is much

more -- there are many more discretionary factors for the Council to consider.

PITZER: And then -- so Mr. Teddy was saying that some of the other lots in the area

are sort of that 70 foot width or maybe a bit less. So, and we're talking about 66-67

foot width lots. So if

a lot was substantially similar to the other lots all around it,

could that be -- could it still be considered detrimental, or what would we have to

figure to find that it was detrimental if it was similar to everything around it?

THOMPSON: I'm going to leave that up to you to determine tonight after you’ve

listened to all of the testimony that you hear from various parties. That is that is

part of the decision-making process based on the facts.

PITZER; Okay, that’s all I have right now.

PETERS: Mr. Teddy. My question is just -- for 50 foot lot, which there is one right

next door to what they're trying to replat and there two or three across the street, I

mean, directly across the street -- some of the others might be 70 feet, but

I know

of at least three lots that are 50 feet. If it's only 50 feet then R-MF does not apply

and they cannot develop that property as an R-MF property?

TEDDY: Yeah, it has substandard width as well as it was never part of a plat as a 50

foot lot, other than, there were transfers away from the original 70 foot lot to

create that site.

PETERS: So, a 50 foot wide lot can only be single-family or a duplex?

TEDDY: They would have to -- well, they'd have to get

width. We used to have it in our ordinance that any lot that had been created prior

to the effective date of the zoning ordinance could be recognized as legal lot so

long as it wasn't modified during the period that the time the zoning ordinance was

effective. It could be built on with single-family home. Right now we have

a variance to reduce the

provision that if it's recognized as a legal lot and it's less than 60 foot, it can be used

for any purpose that's allowed by the district so long as it fits. So it'd be subject to

all of the, you know, basically the site and structure provisions. But in this particular

case, it's not a lot of record so they would have to go through a platting process, and

if they wanted, for example, to do two 50 foot lots and one 100, those two 50s

would be subject to requested zoning variances.

PETERS: Okay, thank you.

THOMAS: So if they were to get a legal lot of 50 foot wide -- the zoning districts is

currently R-MF. Does R-MF allow single-family by right?

TEDDY: Yeah, it's allowed. It's an allowed. One could voluntarily build

single-family home.

THOMAS: To build

single-family home wouldn't require any further action other

than just making that 50 foot lot a legal lot.

TEDDY: Right, through the appropriate process.

THOMAS: -- which is basically the same as this, but with just different dimensions.

TEDDY: You’d have to get a lot width variance. Recognize that [inaudible].

THOMAS: And then how many dwelling units allowed in a single building in R-MF?

TEDDY: With the dimensions that are proposed here, each lot could have up to six

units dividing the lot area by 2,500 square feet -- that's lot area per dwelling unit.

THOMAS: So, six dwelling units. I'm trying to translate that to number of people.

TEDDY: And, that’s going to depend on what the capacity is in bedrooms. And then

that will, in turn, require

a certain amount of parking spaces. We require more for

three and four bedroom apartments than we do for one and two.

THOMAS: So, there could possibly be six, three or four bedroom apartments in

single building on a 70 or 67 foot wide lot.

TEDDY: Yeah, if they can get it all to work. I mean, these are -- I would just point out

these are deep lots. A lot of the residential lots we see are well less than 200 feet,

and here you have over 220 feet in depth.

THOMAS: And, what's the height limit in R-MF?

TEDDY: It’s 35 feet -- that's measured to the median point from what they call

grade plain. And then, we do have provision that because there's an R-2 zoned

house that sits east of it -- unless building was backed 20 feet off of that shared

lot line -- that house would have to be 24 feet in height, so two-story basically.

THOMAS: Okay, because it’s against another zoning district even though it's

a single

lot zoning district.

TEDDY: Yeah.

THOMAS: Alright, thanks, Tim.

Robert Hollis, David Butcher, Ann Mehn, Marvin Tofle, Ron Haffey, Cindy

Neagle, Janet Hammen, Ruth Tofle, Clark Odor, Cecile Bentley, Clyde

Bentley, Peter Norgard, and Rick Shanker spoke. Robert Hollis and Ann

Mehr provided handouts as well.

HOLLIS: [Handout provided to the Council by Robert Hollis.] Good evening, Robert

Hollis, the Van Matre Law Firm, 1103 East Broadway. Here on behalf of the

applicant. Also, here is David Butcher from Crockett Engineering, who's

surveyor,

as well as Justin Naydyhor, representative of the applicant. quick overview --

and some of this you've already gone through -- this is required. We are here

because we are required to be here. I'm not sure that I have time to get into the 50

foot lot questions that were asked, but

they would not be legal lots without going to the process, the

obtaining variances. So they just would not be legal under any circumstances as 50

foot lots without variances. As will show you, the lot widths are essentially -- that

think the short answer is that no you --

entire process, of

are being proposed -- are essentially the same as that currently exist. I've broken

this down into lots that are -- 22 lots that were part of the original subdivision. Here

you can see the plat from 1907. I’ve zoomed in to show you that most of the lots

were about 70 feet. We're dealing with part of 15, part of 16, part of 17, and part of

18, to be three lots now. Here's an aerial of the subdivision showing the exact same

view as you saw before. The next slide is the width of each and every lot of the 22

lots, which are actually more than 22 lots because some of them have been

subdivided. Without getting into all of this for lack of time, the average lot width is

65.72 feet. That's for the 22 lots. We’re proposing lots that are 66.82 feet -- almost

identical to the lots remaining in the neighborhood. Here's one showing the rough

depiction of what the existing lots look like. Next one is -- here's what it would look

like with what was proposed. That's required. Next, this just is

a depiction showing

all of the lot widths followed by what the lot widths would be -- 100, 50, and 50 --

now 66.822, 66.82, and 66.82. The three criteria I'd like to focus on -- the third one --

and Mr. Butcher will focus on the next one. To apply the criteria, you are acting

administratively, and let me be clear, you do have discretion. You have discretion

to determine whether or not this plat meets the requirements. If you decide that,

that's when you lose discretion, but you certainly have discretion in making that

decision. That discretion -- the criteria under which you operate for establish -- or --

utilizing that discretion cannot be too general. It cannot effectively rezone the

property by denying the plat. And here's a quote from the case that’s on point, “the

law does not permit administrative bodies to exercise arbitrary and subjective

authority over the granting or denying of subdivision plats.”

would submit this

replat it is not detrimental, and I'm not sure how you could find it being

detrimental, given the fact that if you focus only on the plat, and it meets all the

other requirements of the plat, you're really left with looking at the size of the lot.

And the size of the lot is the same as the size as all of the other lots, essentially.

And, if that's the case, then all of the lots that exist are equally detrimental. If that’s

your finding, I'm not sure how that's anything but arbitrary. Finishing -- in summary,

we have to be here. We can't get

a building permit effectively. We cannot use the

property without being here and going through the platting process. To replat an

area that has three existing -- we'll call them lots, although they're not legal lots --

into three lots that are the same size as the remaining neighborhood lots, is the

best we can do. I'm not sure what else you would have us do in order to utilize

property within the City of Columbia. To not approve this would be to effectively

condemned/rezone/call it what you will --

taking of the property -- because it is

decision is not

not permitted to be used. Either way, in my opinion, such

permissible under Missouri law. David Butcher is here. In the meantime, I'd be

happy to answer any questions you have.

BUTCHER:

Nifong. Thanks for giving me

two items that are important to meet the platting requirements through the

ordinance. Robert touched quite well on Section 3. want to talk on the other two

items, which is -- resubdivision would not eliminate the restrictions.

sections in gray are the sections that

Council

Members,

David

Butcher,

Crockett

Engineering,

1000 West

few minutes here.

wanted to talk about the other

So, the two

would like to talk about. Resubdivision would

not eliminate any restrictions that were previously relied upon, so the plat that was

created in 1907 had some things, items, some material things that were granted the

City of Columbia -- city rights-of-ways, alleyways, things of that nature. I'm here to

tell you that by replating this, we would not be taking away any -- anything that the

City already has granted to them or that -- what other people in the neighborhood

relied on. In fact, we're going to grant more right away, and in fact, give easements

to the City in exchange for platting. The second thing I need to talk about is utilities.

We need to make sure that there's adequate utilities on the site in order to

subdivide. Currently, it had three homes on it. It has houses up and down the block.

It's developed street -- it's fully developed. There are fire hydrants in place,

there’s water lines, there's electrical lines -- everything's in place to facilitate the

development that is needed here. Whether it's single-family home or it's 15-16

homes -- units -- whether it's 15-16 units, whatever the maximum development is

possible -- the potential is, we have all the utilities in place. And here's couple of

notices to serve, think from the utility providers that proves that the utilities are

already in place to facilitate the development. Basically, we think we meet all three

requirements needed to plat under the City’s regulations.

MEHR: My name is Anne Mehr. I live at 714 Ingleside Drive in East Campus, and I'm

speaking tonight on behalf of the East Campus Neighborhood Association. In that

capacity, I've been delegated to offer records and testimony presented in

connection with the first two applications to replat the Fyfer’s Subdivision. These

were heard by the Council on May 17 and August 2 of this year. We request that all

such records and testimony be made part of the record in case B356, B357, and B358.

[Handouts were provided.] Tonight I’m speaking on behalf of Kathy Love, who lives

in the 1600 block, but was unable to be here. The East Campus Neighborhood

Association Board has again voted unanimously to oppose the replat of the three

lots on University Avenue for the purpose of constructing three apartment

buildings to house up to 72 students. This is the third time the neighborhood

association has addressed you about the request to build apartment buildings at

this location, and I'll briefly summarize the two previous meetings. May 17, the

developer requested to replat three parcels into one, to demolish the William C.

Knight house, to construct one or possibly two apartment buildings of 14 to 18 units

each to house 56 or more students. August 2, the developer requested to replat

three parcels into two, to demolish the William C. Knight House, to construct two

apartment buildings to house up to 48 students. Today, the developer requests to

replat three parcels to create three equal parcels, to demolish the William C. Knight

house, to construct three apartment buildings,

three stories tall to house up to 72

students and 72 cars. In summary, this is the third time the City Council has had to

hear the developer’s request to construct apartments in the 1600 block of

University Avenue. This is the third time the neighbors have come together to

oppose it. More than 15 people have appeared before you to oppose, more than 20

letters have been sent in opposition. We're opposed to the requests because the

proposed

neighborhood for the following reasons, it lowers property values, it's not in

keeping with historic architecture, it demolishes home included in the East

development

detrimental

the

adjoining

properties

and

the

Campus National Historic District, it adds to traffic congestion, creates danger for

pedestrians and cyclists, sets precedent for Columbia and the neighborhood,

creates more trash and noise problems, and adds to existing parking problems. It

contributes to pollution of Moss and Hinkson Creeks, adds impervious surfaces that

contribute to flooding, adds to police responsibility and incidents. The density

detracts from the sense of community. It more than doubles the population of the

north 1600 block, detracts from the livability of East Campus. The density increases

instances of crime and the neighbors have no control over the design. The latter

points out

frustration on the part the neighbors. After repeated meetings with

the developer, we have yet to learn about the design of the proposed construction

-- could look like this or this -- it could be anything. East Campus is a neighborhood

of single family homes and house-like apartments such as these. We love East

Campus with its history, the diversity, proximity to downtown and the University,

and the sense of community. This sense of community depends on

balance

between permanent and temporary residents. We view this continuing request to

build yet more student housing on iconic University Avenue as threat to this

balance, the history, the character and the quality of life in our neighborhood.

Thank you for once again considering the issue at hand. Please continue to support

the character of Columbia neighborhoods by voting no on this request.

TREECE: Ms. Mehr, one question. Do the proposed plat would eliminate restrictions

on the existing plat that you as a neighboring property owner have relied upon?

MEHR: I think we count on you guys to keep that balance. It's so important. I mean I

can't imagine 72 more bodies and cars on University in that block.

TOFLE: Mr. Mayor, my name is Marvin Tofle.

I reside at 1805 Cliff Drive with my

wife. We've lived there since 1998. I just want to start by showing you this diagram.

This is a diagram that Phebe La Mar showed us last time we were here, and, at that

time, she told us that -- and I sent you all a letter where I went through the video

over and over and over to get her exact words -- that time she told us that if they

didn't get the -- what they were asking for last time, then they would come back

again and ask for three similarly sized lots. That's the 60-something foot lots. And

she had

a diagram where you can see that Mr. Naydyhor has indicated that this

proposal would have three separate lots consisting of 62 beds, 15-16 units, and they

would be three story buildings. So, we know what is anticipated because this is

exactly what Phebe told us would happen, and it is now happening. So Mr. Hollis

came to our neighborhood meeting, and

asked him at that time -- since the

developers had been denied twice already, why didn't they come back and

substantially scale back their proposal? And he told me the reason was that the

Council has no authority to deny

replat. It’s ministerial and any issues such as

density, infrastructure, what buildings look like, anything else, are irrelevant. And

if you don't apply the three standards set out in Section 29.5, then those questions

will never be asked. There is no procedure, no place where that would ever come

up. As you'll see, here’s 29.5(d)(4), which I've mentioned over and over, but as

you'll see it says

replat shall only be approved by the Council if the Council

determines these three things, is it in the public interest, is there adequate

infrastructure, and is it detrimental? And it is the person that was requesting this --

they say they have to be here. Well, they filed this and they have to prove it. It's

not up to us to prove it or you to prove it. It's up to them to prove it. Have they

proved these things? I don't think so. And I would like to say that they -- they say

that they've tried every possible configuration. Well,

submitted the same plan in different configurations, but at the end of the day, it's

just the same plan, and they're trying to make this choice between either

allowing them to build large apartment complex or saying that they have no use

of their property, which is the last thing. They have -- there are already buildings on

the property. They tore down building on one of these lots. There's plenty there.

would say that they have

And if they had a proposal, other than this 64 bed proposal, which could be up to 72

if you unleash this -- you know, we don't mind. We're happy. We're happy with

what's there now. So, anyway, thank you for your consideration.

TREECE: So, Mr. Tofle, your legal opinion is the ministerial judgment of this Council

only applies in the absence of a standard.

TOFLE: Exactly

TREECE: And 29.5(d)(4) is the three additional standards that courts rely upon in

order for councils to exercise their discretion.

TOFLE: Yes.

not like a zoning case or this case or -- you could easily say it's a filling station case.

It is case about what power the Council has to promote the goals of its

I couldn't disagree with Ms. Thompson more, in all due respect. This is

comprehensive zoning ordinance. And, if

I may, the court said Section 13 -- that was

the Webster Groves Section in 1957 -- so this is common. This is used all over.

TREECE: That’s still good case law from 1957

TOFLE: It is the controlling case law. Mr. Hollis cited the Schaefer case. The Schaefer

case says, this is consistent with the Guffey case. It’s consistent because has to be

consistent. The Guffey case is

Supreme Court case. All Missouri cases of lower

courts, like the courts of appeals, like his case, have to be consistent with the

Supreme Court. They cannot be otherwise. So, the Section 13 in Webster Grove

said, we think the procedure prescribed by Section 13, reasonably interpreted, is

sufficient to provide against the exercises of arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion

by the city council. Section 13 prescribes the procedure for determining and

requires the city council to determine whether the location and use of

filling

station would or would not promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare

of the community by determining specifically whether such location or use would

or would not

adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, traffic conditions,

public utility facilities, and other matters pertaining to the general welfare. It

requires that such determination be made upon evidence and facts adduced before

it. So, then they say we conclude, therefore and so hold, that the legislative

discretion so delegated to the council is sufficiently circumscribed to require that

discretion to be reasonably, not arbitrarily, exercised. So these are what they call

the standards. There’re just three more requirements.

TREECE: Do you think the replat is in the best interest of the public?

TOFLE: No, I don’t.

TREECE: Do you think adding 64 to 72 new beds on each of the lots would have an

adverse effect on infrastructure?

TOFLE: You know, what

know, the look on the ground and say, can this neighborhood absorb this? Can they

support this? We can't support, you know, big apartment complex of students like

think is that this Section 29.5 requires you to see, you

this. We don't have parking. You know, there's lots of calls to the police and the

police are busy, you know, especially on the weekends. There's noise, there's other

things, and it's not that we don't like getting along with students, you know. That's

not the problem. It's just the problem is when you have

a complex that's going to

be this big, it just increases the issues, you know, multiple times and so. You asked

earlier, do we rely on this, and I think Mrs. Mehr said that we rely on you. I think

you are -- you know, it's your job to enforce these, to look at the situation and say,

can this neighborhood support this kind of thing? So, you can't just avoid scrutiny by

saying, well, we're not proposing any particular number. We know the number

from last time and we know even if there was no number that if you approve it,

then you're authorizing up to 72 beds. I mean, there's no other way to look at it.

SKALA:

Just one question, and that is -- would you agree that the exception to

ministerial acts, such as this would include the potential for public safety?

TOFLE: Oh, yes. I mean, public safety is -- well, if I understand what you're saying -- I

mean, there has to be an infrastructure, and so police, other things in the

neighborhood.

I mean, if I understand what you’re saying, that is public safety. That

is something that you have to decide that there is adequate public safety. You have

to decide it from the evidence presented by the people that are bringing this forth.

They’re not just here. He said they just have to be here. They have to be here

because they have to prove these things. You want to know what's detrimental or

not. They have to prove, they don’t have to prove -- we don't have to prove it's

detrimental. They have to prove it's not detrimental. That's their job. So, yes.

SKALA: Yeah, It's just been my observation that this body or a body like this with a

different cast of characters, if you will, has in fact voted against ministerial actions

because of issues of public safety. That is egress and ingress, those kinds of issues,

traffic.

TOFLE: And

think there are cases in the East Campus where the Council has

refused a replat in the past.

HAFFEY: Hi, my name is Ron Haffey.

live at 1805 University Avenue. I've lived there

don’t consider this neighborhood to be

for 35 years.

love this neighborhood.

restricted to 22 plots down on the 1600 block. That plot is nine houses or nine lots

from my house. My yard is 275 feet deep, and my neighbors are staggered. So, we

all have huge lots. We bought into this historic neighborhood because of the look

and feel of the neighborhood, and

we rely on your judgment. We understand, I understand 29.5, and I don't think this

plot request covers all of those. don't think it should be approved because don't

I would say, will rely on the city ordinances and

think it meets all that criteria. We're permanent residents. We need you to regulate

development. If you know anything about East Campus neighborhood, you know

it's hugely developed, and

sense of priority and common sense in this process.

interest. don't see cry for more rental property in the East Campus

neighborhood. It’s just -- there's plenty of vacancies there. And if we have

housing shortage in East Campus neighborhood it’s for single-family houses.

know we've had people try to move into

limited options there. As far as infrastructure, I'm not an engineer, and

think it's way overdeveloped, and we got to have some

don't think there's any public

neighborhood and there aee very

appreciate

what the engineer says, but if you want to drive down University Avenue, you'll see

we do have physical structure problems -- curbs, streets, and especially sidewalks

but,

have spoken to -- the trash collection, the noise, the increased police call outs for

nuisance parties. But think it's interesting -- in the staff report that said although

think the main infrastructure problem, is the compliance structure as some

there's no apparent immediate infrastructure concerns -- the statement is in there

that taxpayers could begin paying in two years to maintain and support any adverse

effects on infrastructure.

killer standard -- should not be detrimental to other properties.

are right next door to this. I'm 9 plots away, and I can tell you it will be detrimental

to our residential property. So, would ask that Council, first and foremost, do no

harm. I think this is the same request again and again by the developer. I think the

aim is to maximize income, and think there's great potential adverse outcomes,

think that's

pretty short timeline. But three,

I think is a

know the Love’s

and I'd ask you to deny -- I would ask you to deny this request again. Thank you.

NEAGLE: Mayor, Members of Council, Cindy Neagle, 1836 Cliff Drive.

want to

address this issue of lot use and restrictions, and

with the contention that there is nothing that these applicants can do with the

properties as they're currently configured. They have number of options. They can

want to respectfully disagree

certainly continue to use the house that exists on the property now. That would be

my preference. I love Party House. I like to drive by and see what's going on there.

But, they can build an addition behind that house, they could request variances as

has been discussed, they could possibly build cottages with

variance on those

properties. they could submit planned development for the properties, but

think what's most instructive is that our East Campus overlay provides some insight

into the type of development that’s contemplated for lots that are smaller than 60

feet. When residents and landlords came together nearly 20 years ago to start

working on the overlay, they contemplated that there were mixed sizes of lots

within our neighborhood, some large, some small, but there are

a number of these

smaller 50 foot lots in our neighborhood. That process was long and contentious as

you might expect from anything coming out of East Campus, but one thing that they

did agree upon was that there should be a plan for these smaller lots, and that was

included within our overlay -- how 50 foot lots could be developed. I'll say that the

interpretation now in place of what constitutes

legal lot has essentially gutted

that provision in our overlay and made it essentially worthless. So I'd like to know,

you know, if I own just one of these 50 foot lots, are you saying -- or is somebody is

saying -- staff saying that I wouldn't be able to do use them, or develop them, or to

build a house on them, or even a small rental property? I disagree -- of course not.

I’ve outlined

number of options that are available to this developer. They

the lot size, knowing what could be

purchased these properties knowing

developed upon them, and the restrictions imposed by the zoning code on their lot

size and what could be done. You know, the fact is they may not like those, they

may not prefer those, but that's what's available to them given the size of the lots

as they're now configured. That they want to develop them in

not entitle them to do so, and that's the very purpose of zoning and lot size

restrictions for neighborhoods. We live in neighborhood, and neighborhoods that

a certain way does

have R-MF zoning within them have very few protections. This is one of those

protections that they -- we’re coming to you and asking you to please, you know,

exercise your discretion and help protect our neighborhood by not approving this

reply request. Thank you.

HAMMEN: Janet Hammen, 1844 Cliff Drive. And,

was going to talk about when

moved into the neighborhood in 1977, and don't worry, I wasn't going to go year by

year, but talk about all the different things that we had accomplished and proposed

and opposed and promoted. But after hearing some of this,

felt it was maybe

important to talk about actually what our overlay zoning districts says, and Cindy

touched on it. But the preamble for the zoning overlay district say, in case of

conflict between the provisions of the overlay zone district and an underlying base

zoning district, the provisions of the overlay zoning district shall apply. And the

purpose of these overlay districts are to maintain neighborhood character and

integrity

environment, the enhancement of physical, social, and economic resources, and

the accommodation of desirable change. So what does the East Campus

focusing

special

attention

the

maintenance

physical

Conservation Overlay say? In one place, it says two, or new two or more story

structures on small R-MF legal lots, excluding basement, duplex, and multiple

family -- they can be excluding the basement -- multiple family structures built

after the passage of the East Campus Urban Conservation District on legal lots

established before January 1, 2002, less than 60 feet wide at the building line in

district R-MF may be constructed either in accordance with the standards of Chapter

29 of the City Code or in accordance with the following standards. And the

following standards say that they could put in four -- no more than four bedrooms

or no more than four dwelling units, which means, four one-bedroom apartments

submit that this should take precedence over the zoning code, and later in our new

UDC, there is provision that states for undersize lots, which 50 foot lot is, you

a studio apartments, and then it goes on and talks about parking in there. But I

can go to the Board, which is the Board of Adjustment, and ask for a variance. And I

contend that both of those provisions make these absolutely lots that can be used,

and that this developer does have opportunity for those lots, and as Cindy said, for

the 100 foot lot to build on and so on. So thank you.

I hope you've enjoyed the

slideshow -- it’s just 40 houses from within the East Campus neighborhood and it

was taken from -- in 1995 -- these are all black and white pictures from then -- from

the Historic Register nomination form and indeed the actual nomination. So,

was

going to talk about that a little more, but instead you get this other. Thank you.

TOFLE:

Good evening, Mr. Mayor, City Council Members. My name is Ruth Tofle.

homeowner residing at 1805 Cliff Drive and landlord of 1801 Cliff Drive. I'm

retired professor and former chair of the Department of Architectural Studies and

am LEED accredited professional.

basis of ecological damage being detrimental to our neighborhood and public

interest. It is known fact that more vehicles, parking, and impervious surfaces

leads to stormwater problems. The East Campus neighborhood already has high

am here tonight to oppose the replat on the

number of vehicles belonging to renters according to the most recent census. Of

about 2000 vehicles, 1700 belong to renters. This does not include street parking for

others attending and working at the University. Even with

18.6 percent as recorded at the census, there is high parking demand. Simply

stated, high density housing means more people and more cars and more parking.

The formula of 2.4 cars per household clearly does not hold true among student

population wanting their wheels. Furthermore, development leads to less

greening and shade with tree removal. There is more urban heat. In the literature,

even the popular literature of the National Geographic, we know tree canopy

tree canopy and cooler

temperatures. In this

high vacancy rate of

reflects urban inequity. Desirable neighbohoods have

temperatures. Less desirable neighborhoods have

hotter

quote from the National Geographic, “a city’s tree canopy can be considered

infrastructure, much like sewer system or street grid.” In summary, vote no to this

replat. Too many cars, high density housing, impervious surfaces, and the tree

removal leads to stormwater problems, urban heat, and overall detriment the East

Campus neighborhood and public interest. Thank you.

ODOR: Hello, my name is Clark Odor.

the neighborhood since 1929. The house that was torn down was where my mother

lived as teenager. Dr. See was our family physician, delivered my younger brother

and sister. We have a lot of history in the neighborhood. And even though I left and

worked as an urban planner in Memphis, Tennessee, for 35 years, it's still -- feel

like it’s my neighborhood, and came back to come home. My main concern about

the neighborhood is the tearing down of the single-family homes and turning them

into apartments, and what that will do to the infrastructure. I'm really not

subdivision, zoning guy. I’m road guy. worry about traffic. worry about parking.

I live at 1820 Cliff Drive. My family's lived in

Parking goes all the way to Rockhill Road, and if you add a lot more traffic and more

apartments, you're going to have -- even further up the road and be by Jessie

Wren’s house there at the previous speaker so that's not good. As far as safety’s

concerned, the intersection, the key intersection of Ann Street and University is

somewhat blind intersection, and you put more cars in there, people don’t go

through rolling stops and the traffic that comes westbound on University over the

little hill sometimes have -- has

little excitement when someone's pulling out

from Ann Street. So more cars that this proposed development will cause just will

make

that

situation worse. The other infrastructure problems I'm concerned about

-- was in my letter -- there’s east-west box culvert that runs parallel to

Anthony, just on the north side of this proposed development, and back in 70’s an

apartment building was built over the top of that. They had flash flood. Someone

almost died in an apartment because of water coming in, and caused quite

a bit of

damage that night. I hope that that situation has been fixed in the previous, but it's

been a long time since I crawled through that pipe as a child. But it definitely needs

to be addressed. More runoff from this area would not make that situation any

better. It’s my understanding that the big parking lot built at the hospital does not

have stormwater retention -- that probably should have -- but it's not. So that's a lot

of surface that wasn't there back when this was my paper route back in 60s. The

really solution for this in the short term is planned unit development. They could

come in today and build something on that property. There's nothing stopping

them doing that. What's stopping is, they don't want to put in the small number of

units that would allow under the existing situation. The

should be planned unit development where you come in and you have all the

setbacks, all the design, all the units, all architecture, so everybody knows exactly

what's going to happen. The unknown is the scariest thing, and right now, there's

- this is classic place that

lot of unknowns, and the high side is very scary. So really -- what really needs to be

done is infrastructure study of -- you’ve got zoning and the most arbitrary thing

that’s been done in the last 100 years was this blanket zoning to multi-family. And

think what -- in my opinion what it was done was there was lot of retired

professors and widows that wanted to rent out their rooms to students, and under

single-family, they really couldn't do it. No one envisioned that their house was

going to be torn down and

a little apartment building was going to take its place.

That was not the feeling -- that why the City Council changed it, in my opinion, you

know, 50 years ago. So I'm recommending that this be declined and really be sent

back to Planning and Zoning as

a planned development so everybody knows what’s

going to go on and exactly, legally, what can be done. And other cases that come

forward, probably needs to be the same way -- not this administrative process of

just coming to City Council because it doesn't pass the smell test. It may be legal,

but doesn't smell right, so any questions? And before

I leave, I just want to thank

everybody for their service, especially the ones that are not going to run again and

those that are retiring, and I appreciate your service.

BENTLEY: My name is Cecile Bentley. I live on Cliff Drive in the East Campus. I had a

number of -- I'm not going to do the slides.

talking lot about the details of what happens when it's

increased density to this extent within neighborhood. The only thing

out to you is that in 1917, or 2017 I mean, there was a parking survey conducted in

East Campus. And don't know if you remember the results are that, but there was

three day study and they looked at the number of cars that were parked in East

think we've been here long enough

dense -- when there’s

will point

Campus. And they decided -- determined that at any -- on any one day at any one

time, there was negative additional capacity for parking. At that time, there were

only probably 11 people who were tenants in the three properties that we’re

talking about right now. Now we're talking about potentially seventy-two. So you

know that if in 2017 there wasn't enough parking -- there was negative parking --

you can tell what’s going to happen now. So, I do want to say one other thing and

that is -- I’d like to thank so many neighbors and others for attending tonight, and

I'd like just to have those people who are here on behalf of the opposition for -- to

this replat to stand. [About 15 people stood.]

BENTLEY: My name is Clyde Bentley and I'm -- I live at Cliff Drive, with her, in East

Campus. I'm

makes it kind of odd because I'm the one person without

opposed to the replat though because think it diminishes the character of East

Campus, and that in turn, I think, is a monetary threat to the City of Columbia. We

retired journalism professor from the University of Missouri, which

PowerPoint. I’m

just spent thousands of dollars to erect

Columbia.

gateway sign to welcome visitors to

I'd argue, however, that the East Campus neighborhood is just as important to

welcome people, not only visiting, but those who are considering the merits of

living here.

served on

several national search committees at Mizzou and

repeatedly ran into the same problem, while the reputation of the University of

Missouri is attractive to academics, its location is much less attractive to the

spouses and families. Their resistance to move into the middle of nowhere was

formidable barrier. Luckily our ace in the hole is the family-friendly, middle

America hometown appeal of Columbia. Our beautiful campus and the surrounding

neighborhoods are almost

postcard of what Americans dream

tenuous brand statement however, and can easily be damaged

and development. We’ve already seen the unintended

university town

should be.

by poor

That's a

planning

consequences of modern planning and zoning. An attempt to streamline the

modest development of downtown resulted in monstrous high-rise apartments

that still shock residents and visitors alike. Make no mistake, I'm not against

multi-family housing, but the vision many Americans have ahead of -- is not

dense conglomeration of rent by the room dormitories, but smaller and kinder

apartments that fit well into neighborhood. Think of perhaps the most famous

neighborhood apartment building in the United States, 122 Sesame Street -- 123

Sesame Street. Bert and Ernie share two-story apartment building with just three

other families and literally sing the praises of their neighborhood. This replat,

however, would allow the developer to plop down 72 student bedrooms and their

accompanying tangle of cars, parties, and noise. That's

Americana. But -- denying the replat would put

far cry from classic

pause to this type of

development -- allow the developer to build only smaller, less dense apartments in

the place. But I'm going to ask you to go further. You've already authorized a citizen

committee to review the Unified Development Code, which clearly does not

provided adequate protections for Columbia's historical neighborhoods. Let's take

deep breath and let that committee do its work. We can wait for further

development in those neighborhoods until we have the guidance from them to

keep them for -- to what they are. They’re money in the pocket for Columbia. Thank

you.

NORGARD: Peter Norgard.

I just have a couple of quick points. I saw in the staff

report the following statement, while redevelopment of the proposed parcel will

be impacted by the existing zoning entitlements, there are controls in place that

are designed to protect adjoining developments.

to that. Those of us who were around for the UDC know that the neighborhood

protection standards were much stronger initially than they currently are, and lot

of the impetus to water them down was from pressure from East Campus landlords

and developers. So, strongly disagree that this replat will be beneficial for East

take

little bit of an exception

Campus or the City in general. And I would just point out there -- our experience in

Benton Stephens with housing of this type, this size and scale, has not necessarily

been beneficial for the neighborhood. We do have increased parking. Even though

they're required to provide off-street parking, it's possible and common that their

tenants don't use it. There are parties, there are nuisances, solid waste violations.

We've even had a shooting. But a point that I would like to make is if the western

most lot, the 100 foot lot is subdivided or replated to 67 feet, how close will the

eastern extent of the structure be to the side lot line? Will you be creating

a legal,

or nonconformity, by replating that particular lot? don't have the answer to that

right now because I don't have a map in front of me, but I think it's a question worth

asking and looking into. That’s all I have.

SHANKER: Rick Shanker, 1829 Clift Drive.

before -- that our neighborhood is represented by the East Campus and also the

Traditionalist. In case I'm wrong, haven't seen anyone from the Traditionalists

come before you to say yes or no about this project. Thank you.

I want you to be aware -- I've said this

The Council asked further questions and made comments.

SKALA: Let me just go on the record here. I'm convinced that there are a number of

reasons why -- that there can be an exception to this replating process, two of

which are listed in those -- in that graphic that came up as a slide. The first, in terms

of the best interests of the public, and the third section had to do with detriment to

the public benefit. There are two additional factors. One is --

ministerial acts -- there are exceptions for public safety, and

think in terms of

see some of the

issues here in terms of traffic and concomitant issues with respect to police

protection and so on and so forth are one of those exceptions that the Council can

exercise its discretion on. And the other, frankly, is an interesting one --

I hadn't

really considered it but it's important -- and that is the overlay, and some of the

intent of some of the folks that put a lot of time in here. There are only a couple of

overlays in this town. One is

a rather relatively successful one in Benton Stephens,

and the other is in East Campus. And I understand that some of the legal folks here

will take exception to that, but nonetheless, I’ll hang my hat on the exception to

public safety and vote no to deny this replat.

PITZER: Yeah, so, you know,

voted against the first request, voted against the

is combining the three lots -- you

second request. Voted against the first one

know, it seemed out of scale with the neighborhood and those lot sizes. Voted

against the two -- you know, again, seeming like it was out of scale. You know, we

turn down the replat of the existing lot. So, there was existing 100 foot. There was

no change to the dimensions or anything, and we voted down the replat of that. So,

I, you know -- I'm a little bit concerned about what we're saying by voting this down

because there are three existing lots going to three lots. They will be legal lots. You

know, most of the testimony that we heard against this was related to the use of

the land. You know, the discussion about not being able to support apartment

complexes -- you know, the area already being heavily developed, the occupancy

and the density of the proposal --

than platting objections. So, you know,

neighborhood, and understand, you know, where everybody's coming from. Dr.

Mehr probably has more goodwill with me than anybody in the City, but I think that

we're going down dangerous path by not allowing something that is completely

mean those are all land use objections rather

hear and understand the concerns of the

consistent with all the other lots -- with most of the other lots on that same block

and in that neighborhood. And I'm just -- you know, I'm worried about where we're

going. It's seems fairly arbitrary. There could be

know -- for instance, in neighborhood that isn't as well organized, as well

mobilized to come out to city council meetings, and, you know, we may not even

think twice about that. So it does feel little bit arbitrary to deny this -- this

replating action. And, you know, would expect that we’ll probably wind up in

similar replat request, and you

court if we vote against it, you know, not unreasonably in my opinion either. So

again, you know, I hear the concerns, but I just feel like we're going from three lots

to three lots. It's entirely consistent with the other size lots in the -- on the block

and in the neighborhood. And, you know, it just feels like the -- we've got the UDC,

we’ve got the overlay district, you know, and the concerns and the objections are

with that, you know, rather than the lot size and the platting action.

THOMAS: Yeah,

owner can do with the property right now.

There was reference by number of speakers to

Could you, Tim, just describe that process? Would that require

have some questions for staff in just trying to understand what the

seem to have heard conflicting opinion.

planned unit development.

platting action first

or not?

TEDDY: No, planned development is

zoning classification. So typically it’s

requested by an individual that has a particular plan in mind.

THOMAS: But would it require a platting action first?

TEDDY: But yeah, it's

possibility for this property, but that's not really something

zoning

that’s in our toolkit to impose on somebody. We could say that -- if

classification that they are proposing isn't working, we could say, perhaps planned

district would get a better outcome on this.

THOMAS: Would it require a platting action first?

TEDDY: No, it -- zoning’s independent of platting. It's

also sale of real estate -- is platting.

prerequisite to building and

THOMAS: Would it require a creation of a legal lot or three legal lots?

TEDDY: Not to file planned district. They could file

a plan district based on the

legal description of the property that they own and then it’s understood that

process would follow that.

a plat

THOMAS: Oh, the other way around.

TEDDY: Rewriting the rules in the context of

certain challenges that have been expressed.

particular site and trying address

THOMAS: So you're saying that the two things will take place in the opposite order

in that case. The zoning would be changed to

platting would take place.

planned district and then the

TEDDY: Yeah, we don't require that property be platted as

- imposing an alternate zoning application.

prerequisite to zoning -

THOMAS: Okay. Well, I'll just make

higher densities, especially in the center of town. It creates much more efficient

use of space and infrastructure, more of community experience forpeople. The

big problem with it though, of course, is cars. And I think, you know, it's less about

a few comments. I generally like to encourage

the number of people than it is about the number of cars, which occupy

tremendous amount of space and create real problems. don't know -- that's

massive, you know, public health problem to deal with some kind of big picture

changes in, you know, big policy and culture and so on, and something I think we all

ought to be working hard on, but we are stuck with that. So, therefore, I think, you

know, we should certainly moderate the densities.

good outcome here somewhere. love the pictures that Janet showed of the

existing buildings there. It reminded me of presentation that probably many of

do think that there's probably

you went to a couple of years ago called Missing Middle Housing -- showing a lot of

pretty large, sometimes attractive looking buildings, that often were apartment

buildings with housing 8 or 10 or 12 people -- maybe not 72 on three lots. So that

would be

have very strong form standards to require the architecture to, you know, be

attractive and fit in, but maybe that's somewhere we could get to with planned

a good final outcome. One of the challenges with that is that we don't

development -- that it would have to meet the approval on those sort of aesthetic

grounds. So, it does seem to me that the owner has some other options now. It's

very clear that the best outcome would be an agreement between the owner,

developer, and the neighborhood, and

never happen, but I've actually seen it happen over the last several years in quite

few cases. So, I'm going to vote against the replat and encourage the owner to

really try to work collaboratively on coming to some kind of agreement. don’t

I think I used to think that that would just

know how that would be codified, but at the moment, there's no proper

communication between the parties.

FOWLER: I’m also going to vote against this replat and

I want to give my comments

specifically to -- it's not paragraph two, it's paragraph ii and paragraph iii -- about

storm drainage issues and whether or not the replat would be detrimental to the

other property in the neighborhood.

intense amount of development in the North Village area, it caused the

displacement of many people. And want to read portion of what one of my

I live in North Central and when there was an

former neighbors, who then later moved to East Campus, wrote regarding her

experiences, which were also my experiences. She writes, “My reasons for

opposing this development in East Campus along University Ave are based on my

personnel experiences in an all too similar situation.

Drive downtown in the Orr Street area. bought my first home there, loved the

area, and was happy there for almost 20 years. That is, was happy until the

Brookside Apartments were built. The construction of Brookside Apartments

previously lived on Hubbell

caused me to leave my beloved home due to storm water and trash issues.” Let me

set aside the trash issues because we all seem to have way too many of those right

now. “After Brookside was built, stormwater had no place to go and there were

terrible problems. My basement and the basements of many of my neighbors were

flooded because of the stormwater runoff. It caused

a great deal of damage to my

house and many of my neighbors’ houses. In addition, the development caused

tremendous parking problem in the neighborhood. There was not enough parking

to serve the Brookside residents. Our neighborhood was frequently overrun with

people searching for on-street parking and longtime residents were frequently left

searching for parking spots away from their homes.” Here’s the part that's the real

kicker. “In response to the parking shortages, the landlords in the Orr Street

neighborhood, including one of the developers of the University Avenue case,

began paving over lots to create additional parking for their many tenants. The

unintended consequence of this was, of course, the creation of more stormwater

runoff that made the problem worse.”

works and how that has impacted not only the neighborhood that

the North Village area, but also other neighborhoods in town where I've watched

this happen. And so, then when take that experience, which know is true and

can't divorce my understanding of how that

live in, over in

real, not only where this neighbor lived, but in other places, and apply that to

subparagraph ii and subparagraph iii, I come to the only conclusion I can, which is to

vote no on this replat.

B356-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

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

WANER, SKALA. Bill declared defeated.

B357-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

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

WANER, SKALA. Bill declared defeated.

B358-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

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

WANER, SKALA. Bill declared defeated.

B371-21

Authorizing a trial program for virtual meetings and virtual public

participation for certain designated advisory boards and commissions.

The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.

City Counselor Nancy Thompson provided a staff report, and the Council

asked questions to which staff responded.

THOMPSON: This is the ordinance that you requested come back to you on virtual

meetings on

trial basis.

believe all the issues have been worked out. This has

understand that they approve of

been taken to the Disabilities Commission and

the draft as written, but if there's anybody here from Disabilities Commission, you

can hear from them as well.

TREECE: Do you know what other boards and commissions were asked to consider

this, or were they all asked or?

THOMPSON:

They

were

not

all

asked.

The

Disabilities

Commission

identified

boards and commissions to request, and

Advisory Council, the Broadband, and Disabilities.

SKALA: Correct.

believe -- what do we have -- the Youth

THOMPSON:

The --

believe the Visioning Commission was requested, and they

did not have

quorum to meet to determine whether or not they wanted to

participate, so these are the ones that were selected for the trial.

TREECE: Were any other commissions asked?

THOMPSON: Not that I'm aware of. I don't know that answer.

FOWLER: Mayor, I do know the answer to that. So, I -- first of all, I was a proponent

of having

that suggested that we try

Board of Health, and they were unable to have

much broader impact with this, and

think it was Councilperson Peters

trial. But they did approach the

quorum in order to respond to

smaller number for

that. I'm pleased to see that they found other boards and commissions, but we gave

them the direction to look for three as and trial, and so they ended up asking -- well

they’ve got three now and they asked at least two more who were unable to meet

because of a quorum -- that would mean five that they asked, including their own.

SKALA: An additional question -- the recommendation that came from the group

that selected those three, or the three that were named here -- was there -- was

just

a request by those groups to do that or -- is that is that how the selection

process -- the selection process for those three that eventually were wound up as

the pilot -- how were they selected?

THOMPSON: I don't know the answer to that. I don't know if it was -- I believe it was

-- the Disabilities Commission had selected several groups to invite.

think what

they were trying to do was look at groups where they thought it would be

advantageous and they were groups that could use the technology, embrace the

technology, as part of their process. As

reminder, it’s going to take

staff

member, an additional staff member from either the IT or public relations -- not

public relations -- the meetings, our meetings group, community relations, that will

need to be present to assist as part of the process. And this particular ordinance will

allow either

group itself to hold virtual meetings, which means

present in the room. Your current requirement is for there to be quorum present in

the room, so this allows quorum not to be present in the meeting room. It does

staff member, at least one staff member, to be present in

member of the public to attend any of these meetings or

a -- the

quorum is not present to be

require the chair and

the room.

SKALA: And it does include public participation on a virtual basis.

THOMPSON: Correct.

PETERS: And it is a trial period for six months so then we should get a report back as

to whether it works or not, or the issues that people have run into, or if people like

it or if anybody uses it, really. I'm sure that YAC committee will.

THOMPSON: It does require

member of the public to give 24 hours notice in

advance so that appropriate staff arrangements can be made. It allows for less than

24 hours notice and approval by the chair and liaison in the event that staffing can

be provided, but if there are staffing obstacles then that request could be denied

within that 24 hour window.

Susan Renee Carter, Traci Wilson-Kleekamp, and Rebecca Shaw spoke.

CARTER: Susan Renee Carter, 2105 Hillsborough Drive.

just wanted to make

couple of comments as I was reading through. So I noticed on one section it says, all

members must keep their cameras on and have the ability to communicate, but

then in e, which is right next to it -- the chat box comments will be disabled -- is

understanding that if you're using this for accessibility that there are some people

who cannot physically speak so you need to consider how they'll be able to

communicate if they’re allowed to do that in the meetings. Also, there’s no

provision for closed caption, which can be done on some of the virtual platforms,

which is also another requirement, if you're going to make it accessible to people

with disabilities. And thirdly,

I want to point out, just from my own experience, is

that not everyone's computer and not everyone's internet -- because we have poor

internet in the City -- will allow you to have your camera on and also be on the

platform. There’s times when I’m in meetings where

I have to turn my camera off

or they can't hear what I'm saying when it’s my time to talk, or I can't hear the other

people because the connection is poor. So, before you approve that your saying is

going to benefit the Disabilities Commission for people with disabilities -- is

making sure that you've put together what you really need in order for it to be an

accessible platform. Thank you.

WILSON-KLEEKAMP: Tracy Wilson-Kleekamp, Race Matters Friends.

just have

question, like, why can't we use Zoom? don’t understand. We use Zoom for our

public meetings. People have to register and then we live stream. We also run

closed captioning. We download the transcript. We make every effort to make sure

that somebody that is visually impaired or whatever can access our meetings. So,

you know -- and we pay for the service as an organization. So,

I don't understand

why we would be looking at something even as trial that is exclusive in terms of

its ability to be used by certain members of our community. So why would you --

why do you want to try something like that? I mean, the idea is, I thought, to have

more people participate and for it to accessible. That’s why

thought we cared

about equity and inclusion and all that stuff unless we're just talking about it out of

ass. Thanks.

SHAW: Good evening, Rebecca Shaw, 2615 Vail Drive.

just want to say that I’m

happy to see this on the agenda this evening. I’m happy to hear the conversation. I

think it’s is something that is needed and has been asked for. Renee Powell just

mentioned to me, out in the foyer, that they’re having really big issues happening

with paratransit right now, coming to the Transportation Commission. So, if we, as

City, cannot provide transportation for people who need to be at these meetings,

then we need to have an alternative. Thanks.

The Council asked further questions and made comments.

SKALA: I guess I had a question for legal with respect some of the issues that were

brought up.

I mean, it was my understanding that part of the difficulty with doing

these virtual meetings across the board had to do, not only with soft -- Zoom was

not appropriate because it was inadequate to accomplish the kinds of goals, given

the rules, that we -- that were established by state statute and so on in terms of

legal meetings -- is that correct?

THOMPSON: So, Zoom webinar might be

product that’s used.

don't know what

webinar-type

the exact product is that the IT department has identified, but it's

product where the participants in the meeting -- those who are the -- either board

or commission members -- are pinned to the front page, and presentations can be

on the front page. And you have attendees that are in the background. Those

attendees are admitted into the meeting during the period of time in which they

are speaking. And so, board or commission members who are actually attend them

virtually -- their picture has to be -- and they have to be appearing -- as if in person

so you see their face the entire time they’re in the meeting. If they need to take a

break and their camera goes off, they’re presumed to have left the meeting. So it's

quorum issue for when someone’s in the meeting or not. Persons who are

members of the public who are attending the meeting don’t have to have their

camera on. As matter of fact, they don’t really want their camera on except when

for when they’re giving public comment because it's not intended to distraction for

the purposes of holding the meeting. And all the other accessible requirements

will be met if they're able to be met, and if not, then we’re going to have to find a

different mechanism.

SKALA: And just one other question and that is -- that with respect to the comment

period or -- the allowance of comments and whether or not they can -- we can take

comment in the chat room, if you will -- is that a legitimate point that was made in

terms of some folks may not be able to speak?

THOMPSON: Sure. So the purpose of disabling the chat box is much like how you

maintain decorum during

meeting. What you don’t want to have happen is

comments flying across your screen which is what software allows these days -- is

for people to post emojis and raise hands and do all those types of activities during

your meeting. I mean, the purpose of this is to hold a meeting, which is for a board

or commission. It's a business meeting.

SKALA: Right, but there is an opportunity to not use your voice and to type in

question.

THOMPSON: Sure. If somebody has

in their comments, then there would be need -- there would the ability to do that,

but as protocol, chat box is disabled for the meeting in general. Now, you know,

depending upon what kind of meeting you’re having -- if you’re trying to get

different kinds of feedback or public input, there might be temporary enabling

a need for an accommodation to be able to type

and then disabling, but as a standard protocol, they are -- chat boxes and emojis are

disabled.

SKALA: Thank you.

PITZER: One question that

I think I’ve asked you several times already. The see and

be seen requirement -- that is specific to the City of Columbia?

THOMPSON: No. So that is specific to boards and commissions that have due

process requirements. If you are holding

statutory public hearing, not public

comment, but

law.

statutory public hearing, much like you're going to do in court of

PITZER: Okay. So, yeah, I mean, so I've seen like school board meetings and board of

curator meetings where they are not all on screen at the same time.

THOMPSON: That’s correct. So what we're trying to do is practice and get

everybody, and see if we can get this technology. The best practice is to have

everybody on the screen at the same time for

I would say not everyone is using best practice.

PITZER: Okay.

a public meeting. That's best practice.

THOMPSON: That makes -- for lack of a better phrase.

FOWLER: Yes,

process going back to when Kate Graham first contacted me and sent

she received from Troy Balthazor back in December of 2020, at time when they

realized that they were having difficulty reaching quorum in the Disabilities

Commission because of the significant health risks to their members. So here we

are this many months later, after many iterations, and clearly understand the

concerns that were raised about what choice we’re -- what software we’re using,

which don't know the name of either, and some of the limitations of it. We have

have

couple of comments here. So, this has been

difficult

letter that

been struggling for months to get this up and running so we can figure out what

works and what doesn't work, and it's not perfect yet. We were instructed by

Nancy, the City Attorney, not to try and engage with the boards and commissions

that have statutory requirements, like Planning and Zoning, Board of Adjustment,

and so we instructed the Disabilities Commission to pick

we even told them to pick three -- to try this with. And they worked very

intentionally to first find an organization that had quorum, and again part of the

problem and the reason why we brought this forward is because the difficulty of

obtaining quorum and that we wanted our boards and commissions to still be

viable despite all the health restrictions that we are undertaking. mean, we're still

wearing masks, we're still sitting far apart, we still realize that we have pandemic

a small number -- I think

that jeopardizes people's health. So, this is not perfect by any means, but an

enormous amount of work has gone into this by members of the Disabilities

Committee. It has been

a negotiation between the IT staff and the members of the

Disabilities Commission on any number of issues, including the accessibility of our

web site and the new website. And I would like us to forward, knowing that this is

imperfect, so we can figure out where it is we need to make changes so we can be

more open and available to members of our community who struggle to get here,

whether it's paratransit or any number of other issues -- childcare, medical fragility,

the fragile health of

family member -- any number of things that have been

brought to our attention because of COVID. And so I’m going to vote to support this

ordinance.

TREECE: What are the metrics by which pilot project will be evaluated in six

months?

THOMPSON: We will provide you as much feedback as we can based upon the

experiences and let Council decide if you want to expand it or continue the

program or discontinue the program.

B371-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, FOWLER, WANER, SKALA.

VOTING NO: TREECE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

B361-21

Authorizing a supplier agreement with the Missouri Department of Social

Services Family Support Division for participation in the Low Income

Household Water Assistance Program.

The bill was given second reading by the City Clerk.

Utilities Director David Sorrell provided a staff report, and the Council

asked questions to which staff responded.

SORRELL: David Sorrell, Director of Utilities. This is

Missouri Department of Social Services to be able for the City to accept funding for

low-income household water assistance program for families that are having

proposed agreement with the

problems paying their water or sewer bill. It's very similar to the LIHEAP

agreements that we have with that department. This simply allows us to accept

their funding. It would be administered by the Central Missouri Community Action,

and the applicant would need to meet all the requirements to be eligible. And then

if they're determined and eligible, they'll forward that money to us, and we would

be able to accept it if we enter into this agreement.

FOWLER: Yes.

I have a question. I don't know if Mr. Sorrell’s the right person to

answer that, but I see that Mr. Hollis is here and Director Browning is here. So, we

received -- first of all, I'm delighted that we're facilitating this opportunity for our

low income households. But we received

January 6 2021 from the Human Rights Commission, then

January 12 from the Youth Advisory Council, and then

12 of 2021 about some of the difficulties that our energy assistance, our electric

assistance program, was causing to our residents because of water and sewer bills

water, sewer, and trash, and know we don’t have trash accommodated for here.

letter,

couple of letters -- one dated,

subsequent letter dated

subsequent letter from May

I'm wondering, if by asking Mr. Hollis and Director Browning -- does this alleviate

that sort of -- people getting caught in the middle between -- they have -- they’re

being offered resources for their electric bill, but then because they have these

other -- will these work? Have you looked at whether or not this is going to work

well together because that was often preventing them from being able to accept

electricity assistance?

BROWNING: Stephanie Browning, Director of Public Health and Human Services.

We do believe that this will work well because that is a barrier if we can only accept

the electric portion of the payment and they still have, you know, sewer or water.

So, and we work closely with CMCA so I see this as being a win-win.

FOWLER: So,

I think one of our difficulties before was that we wouldn't -- I'm not

sure if it was we couldn't accept the money for electric if the other bills were still

outstanding or CMCA couldn't transfer it on behalf of the individual household if

the other bills were outstanding. And does that -- because we still have --

I mean,

I'm not sure that if someone can qualify for electric, water, and sewer all under the

same circumstances perhaps they can under the eligibility requirements -- but are

we leaving another gap like we had before where people eligible would be eligible

for one, but it still wouldn't clear their bill? Oh, somebody’s here! Hi.

Stephanie White spoke.

WHITE:

Community Action.

FOWLER: Thank you for being here.

Stephanie

White,

Energy

Program

Manager

with

Central

Missouri

WHITE: You’re welcome. Thank you for the invite, first time. But yes, families would

not be able -- we would not be able to make a pledge towards a family’s utility bill

until the water, trash, and sewer portion are paid. Now the LIHWAP program,

unfortunately, won’t start until February because there was

fire. So,

am still

accepting applications, but we are right now not doing anything with them because

the system is not up and running so we can't do anything.

FOWLER: Oh dear.

WHITE: Right.

FOWLER: So now I'm going to add another layer to this and that is that the City has

additional funding in its -- we had an additional $300,000 left over from residual

funds that we put into a different account as opposed to the HELP program that the

City administered, and

I wondered how well -- how does that fit into this picture,

and that might be

appreciate that.

a Mr. Hollis question. Thank you for being here. I very much

HOLLIS: Steve Hollis, Human Services Manager, City/County Health and Human

Services. So, we work closely with CMCA and we for years have been able to pay

those other costs. So, in that case, typically a referral will be made.

Now they need

to be eligible for our program and there are some people that are not eligible for

our programs that are eligible for CMCA. Generally, it's going to be single adults,

non-disabled, non-elderly, so there are some people that fall in that gap. That’s

why this new program is going to be really handy. So, it will create kind of

seamless assistance for folks getting help from CMCA because they can get the

entire bill paid. In the meantime, we'll just continue the relationship we have.

Now, the additional monies -- just been really helpful because CASH and -- we’re

almost out of CASH actually.

dwindling. So, we basically run one utility assistance program with multiple funds

sources so that the customers only see that we have utility assistance program,

just ran

report today, and those funds are

but we do cover those electric, water, gas, sewer bill -- I’m sorry -- electric, sewer,

water, and trash bills, not gas.

FOWLER: Yes, that’s not a City --

HOLLIS: And so, that extra fund is blended seamlessly from the consumer

perspective with the other funds under the utility assistance, kind of, banner. So,

we'll just keep working with CMCA as we do now. So if they had somebody that had

big electric bill, and they needed the other portions paid, they could be referred

to us, and hopefully they're eligible. And we’re able to get folks processed very

quickly. think you had asked how much we’d spent of that $300,000. It's just over

$100,000, which is pretty good because it's been three months. So, we've worked

really hard to get those funds out there. And we’ve done a couple of things. It does

let us get away from the 5-time lifetime limit on the HELP program, which is

established in ordinance. It let us raise the income limit for 150 percent to 200

percent of poverty level, and it really just kind of gives us that money that we -- so,

for example, it’s possible we'd be running out of CASH next month. That is a distinct

possibility, and so it’ll let us keep helping households with older folks or folks with

disabilities. So, it's been tremendous help.

FOWLER: Is it possible without being too burdensome on all the other things that

you all are already doing to have an easy way of describing the interconnectedness

of the these programs so people understand that they might be eligible for it, and

not only that people understand, but the pastors understand and the other folks

out there who are trying to help people who are struggling. Is that something that --

is it still too many words and to many, you know, layers to like well if it’s this and

then it’s this and then it’s this and then it’s this and then maybe.

HOLLIS: Yeah,

think it's probably more complicated for us to talk about it than the

The consumers, generally -- we put out Housing Assistance Guide

think from consumer standpoint it’s pretty generally

understood that you go apply to CMCA in the winter and the summer, and that

typically you're going to want to apply to our program once year. It's fairly

seamless. think the folks that struggle are the folks that do get into disconnect

situation, and then it becomes kind of crisis, and that's challenge. So, that’s why

we did away with things like not requiring disconnect because all those years we

consumers.

that’s quick and simple.

kind of forced people to be in crisis. So, now what we do is really work with the

providers and customers to say hey, go apply for assistance before you get help.

Now, the other thing that’s happened is that they’re greatly increasing LIHEAP so

we’re in --

was telling Stephanie today, you know, -- relatively amazing shape

when it comes to utility assistance based on my career.

exponentially more dollars available and that’s only going to increase because of

these increased federal dollars. So, think it's pretty seamless. think you’d also

asked about the common eligibility system. We’re going to pilot that internally,

but we have an eye to expand that externally. And a great example would be -- one

thing spoken with Darren Pries about just recently. We’ve talked about over the

mean we have

years is -- if somebody went to CMCA and they had all their income information,

couldn't they just make them eligible for our program? And those are the kinds of

things we have in mind to make it easier for folks so that they can just simply help

that person or even complete that application and send it over for us. We’d have

every confidence that they’re able to do to that. We can't do it in reverse because

they need to keep documentation because it’s federal dollars where as ours are

local. And we feel there’s an opportunity to partner with professional providers to

actually do that eligibility for folks and then take one more step out of the way, so

you could go to CMCA, turn in your stuff, and essentially apply for two programs at

once.

FOWLER: And under this idea that we have common eligibility standards, which is

something I’m keenly interested in, would that also then -- if we mirror our

eligibility with CMCA’s, would that also carry over to other programs within the City

including paratransit eligibility? And

don't know all the other things that would

reference, but the agreement that has to do with this particular assistance actually

contemplates rate reduction, which

but circled it several times when

know, is not something we’ve talked about,

I hit it in the agreement between the Missouri

Department of Social Services Family Support Division and the City of Columbia. It

talks about -- you don’t need to be in disconnect or we will pay for reconnection

expenses and it also contemplates rate reduction to existing and eligible

households. Is that anything that’s also part of those eligibility guidelines or criteria

that we’re working on?

HOLLIS: No,

I don't think so. So, ours is just simply -- you could go to any of the

programs in the City that require income based eligibility and show your

information and get some sort of card. We’re actually envisioning something pretty

low tech because the tech immediately gets you into, you know, HIPPA issues and

things like that. So, really, it’s so, if you walk into WIC lets say, and showed your

income, you might get

off which income level you’re at, so that if you then went downtown to Parks and

Rec and you wanted scholarship for your child, you can show your card. When

started working on this before the pandemic, it was transit, Parks and Rec, and our

department. Transit’s still free as far as know so we would probably pull them

back in if there’s ever fee and it’s discounted in some way. For now, what we’re

generally looking at is generally Parks and Rec and our department. But even in our

own department, we have situation somebody could go to WIC, show their stuff,

a City eligibility card that shows your household size, check

they’ve got to walk over to the clinic and show their stuff again. So we think there

are some efficiency and some dignity be had for customer’s there. And then, if we

can work it out, we’d like to see if can do it with community partners.

FOWLER: Is it inconsistent to put paratransit into that mix?

TREECE: So, I want to keep this germane to 361 if I can.

FOWLER: Sure.

TREECE: Because

I think we’re getting really far off and I appreciate your questions.

I think they’re well intentioned. I think staff can come back to us on that, but I just

for the sake of transparency and public hearing, I need to keep this focused on 361.

PITZER: So, on the utility assistance program, the email that you sent to us this

afternoon -- so you mentioned you removed the 5-time limit on assistance, right?

So --

HOLLIS: It still applies to HELP program cause it’s an ordinance, but we’re basically

able to help people that have hit that limit because of the city utility assistance

fund doesn’t have that restriction. Does that make sense?

PITZER: So, under utility assistances, is there a 5-time limit or no?

HOLLIS: No

PITZER: No, okay.

HOLLIS: Under that specific fund.

PITZER: And then you said you raised the amount of annual assistance from 200 to

600? Is that correct?

HOLLIS: Correct.

PITZER: And what are the other the eligibilities guidelines under that program?

HOLLIS: It would -- still requires the basic requirement basically. Well for our

program, Boone County, because we serve the entire County. So when we talk

about our utilities assistance program, it’s a suite of different funds.

PITZER: I’m talking about the -- so the program that we funded with the $300,000.

HOLLIS: So it uses the same eligibility guidelines. In that case, they would need to

be under 200 percent of poverty level. In that case, they would have to be

a City

utility customer, and they would either need to have children or be elderly or

disabled or all three. Similar to the CASH and HELP general guidelines.

PITZER: Right. And then you said, you used an opt-out process and you went back

and added $400 to active accounts that had received an allocation in 2021 under the

prior limit of $200.

HOLLIS: Correct.

PITZER: What is the opt-out process?

HOLLIS: Basically, we just communicated with anybody got the assistance in writing

and said if you do not want the additional assistance which is being made available

to other people this year, then let us know and we won’t apply that to your

account.

Obviously, it only went to active accounts and it went to folks who had

already received assistance this year.

PITZER: Okay. Did you have many opt-outs?

HOLLIS: I don’t think we had any.

PITZER: Okay, so I'm just wanting to make sure I understand. So that $600 a year.

HOLLIS: Correct.

PITZER: Forever, until the money runs out.

HOLLIS: Well, we do -- have adjusted the amounts each year based just on -- there

have been times where we were upwards over 600 --

I believe for the cash program

in years past. We had so little money, we had gone down to $200. From our

perspective, it's something we'd want to maintain the ability to kind of adjust. We

had the sense Council wanted to get the money out because it was a pandemic and

due to the response so we did up that limit.

I know Boone Electric -- we’ve been

talking to Boone Electric about possibly upping their limit as well.

PITZER: Okay, thanks.

HOLLIS: You're welcome.

B361-21 was given third reading by the City Clerk with the vote recorded as

follows: VOTING YES: THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE, FOWLER, WANER,

SKALA. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bill declared enacted, reading as follows:

VII. CONSENT AGENDA

The following bills were given second reading and the resolutions were

read by the City Clerk.

B351-21

B352-21

Changing the uses allowed within the Chateau on St. Charles PUD Plan

located on the west side of Dorado Drive and north of St. Charles Road (9

Dorado Drive); approving a revised statement of intent (Case No.

286-2021).

Granting a design adjustment relating to the construction of public roadway

infrastructure in connection with the proposed Final Plat of Bach

Subdivision located on the east side of Scott Boulevard and west of the

terminus of Crabapple Lane (5170 S. Scott Boulevard); requiring execution

of a right of use license permit (Case No. 283-2021).

B353-21

Authorizing a right of use license permit with Christopher C. Bach and

Tracy M. Bach for the construction, installation, maintenance and operation

of a twelve (12) foot temporary access roadway and a five (5) foot sidewalk

along a portion of the Crabapple Lane right-of-way.

B354-21

B355-21

B359-21

B360-21

B362-21

Approving the Final Plat of “Bach Subdivision” located on the east side of

Scott Boulevard and west of Persimmon Road (5170 S. Scott Boulevard);

authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 283-2021).

Approving the Final Plat of “Overland Route 763 Subdivision” located on

the southeast corner of Range Line Street (Missouri Route 763) and

International Drive; authorizing a performance contract (Case No. 222-21).

Approving the Final Plat of “A-1 Rental Plat 1” located on the southeast

corner of Old Highway 63 and Stadium Boulevard; authorizing a

performance contract (Case No. 257-2021).

Authorizing removal of a refuse container and relocation of the refuse

compactor at the Wabash Bus Station property located on Orr Street;

calling for bids through the Purchasing Division.

Authorizing an agreed amendment to the master terms and conditions and

end user license agreement with Doble Engineering Company for the

purchase of software for equipment testing at the City’s electrical

substation to meet operational, safety and regulatory requirements.

B363-21

B364-21

Accepting conveyances for drainage and utility purposes; accepting

Stormwater Management/BMP Facilities Covenants.

Authorizing the City of Columbia to participate in the Electricity Information

Sharing and Analysis Center; authorizing the City Manager and City

Counselor to execute additional documents, certifications and assurances

related thereto; authorizing the City Manager to designate approving

officials; authorizing electronic filings.

B365-21

B366-21

Amending Chapter 2 of the City Code as it relates to membership

requirements for the Columbia Sports Commission.

Authorizing an agreement with The Curators of the University of Missouri,

on behalf of its University Concert Series, for FY 2022 arts programming

funds.

B367-21

Authorizing a grant agreement with the State of Missouri - Missouri Arts

Council for FY 2022 community arts programs administered by the Office

of Cultural Affairs.

B368-21

B369-21

Amending the FY 2022 Annual Budget by appropriating funds from the

2021 Celebration of the Arts event.

Authorizing an agreement with the Missouri State Highway Patrol - Criminal

Justice Information Services Division for access and use of Rap Back

Program services for fingerprint and criminal background checks for

licensing or employment purposes.

B370-21

B372-21

Repealing Ordinance No. 015992 which established procedures and

guidelines for procurement of architectural, engineering and land surveying

services and enacting new provisions related thereto.

Authorizing the City Manager to execute an easement to Boone Electric

Cooperative for the replacement and extension of electric distribution and

communication lines due to the relocation of navigational aids as part of

the Runway 2-20 extension project at the Columbia Regional Airport.

R177-21

Setting a public hearing: proposed construction of Fire Station #10 to be

located north of and west of St. Charles Road, at the bend with the

intersection of E. Richland Road.

R178-21

R179-21

R180-21

R181-21

Declaring the results of the special election held on November 2, 2021 to

extend the one-eighth of one percent local parks sales tax.

Accepting the donation of a gift card from Home Depot to be used by the

Police Department for the purchase of outdoor tables and chairs.

Authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a settlement

agreement with SERC Reliability Corporation.

Authorizing a social services provider agreement with Columbia Interfaith

Resource Center for emergency shelter services for homeless persons in

isolation or quarantine; authorizing a business associate agreement for

social service providers.

R182-21

R183-21

R184-21

Authorizing a tourism development sponsorship agreement with "We

Always Swing," Inc. for the “We Always Swing”® Jazz Series: Season #27.

Amending Resolution No. 136-20 which established the Growth Impact

Study Working Group to reduce membership and quorum requirements.

Authorizing a real estate contract with the J. Turner Jones Trust for the

acquisition of property located at 11 N. Seventh Street.

The bills were given third reading and the resolutions read by the City Clerk with

the vote recorded as follows: VOTING YES: THOMAS, PITZER, PETERS, TREECE,

FOWLER, WANER, SKALA. VOTING NO: NO ONE. Bills declared enacted and

resolutions declared adopted, reading as follows:

VIII. NEW BUSINESS

None.

IX. INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING

The following bills were introduced by the Mayor unless otherwise

indicated, and all were given first reading.

B373-21

Reimposing a sales tax of one-eighth of one percent for the purpose of

providing funding for local parks.

B374-21

B375-21

Voluntary annexation of property located on the east side of Bearfield Road

and north of Woodhaven Road (4000 S. Bearfield Road); establishing

permanent M-OF (Mixed-use Office) zoning (Case No. 304-2021).

Approving the PD Plan Major Revision for “Sonic of Columbia, Hyde Park”

located on the east side of Buttonwood Drive and south of Nifong

Boulevard (3700 Buttonwood Drive); approving a statement of intent (Case

No. 214-2021).

B376-21

Vacating a utility easement on Lot 1A within the Alpha Phi Subdivision

Replat located on the east side of Providence Road (900 Providence

Road) (Case No. 79-2021).

B377-21

B378-21

Vacating a utility easement on Lots 3 and 4 within Woodrail - Plat No. 6

located on the east side of Westcreek Circle (Case No. 297-2021).

Authorizing the acquisition of property for the proposed construction of Fire

Station #10 to be located north of and west of St. Charles Road, at the

bend with the intersection of E. Richland Road.

B379-21

B380-21

Authorizing a program services contract with the Missouri Department of

Health and Senior Services for the overdose data to action program.

Authorizing an equitable sharing agreement and certification with the U.S.

Department of Justice and U.S. Department of the Treasury detailing FY

2021 receipts and expenditures of shared funds by the Police Department.

B381-21

Authorizing a memorandum of understanding with The Curators of the

University of Missouri, on behalf of University of Missouri Healthcare, for

medical support of law enforcement operations through the development of

a Tactical EMS Program.

B382-21

B383-21

B384-21

B385-21

B386-21

B387-21