All right.

Well, yeah, I know.

Get ready, Kathy.

Well, welcome.

Uh, I'll call to order the October 20th, 2025, Columbia City Council meeting to order.

I invite all those who are able to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One nation, under God, individual with liberty, and justice for all.

Thank you.

I will have Sheila call roll.

Miss Carroll.

Here.

Miss Elwood.

Here.

Miss Sample.

Here.

Mr.

Foster.

Here.

Mr.

Waterman.

Here.

Miss Peters.

Miss Buffalo.

Here.

All right.

Well, good evening and welcome to the Columbia City Council meeting.

Um, the public have multiple opportunities to speak at our council meetings.

Uh, if you were in our pre-council, you heard us talked a lot about this.

Um, but you can speak during uh public hearing, old business, new business portions of the agenda.

We do ask that you confine your remarks to the legislation being discussed.

Um, general comments are uh you can make at the end of the council meeting from the public from staff and from council individuals are allotted three minutes if you're an organization or uh group that's affected by the legislation being discussed.

You can request five minutes.

I ask that you um let me acknowledge that so that our timekeepers, Lacey and Peyton over there, can change the time clock so you know how much time you have left.

I do ask people to respect the time limits that we have.

It gives everyone an opportunity to speak and helps us be fair.

Um we do ask that you avoid demonstrations that might intimidate your neighbors from speaking.

We can address issues, not individuals, so we refrain from personal attacks, and that includes on city staff.

Um disruptions would be addressed with a warning and if necessary, removal and a recess.

So moving on, uh for this evening, our October 6th regular meetings are not complete yet.

Um so we will see probably two minutes at the first meeting in November.

Um moving on to the approval of the agenda.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda as posted.

Do we have a second?

Second, second by Nick Foster, all those in favor say aye.

Aye aye, any opposed?

All right, moving on.

We have no special items this evening, but we do have appointments to boards and commissions.

So as a reminder, we have multiple opportunities for people to serve the community.

Uh boards and commissions vacancies will be posted this Wednesday.

Um so keep an eye out for that.

So up first we have for our board of adjustment, we have one applicant uh that can be avoided if there's no objection.

No objection, no objection.

Uh and then we'll need to do roll call for citizens police review board because we have three applicants and two vacancies.

So Sheila, we please call roll.

Miss Carroll, Harry Castillo, Miss Elwood, Harry Castillo, Miss Sample, Harry Castello, Mr.

Foster, Harry Castello, Mr.

Waterman, Harry Castillo, Miss Peters, Harry Castello, Miss Buffalo, Harry Castillo.

All right, Sheila, we please call roll on the second vacancy.

Miss Carroll.

Charles Zug, Miss Elwood, Charles Zug, Miss Sample, Charles Zug, Mr.

Foster, Charles Zug, Mr.

Waterman, Mike Powell, Miss Peters, Mike and Powell, Miss Buffalo.

Mikeen Powell.

Uh Charles Zug received four votes, so he's appointed.

Thank you.

Uh next we have uh four vacancies on the commission on cultural affairs, but five applicants.

Um I will make note that regardless of what happens, we do have another vacancy coming up, and so people can more people can apply, but also the persons can reapply who is not chosen.

So Sheila, will you please call roll on the commission on cultural affairs?

For the first of four vacancies, Miss Carroll.

Ryan Hobart, Miss Elwood, Ryan Hobart, Ms.

Sample, Ryan Hobart, Mr.

Foster, Ryan Hobart, Mr.

Waterman, Ryan Hobart, Miss Peters, Ryan Hobart, Miss Buffalo, Ryan Hobart, Ryan Hobart's been appointed for the second of the four vacancies.

Miss Carroll.

Kate Nulty.

Miss Elwood.

Kate Nulty.

Miss Sample.

Kate Nulty.

Mr.

Foster.

Kate Nolte.

Mr.

Waterman.

Kate Nolte.

Miss Peters.

Greg Acres.

And Miss Buffalo.

Kate Nulty.

Kate Knowlety has been appointed.

And now for the third of the four vacancies, Miss Carroll.

Greg Acre.

Miss Elwood.

Greg Acker.

Ms.

Sample.

Greg Aiker.

Mr.

Foster.

Greg Acre.

Mr.

Waterman.

Sarah Howard.

Miss Peters.

Greg Aker.

And Miss Buffalo.

Greg Acker.

Greg Aker has been appointed.

And now for the final vacancy, Miss Carroll.

Sarah Howard.

Miss Elwood.

Sarah Howard.

Ms.

Sample.

Sarah Howard.

Mr.

Foster.

Sarah Howard.

Mr.

Waterman.

Sarah Howard.

Ms.

Peters.

Cameron Dorf.

And Ms.

Buffalo.

Sarah Howard.

Sarah Howard's been appointed.

Thank you.

Moving on for Historic Preservation Commission.

We have one applicant.

So if there's no objection, Trey Cook can be appointed for the general vacancy.

Any objections?

No objection.

Then for housing and community development commission, some are required for a ward representative.

So we have one applicant for the opening in the ward two position.

So if there's no objection, Mitchell Ritter can fill that spot.

For our Ward 3 position, Alexander Webb can be reappointed if there's no objection.

No objection.

And then we'll need to do roll call vote for the at-large position because we have two applicants for one vacancy.

So she Louis, please call roll.

Ms.

Carroll.

Rebecca Shaw.

Ms.

Elwood.

Rebecca Shaw.

Ms.

Sample.

Rebecca Shaw.

Mr.

Foster.

Rebecca Shaw.

Mr.

Waterman.

Rebecca Shaw.

Ms.

Peters.

D.T.

Farthing Jr.

And Miss Buffalo.

Rebecca Shaw.

Rebecca Shaw's been appointed.

And then for our substance use prevention and advisory commission, uh, we have one applicant for the prevention and treatment professional position.

So if there's no objection, Benita Kana can be reappointed to that.

No objections.

No objection.

All right.

And then we have one applicant, um, Paul A camp that can be reappointed for the general position if there's no objection.

No objection.

All right.

Um for our tobacco retailer license review board.

Um, we're going to delay and re-advertise this appointment because there's a clarification about um in the bylaws about citizenship member, whether or not they have to be a City of Columbia resident or just citizen of the U.S.

And we need clarification from legal on that.

So we will re-advertise and hold off that one until an upcoming meeting.

And that shouldn't mess up with anything.

All right.

Thank you for that.

All right, moving on.

We have scheduled public comment.

So members of the public can reach out to the city manager's office by noon the Wednesday before a council meeting and request five minutes at the beginning of a council meeting.

Um the items that are discussed during scheduled public comment cannot be on agenda items of that evening.

Uh and of note, it's been of typical practice if a question is raised during this, that the council will bring it up if it's warranted during the general council comments at the end of the meeting.

So we have three scheduled public comments today.

I'd first like to ask Tyler Travers to come forward to speak.

Hi, good evening.

Um I appreciate your time today.

My name is Tyler Travers.

I'm a proud Columbia resident of about a decade now, and I'm speaking tonight as an individual.

Um I appreciate that I've been able to speak to several members of council about this directly, and now I'm grateful to speak uh publicly tonight.

The topic that I would like to address this evening is the proliferation of illegal slot machines in the city.

These machines, which started out here and there are now found in essentially every gas station and liquor store in town.

They prey upon the most vulnerable among us, and that's evident to see.

Um but unless you've been tracking this issue intently, what you may not know is that these machines are already illegal and susceptible to local enforcement.

I believe that by and large, this council and the public, myself included, would like to find ways to reduce crime in the city while also caring for the most at-risk among our community.

Columbia has the opportunity to achieve both of these goals by removing and banning these illegal machines.

The manner in which these machines have been able to multiply despite remaining illegal, is that the manufacturers have donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to state electeds in order to stoke fear of lawsuits.

However, within the past two months or past month alone, the manufacturers of these machines have lost two prime lawsuits.

First from a 2024 Springfield City ordinance, which unanimously banned machines from their city limits.

That was upheld just three weeks ago by a circuit court judge.

I have also spoken to the attorneys in the city of Springfield who stand ready to assist Columbia should we choose to write a similar ordinance and help us withstand legal scrutiny.

Also, on October 6th, a jury found in a separate federal case that these machines do violate state gambling laws.

That case provided great insight into the amount of revenue brought in by these machines.

As only a hundred machines, 100 machines alone brought in 32 million dollars over six years.

As if you go to three or four gas stations, you could easily count to 100 machines.

I've also spoken to members of local law enforcement who agree that these machines prey upon at-risk communities, and that more crime revolves around them in the overnight hours of Columbia.

The Jackson County prosecutor has also echoed these same sentiments as she testified in favor of a Kansas City ordinance just last week.

Four of their council members sponsored jointly an ordinance to ban these machines, and it is flying through their legislative process.

I believe now is the time for local governments to act on this issue.

After my comments today, you will certainly be lobbied by the manufacturers of these machines.

I also recognize that legal staff will always err on the side of caution when it comes to lawsuits, reasonably so.

But I would encourage both council and staff to be emboldened by these recent court cases and by other municipal actions.

For elected officials, I know that there are not black and white issues to complex issues, black and white answers to complex issues, and I'll trust your thoughtfulness as you uh contemplate answers to this local issue.

I also recognize as members of city council, your position often goes thankless, and I want to thank all of you for your service and your dedication to your constituents.

I would personally encourage you to consider banning these machines, and I would uh be able to assist in any way that might help.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tyler.

And now I'd like to ask Jonathan Asher to please come forward to speak.

Hello.

My name is Jonathan Asher, and I live in Ward 3.

I'm here in response to a letter that Vidwest studios received saying that the city had no plans to continue funding Vidwest the way it has for the past five or so years.

And I don't know how this how these decisions get made or who makes them.

And my initial guess is just that perhaps someone in the budget office that doesn't really know what Vidwest does like, oh, art nonprofit has a cable channel.

Probably don't need that.

Um but anyway, so I'm just gonna mention a couple things that Vidwest does.

And hopefully that'll help express how how important it is to the community.

Vidwest is the place where people learn skills that they can actually apply to their careers.

I've seen a lot of people come in there and get training and then either get promoted where they work or start a new career entirely.

The training is specifically involves audio, video photography sorts of equipment.

We are a publicly accessible media center.

We're open to the public.

We have we do workshops of all different sorts, we do workshops specifically for city employees.

Um things that maybe people didn't learn when they went to school because those sorts of skills weren't didn't exist.

Social media manager wasn't a job when a lot of us went to college.

Um things like uh Instagram real video editor, not a job back then.

Anyway, a lot of people find themselves needing skills that were only taught to people who are audio engineers or cinematographers, and they can learn those skills at Vidwest, and they can they can actually do the things they need to do if it's whether it's live streaming their work conferences to colleagues across the nation and being expected to also make their colleagues and bosses all look and sound great.

Um they're trained on the equipment, often by actual working cinematographers and audio engineers, etc.

etc., who are volunteers at VidWest.

We have about 900 pieces of equipment in our inventory that people can check out into and use out in the world.

Many of those pieces of equipment are city property.

They were bought to be part of a open to the public video studio.

This is a callback to the old days of CAT TV that some people might remember.

Um I know that I'm not a numbers person, so but if I'm if I remember correctly, last year, maybe the year before, the city's funding for Vidwest was about $30,000.

We had someone run the numbers and the market value if people had rented the equipment that just that they checked out and left with.

This isn't studio space, this isn't educational time or workshops or anything.

Just that equipment was would cost $300,000 to rent.

So I find that 10 to 1 pretty impressive.

Now, does that mean that without Vidwest people would have rented that?

I'm gonna say no, because people often come in there not knowing exactly what they need.

They're overwhelmed by the dozens of different kinds of lights and microphones and mixing boards.

And in order for them to learn these skills, they need guidance from the very beginning.

Um with that, I with that.

I'm asking you to please direct the city's budget office that this is something that is worth funding.

And being a good steward of the city's property and making sure it stays accessible to people who need it is something that is valuable to our community.

Um I can't stay for the rest of the meeting because someone has the video studio booked from 8 to 10 p.m.

tonight, and it's my day to cover the studio.

Thank you, Jonathan.

You're welcome.

All right, I'd now like to ask Susan Renee Carter to please come forward.

Good evening.

I'm representing Race Matters Friends this evening, and I wanted to speak about speaking truth to power, because it's an important time in history when we need to discuss that.

Speaking truth to power is a nonviolent political tactic employed by dissidents.

Even though it seems like an easy thing to do, many people are afraid.

And the reasons are numerous.

It could be fear of losing their jobs, their friends, their status.

It could be the fear that their families and their neighbors will shun them.

Even internal barriers caused by indoctrination and rigid social political standards that they have learned are reasons why they don't.

In all of these cases, the reasons to stand down against tyranny are about them, self-centered.

It's about what they have to lose rather than what is best for the community or the country as a whole, or for marginalized people who stand to lose the most.

People see their comfort as more important than standing up to power that is currently trying to perpetuate racism, classism, anti-LGBTQ, and misogyny.

I won't say what is happening.

I won't say what is happening in the moment is to dismantle our system because that would involve change.

Change that could lead to better outcomes for our community.

No, it is deepening and perpetuating those characteristics of our system that already exist.

We already have an authoritarian nation where employers can silence our speech, leaders can make laws against the will of the people, legislators can change voting map maps to suit their needs.

Judges can make rulings that deeply affect our black and brown neighbors, our unsheltered, and our lowest paid community members.

Police can have racial and class targets for ticketing.

Cities can provide low funding for departments that enrich people's lives, and cities can create zoning laws that segregate and alienate people based on their social economic standing and race.

All of this has happened and will continue to occur because people do not stand up to power.

They have something to lose, or at least they perceive they do.

Due to this, an imbalance of power has escalated, and we have reached a tipping point where our economy, our government, families, and our most vulnerable neighbors are reaching a level of insurmountable obstacles for survival.

Now's the time for people to look critically at the choices we make to appease power.

When we allow those in power to target our black and brown communities, our unhoused neighbors, our LGBTQ community, and women, we deepen the damage.

When our cities make laws or decisions, supposedly in the name of safety or planning that target any of those groups, they contribute to the destruction of our community, our state, and our country.

Instead, we need people to push back and stop the destruction.

We need our local leaders to stop acquiescing to appease those in power.

Some people are doing that, as well as some of our local leaders.

But we need more people to commit to saving our community, to care for our most vulnerable, despite how others will tell them to treat them.

I'm asking our community to help us change the course to find their courage and to stop the destruction.

We need everyone to be on board.

Thank you.

Thank you, Renee.

Moving on.

We have no public hearings this evening.

So up first, I'll ask for old business for Sheila to please read bills 256, 25, and 25725.

Council Bill 256-25 is an ordinance granting a design adjustment relating to the proposed final plat of Meadow Lane Platte 1, located on the north side of Meadow Lane and east of Anderson Avenue to waive right-of-way dedication, granting a waiver and design adjustment for sidewalk construction along the south side of Meadow Lane, and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective second reading.

In Council Bill 25725 is an ordinance approving the final plat of Meadow Lane Plat 1, accepting the dedication of rights of way and easements authorizing performance contracts and fixing that time when this ordinance shall become effective second reading.

Do we have a staff report?

All right.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council.

We have a uh as stated, a uh really a two-part application tonight that we're reviewing.

Uh it is a plating action uh in reference to Meadow Lane Platte number one.

Uh along with uh the subdivision plat request, uh there are two uh design adjustments requested with that.

Uh and just for a little clarity, uh the design adjustments uh do need to be approved or at least uh voted on uh prior to actually approving the final plat.

So we will start with the design adjustments, uh just a little background in case you're not familiar.

So design adjustments generally act as uh basically a waiver process for some of the rules that go along with subdivision um actions within the city.

Uh a little background on the area.

Uh this property, uh as you see on the screen, uh, approximately uh 0.63 acres.

Uh it's located east of Anderson Avenue, um, on the kind of south side of Meadow Lane where it bends around uh kind of uh north of Broadway as well.

Um the design adjustments in particular we discuss will be uh to waive the sidewalk construction requirements uh and also waive the requirement to uh dedicate additional right-of-way uh along the frontage uh where the property is located.

Uh so a little history on this property, uh a little background.

Um the property itself uh is actually under separate ownership.

So we have two really separate parcels here uh that essentially act like lots.

Um they are uh two uh survey tracks that were created uh not through the standard plating process.

Uh because of that, we do not consider them to be legal lots, which essentially the short version of that is is they cannot get building permits to uh do any type of new construction on these sites until they go through the platting process to create essentially what is illegal lots.

Um there are two uh structures on the properties uh to the south uh is at 105 Meadow Lane.

Um there is a uh structure there uh that through conversation with the applicant uh was determined that the uh the house is in ill repair.

Uh they are looking to perhaps reconstruct a building on that site.

Um the uh because the properties are not uh legal lots currently, uh that is essentially what triggered the need to then come forward to the city and request the subdivision plat.

Uh during the review of that, these two design adjustments were also discovered uh or applied for by the applicant to address some of the concerns with kind of applying the full subdivision regulations to this property given its kind of uh existing uh stature, I'd say in this location.

Uh staff did evaluate uh these two uh requirements.

So one of those being the sidewalk construction and one being the right-of-way dedication.

Uh it was uh their findings that generally these actions uh additional right-of-way uh in the sidewalk would would probably result in outcomes that are not uh similar to what's the present uh situation within that neighborhood is.

So there is no sidewalks along Meadow Lane, uh either to the east-west or northwest section.

It would not connect any existing sidewalk.

Um additional right-of-way uh being granted here would probably not result in any type of tangible benefit for road widening.

Uh it's not on a capital improvement project plan for uh any additional street improvements in this area.

Uh so I think the outcome there that staff uh evaluated and determined that there wasn't going to be any practical benefits to actually imply these types of uh subdivision regulations to this property.

Uh a little bit of overview of the site, as you can see there, uh kind of on the south side of that jog of Meadow Lane.

Uh just kind of a little bit more description on that property.

So it is a little different.

Um Meadow Lane, there's a north north-south section and east-west.

The north-south section is about 30 feet wide.

Uh and that east-west portion, which is on the bottom of the screen there.

This is from Anderson looking towards the property.

The property is all the way at the end of that bottom picture.

Uh it is 20 feet wide uh on that section.

And the uh the property uh meadow lane, anyway, has been uh basically on uh types of uh platts that staff had done some research on, and it's been in existence in some fashion since 1936.

And it's been in existence in some fashion since 1936.

So this is an existing street and has been for a long time.

So this situation has been in its current form for quite a bit of time.

In addition, the these two design adjustments when we're evaluating what they actually might, I think the impact they would have on the entire street if they were implemented the street wide.

Some of the additional impacts on the neighboring properties, as you can see here, the blue hash is what uh additional right-of-way would be necessary to be dedicated to meet today's standard the city has.

So that would impact two existing structures, not to mention uh some of the right-of-way that would be dedicated in the front of individuals' yard that would uh essentially reduce their setbacks and make uh potentially a lot of these properties not conforming.

Uh so the design adjustments uh again uh that are part of this plat are to waive that additional right-of-way dedication uh and to rate uh to waive that requirement to construct sidewalks, and again, that sidewalk construction and right-of-way dedication would only be for the frontage on this plat, so it wouldn't pertain to that entire stretch.

So if there were improvements that the city was looking for to doing the stretch in the future, they would still have to acquire some of that if if they decided to do that.

There is no plans.

Uh this is not, I would say, a major thoroughfare street, so I would not think it would be at the top of a lot of improvement project lists.

Um the the effect though of a waiving uh the uh these two design adjustments and approving that plat.

Um this property is zoned R2, so that is a two-family dwelling district.

So it's currently zoned right now to allow for duplex uh development.

Uh it is currently approved improved both lots uh with a single family.

Uh so right now, without that plating action, they cannot construct anything new on those properties.

So uh essentially there's uh they're asking the city to kind of codify the existing conditions for their kind of non-uh legal lot status right now.

Uh and so that platting in them would allow them uh to move forward with uh either having legal lots and any redevelopment that they might see fit to take place on this lot that could include duplexes or it could include uh continuing on with the uses they have on that lot currently.

Um again uh just to kind of focus, I think, a little bit on uh the design adjustments and and the plating of this.

We'll we'll touch on a little bit uh in the next part of this presentation because it is kind of a two-part uh presentation.

Um during the the public hearing, there were some concerns with some of the waivers uh on the increased density at 105 lane uh and uh excuse me, 105 meadow lane, and how those design adjustments that would then lead to the uh potential approval of that plat might impact uh some of the uh the uh uh significant types of things that might impact with new development, which would be parking on the streets, public safety for fire access given uh the street widths and additional stormwater impacts as well.

Uh after reviewing uh the requests, um there were two votes, so one on each of those design adjustments.

Uh planning and zoning did recommend approval for both of the design adjustments.

Uh the right-of-way uh dedication was unanimous at 8 to 0.

Uh the sidewalk waiver construction waiver uh did also uh uh pass with a vote of six to two in favor of that design adjustment as well.

All right, and that is the design uh adjustment portion of that, and I would continue on to the final plat, unless we need to have a vote for the design adjustment.

Now let's do the final plat staff presentation and then we'll go to council questions and then and then we'll do um public comment on both together.

All right, very good, thank you.

So uh to continue on again.

This is uh to kind of put it in perspective.

So design adjustments as uh as we just discussed would need to be approved to uh approve this version of the final plat.

If they weren't approved, uh this plat would need to be revised and then brought back uh essentially to address the issues with the right-of-way that's shown on this plat.

Um that has seen you before you this plat does take into account uh the approval of those design adjustments that we're just discussed.

Umperty footprint.

So this is just uh actually creating those two lots.

Uh again, it would be kind of codifying essentially the two parcels that are currently owned by separate individuals and uh basically conferring on them legal lotus status uh so that they can actually um construct new uh improvements on those lots that they have owned and have existed in in quite uh uh basically quite a long history at this location.

Uh same aerial there.

Um again, I don't want to kind of uh spend a lot of time kind of rehashing that, but these were two survey tracks.

Uh was rezoned in the past that initially in 35 was R1, but has been R2 district since 1957.

Um again, there is a plan, I think, by the ownership group here or the owners to the south, perhaps to reconstruct uh to demolish and to reconstruct a two-family, uh also known as a duplex, those are synonymous terms uh on that south south property line.

Or excuse me, south of the property line, as you see this, which is uh on that plat on the south side of that.

Uh access to that south property line is a little bit different than sometimes we see.

That would be by access easement.

It's essentially creating kind of like a uh a tiered lot, uh, which is something that is permitted in certain aspects within the subdivision code, although this is by access easement.

Um both of these lots are uh definitely the minimum size for creating lots within this district.

They're actually uh fairly large lots, I think, considering uh some other lots that we would see today being built to that minimum standard.

I think lot uh the lot on the north is about 10,000 square feet, and the lot on the south is 17,000 square feet.

Uh put it in perspective, a minimum lot size in a typical single family district is 7,000 square feet.

Um these are uh really what we have here is about a half acre of property uh that is that is kind of tiered, uh so a little different than maybe you'd see in in traditional development, but this is kind of an area that um developed along kind of a uh uh a little bit of a uh time period where maybe uh there weren't quite those rules and regulations in place that would have guided this a little bit differently.

Um again, so approval of the concurrent design adjustments are required to approve this version of the final plat.

Um again, there were some com uh concerns from general public on uh the perceived impacts of of codifying these two lots and creating potential to redevelop them as duplics uh duplexes as the R2 zoning would allow, which is what they are zoned currently.

Um the redevelopment, though, if they were to build a new structure, it would have to meet all current uh codes and regulations.

Uh just to reiterate again, there'd be a 20-foot shared uh driveway on the east side, utility easements.

Uh standard easements are being dedicated as part of this plat.

Uh, and that's really why we go through a plating process when there isn't a legal lot status is to evaluate it for easements and necessary infrastructure uh and that it has access.

So that's the process we've gone through.

Um staff reviewed it for those necessary infrastructure and utility issues with right-of-way and determined that in this case uh they wouldn't probably be uh a necessary uh kind of dedication in this regard.

Um we do review it uh in terms of requirements for when something constitutes a replat.

Um staff did evaluate that, did not find that there would be any restrictions eliminated with the replat.

There's adequate utilities and infrastructure to support this, uh, and it's not viewed as to be to have a a detrimental impact to the adjacent property of the neighborhood.

Um this would allow essentially the issuing of building permits to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.

Uh and it would take a site again that's uh two separate parcels.

It would create two lots.

Uh that plating action then would allow for the redevelopment of that site uh consistent with the zoning that there is that is there currently.

Um plan and zoning uh did recommend approval of the final plat eight to nothing.

Uh and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Okay, questions from council to staff.

Uh I'll go.

This is your award, Valerie.

So if you want to ask questions of staff?

Thanks.

Um kind of approach the um design adjustments separately from the plat.

Um you may have said this, and I know it's in the report.

I just wanted to read it on the record.

Um, what was the vote for the design adjustments at planning and zoning?

So it was eight to zero in favor of the right-of-way waiver and six to two in favor of the sidewalk waiver.

Thanks.

Did you have more ballot?

I think that's going to be all of my questions for now.

Um actually another thing I'll I guess read on the record, because I asked several questions ahead of time.

And actually, Clint, I appreciate your last-minute answers to my follow-up questions as well.

Um we have any plans to repair or maintain the asphalt on Meadow Drive.

Uh, from my understanding from public works, they do not have that currently on a on a capital plan.

The resurfacing that that one I'm not 100% sure on, but I I don't recall if that was uh Pat, do you recall having any of those conversations?

As the response that went out to council members this morning indicated, there is an annual process by which all streets within the City of Columbia are evaluated and ranked.

And as such, this particular roadway segment would be falling under that criteria, and at that point, then general maintenance would be being uh categorized based on how that street is prioritized.

Thanks.

Additional questions.

Yeah, Betsy.

Um why is it that there's a shared driveway to get to 107?

Why isn't that just an extension of the streets?

Uh so the the existing tracks have an access easement now.

Um and so that's being allowed to continue on.

So we've actually, as part of the planning, uh I think uh consultation with staff, it was widened to 20 feet, uh which is a little bit more of a kind of a standard access.

Um we were, I think uh essentially this was deemed to be an existing condition in some regards.

Uh platning an additional right-of-way would have to meet our right-of-way standards, and so you would be looking at approximately a 50-foot wide uh right-of-way dedication and construction of a new street and a cul-de-sac essentially to access this if you were going to require right-of-way dedication.

And so given that current, I think, access pattern for these two lots, uh plattering them as separate lots and allowing the the access easement to continue on as their primary access, as it has for uh you know, for certainly a long time was uh was approved through that or was was allowed through that planning action.

Are they going to be able to just to continue the gravel driveway, sort of the two-lane access?

Is that what we're saying is is okay to access 107?

So 10 it the the access is actually so when these properties were originally improved, it was one tract of land.

Right.

When the properties were subdivided by survey in the 70s, an access easement to 105 metal lane was created.

That access was a 10-foot-wide access that was deemed to be the legal right of access for the rear lot.

Which was improvement, yeah, which is now being upgraded to the 20 feet.

So the improvements of the rear lot would trigger the improvement of that driveway access.

So the driveway would, as I understand how our our development standards are played out, that will be required to be paved.

And so you are going to have a larger paved access serving both the front lot, which is 107, and the rear lot, which is 105.

Okay.

Otherwise, if this plat does not get approved, a 10-foot-wide gravel access is the legal means of access to lot 105 and would remain in place, but without the potential for any future redevelopment of lot 105.

Okay.

And then this would, if we approve this, will give us two R2 lots, allowing for a duplex on each lot.

Yeah, it would allow up to a duplex.

Uh platning uh would create the lots.

The zoning would dictate how how much density they can have on that lot.

So the plating doesn't really uh I think stipulate or dictate what they do with those lots.

It's the zoning at that point, which is currently in place.

Okay, thank you.

Don, you had your hand up.

Yeah, just a couple.

So on this picture that's currently up on the screen.

The top would be 10 is 107 and the bottom is 105.

Is that correct?

Is correct.

Is it?

Yes.

Can we bring up the I was at 105 this weekend, and I thought that was the one on the north side.

That's not correct.

What did that make a difference, I guess?

Yeah, but okay.

Yeah.

So we'll be divided.

Okay, so it will be into two lots.

And then okay, a shared access.

All right.

Um and the other one is what is the actual frontage then on, I guess 107.

On Meadow Lane on Meadow Lane?

It has approximately 90 feet of frontage on the street.

Okay.

So if we don't approve the sidewalk waiver, we'd have 90 feet of sidewalk in nowhere.

Yeah.

If you yes, if you did not, and they were required to construct it, it would be 90 feet of sidewalk, although there could be the possibility of of some other uh ways to address that.

But essentially, yes.

Yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions from counsel for staff?

I I have one clean.

You mentioned, you know, that the replat, so making it a legal lot uh would then allow them to build whatever their zoning then allowed them to with the restrictions on setbacks and different issues that we have there.

Are would they be able to rebuild on a non-legal lot but on the same footprint if they wanted to make improvements to a structure?

You know, we were just having that conversation today.

And the way the the um UDC reads is that a a permit shall not be issued on any lot that is not considered a legal lot.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then the other one was you also mentioned that 105 is in ill repair.

And when, you know, Googling.

I saw it, like it was sold in 2017.

So I I'm I'm just I guess I have questions like what's the state of the house and is it is it currently occupied?

Do we know any of that?

Uh you know, we have what I think has been volunteered, and and and maybe Pat can fill that in, but I would state that that's not something that's required for an application.

Um the current status of the buildings on those lots are not necessarily something that's uh evaluated by staff.

Whether they're going to demolish them is not evaluated by staff.

So I don't know.

Pat, did you have any anything you remember from the hearing?

Mr.

Gephardt is here and he can answer that question for you, Madam Mayor.

Thank you.

All right.

Seeing no other questions, I'll go ahead and open up uh public comment.

Would anybody from the public wish to speak on bills 256, 25 and Bill 257 25?

Good evening.

If um my name is Jay Gephardt, I'm civil engineer with the civil group.

I'm here tonight.

Uh representing Jared Zillow and the uh Mike and Julie Kevins.

And if I could have five minutes, that would be great.

I'll add on the two at the end, yeah.

Um I'm gonna blow through this pretty quick, but um this is um R2 and the permitted uses um I've listed there.

One of them that I forgot to put on there is that every single home or lot that's here in this R2 district is entitled to an ADU entitled and no without any other uh steps.

So all these uh single family homes could have a second structure in the back without having to uh go through any other process.

But um basically uh doing this solely because of the definition of a legal lot, and uh we do not meet that definition.

So we can't get a building permit.

Um it's the unsure of me if I can get a demolition permit.

I I don't know what it can do anything.

So um and this is uh rampant in this area of town.

Um there's a lot on uh Anderson Avenue of homes that you would drive by and you think they're a legal lot and they're not.

Uh they don't meet the definition because they're created by survey.

And so um this is not just unique to this um location.

Um again, you've seen this.

Um the zoning, uh I've just highlighted the two tracks.

It shows the R2 zoning, and as I said, that um you know those those are all uh entitled to have two units uh per lot uh under the current code, either through an ADU or through uh redevelopment.

Um this is the survey that created uh the problem.

Um the two homes were built in the 1935s, that's the estimate by the assessor.

Um but in 1971, the owner of those two homes to uh subdivide this by survey.

I'm not sure if that was legal in 1971 or and it was just common practice, but it it was done, and that's why uh we don't meet the that definition.

Um copy of the plat.

I I did want to show real quickly that the existing lot line where the blue arrow is goes through an existing garage that's shared by um both property owners.

Um through this platter action, the Kevins have agreed to let Jared have the garage and they're uh uh relocating that line so that Jared can control that and it eliminates having a lot line through a building, which is prohibited by the uh UDC.

So we're correcting that issue uh with the plat.

And this shows the the um 20-foot uh access easement in a little more detail.

Um that inner line that runs down the middle, that's the existing edge of the 10-foot easement.

Um so that's that's the uh access to the property.

Um I'm gonna stay to the end of the meeting and have public comment more about this, so just give you guys kind of a heads up to just talk about this a little bit more.

Um but this right here is the uh definition of a legal lot.

And um what I'd like to talk about a little bit more is um how uh I think this is an impediment to um you know housing um being developed in the city of Columbia.

But I'm here to answer questions.

I think one of the questions was the condition of the house.

Um I have a minute and thirty left, so I'll just go ahead and answer that one.

It's um the the when the Kevins purchased this home, their their intent was to uh renovate it.

Um the basement was covered with uh insulating board when they purchased it when they pulled the insulation board off, they discovered the foundation was in really poor condition.

And so uh Mike, Julie's husband uh hired a structural engineer to design a plan to lift the home so that a new foundation could be put under it.

But when they went through that um process, they realized that there are so many other issues with the house structurally that um it may not be able to withstand the lift and to it would there would just be so much money put into this house that it wasn't it wasn't feasible anymore.

So he made an effort to try to do that.

Uh no one has lived in the house.

Um it's not um they don't consider it um someplace that they would want to rent or anything like that.

So what they would like to do is uh remove the home and then put back a two-family structure on the lot.

Um so that's that's the intention of it.

Um that's kind of what caused this whole issue is trying to uh figure out if we could get a building permit or not.

So um like I said, um if you if you deny this permit or this plat tonight, um we are um stuck.

We can't do anything with this property.

If the design adjustment is or not approved, um then it's oh you're over your five.

Sorry, I thought we were still going.

So sit down, Jake.

Okay.

We'll ask you questions if more come up.

All right, sorry.

Thank you.

I thought I was like, oh, they're not catching it, and you knew.

You know.

Thanks, Jake.

Well, I'll keep on going.

Yeah, we'll go.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody have any questions?

Yeah, well, can we sit down and we'll come back to you?

Anyone else from the public wish to speak.

And my name is Laura Mitchell.

I'm the president of the West Ash Neighborhood Association.

And as you know, we are passionate about our neighborhood.

And we love it.

And it is old.

It's quirky.

It was platted between 1931 and 1937, I think.

Oh, yes, I'm sorry.

Was that hard to hear?

Yeah, just get really close to the microphone.

Okay, all right.

So our neighborhood is old and it's quirky.

It was originally platted in 1931, and our lots are irregular in size and shape.

And you could see that there were some parallelograms up there.

Um it is very strange to me to hear the city planner talk about planning subdivisions and rules around that.

This is not a subdivision.

This isn't new development.

This is cramming something into a little street that's been there a long time.

Um there are only 18 houses on Meadow Lane, including the two that are up for discussion.

It makes a right turn off the normal city road and turns into a much narrower street that goes east and west.

Um most of the people who live on Meadow Lane are homeowners who have been there a long time.

Um we have a number of concerns about the proposal before you tonight, and it has nothing to do with sidewalks.

Um I am specifically going to address traffic congestion.

So when I went to the initial planning and zoning meeting, they showed a photo of Meadow Lane with one parked car at that corner.

Um, which one do you want?

The second one.

Okay.

So this was taken by the person, Mel Constantine, who lives right at that corner where the turn has to happen.

And I don't know what was going on that day, but that was what was on Meadow Lane.

Uh the narrower part of Meadow Lane is about 16 feet wide.

And there's somebody's gonna speak tonight who has seen an emergency vehicle not able to access Meadow Lane.

There's all sorts of problems with trash collection, and people have to back up.

Other people can talk about that.

And if if a duplex was created back there, the amount of traffic in and out just seems insurmountable.

Crazy.

The other picture that I have here is of the current gravel driveway.

I majored at 10.5 feet wide.

The request is to widen it to 20 feet.

Laura, you're at time.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the FUC wish to speak?

Okay.

My name's Carl.

Carl Rogers, I live at 11 and so a lot of people are going to get up and say what a wonderful neighborhood we have.

And I agree with that.

I've lived there 45 years.

But what I want to talk about is this is a rezoning request.

So the fact we live our neighborhood, okay.

But we need facts about why this can go differently.

And how okay, so how is the new building going to impact car and pedestrian safety?

And how will it affect a problem with stormwater that right now causes folks that like live in Aldea east of Meadow Lane to have feces in their basement when there's a lot of rain.

So Laura talked about the narrowness and all the traffic, and I believe Gary's gonna talk about the emergency beer call problem.

So that's addressing traffic safety.

I want to say that I have a solution.

So Mr.

Keeping owns a lot at 105.

It faces Broadway with an established driveway.

So that is access that's already there.

There wouldn't have to be another driveway on Broad Broadway.

His driveway can be utilized as a traffic access point for his duplex.

He owns all the property that would be affected.

And I talked with, I believe Jay about this after the public works, I mean public and P and Z.

And they said that he and Kevins had talked about it, but they didn't think it would work.

So that's something that I think needs to be addressed.

It's his land.

So yes, he should get to do what he wants, but my papers are not in order.

But if it's his desire to build on his lot, so he should be the person that's inconvenienced with all the extra traffic, not the folks who live on the south side of Meadow Lane.

So I would request that the city direct planning and zoning to re-address vehicle access to Meadow Lane if this plat thing goes through.

The other thing, a quick fact, I have 33 seconds, is storm order.

If the plat replat is approved, I request that you all, the city council, direct public works to use this replat, which is only gonna make the current stormwater issue worse.

And I also just want to say that it's important that we work with Minister Clay.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I talked about it.

How do I get these four?

Watch out.

I'm low vision, I'm gonna want to put you.

Okay, so Sheila can help.

I'm gonna wait for the photograph to get there.

Okay, so uh say your name, please.

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm Gary Martin.

Uh my wife and I have lived uh on Meadow Lane up near the top where it's high, where we don't have to worry about our basements flooding every time it rains, like the poor people on the bottom of Meadow Lane do.

Uh the uh Meadow Lane is only three cars wide.

And we have that new uh wheelie bin, wait a minute, what do you call it?

Roll cart uh system, and and that truck can make it down Meadow Lane, but Meadow Lane is only three cars wide.

And so if you're going down Meadow Lane and somebody's coming up, you've got to really work together to do it.

So it's not that that the traffic is uh inconvenient, it's that it's dangerous because uh the uh trash truck is always honking and making people move, and and everybody has to get out and move their cars around so that truck can get down there.

But the other day I was walking down the road and I saw a bunch of yellow jackets, and and somebody was talking and they said, yeah, we called in a down dangerous line.

So whenever a line falls down out of the telephone poles, you always have to assume you learn this when you're a little kid that that it's dangerous, it's gonna kill somebody.

Turned out that that line was just a uh cable TV or something.

But the firemen came up Anderson Street off of Broadway real fast and they looked down that little street that I have a picture of, which I'll explain in a second, and they said, Yeah, we can't make it down there.

And so all the firemen jumped out and ran up, and they firemen were running up and down the street in their big yellow, shiny outfits, reflective outfits.

So if a fire truck's got to get down there for something really important really fast, and they got a fight with this three-car-wide street, it's not not inconvenient to traffic, the traffic's dangerous.

So at the bottom of the street there, where that little east-west piece is, the little east-west piece that I have a picture here, that we just happened to, my wife and I were trying to go somewhere and we get down there, and there's uh there was a man who was a uh uh yardman, and he'd park his trailer all the way up against the house, and and the trailer was still hanging out into that little street, and we could squeak by.

So that little east-west piece, that's not good for traffic.

When people get on on Meadow Lane and park down there near the bottom, and if you're driving a truck or something, you can't get through there, and it's really, really crowded.

Somebody showed a really good picture of of that crowdedness there.

So you you gotta not think inconvenience.

Oh, and that let me show the the pictures here now.

The the picture of that little bitty tiny 10-foot wide driveway, if that gets paved into something, oh, a timer up there.

If that gets paved, then Meadow Lane is going to be even more congested with cars because every person, if you have two duplexes in there, that's four people and four people it was four cars, but really it's boyfriend-girlfriend cars, so that's eight cars, and they're not going to fit in there on that on that little bitty uh 20-foot-wide easement you're making in there from the 10-foot easement for the driveway, and they're all going to be parking out on Meadow Lane and blocking the fire trucks.

So, okay, five seconds.

Boy, I should like to answer some questions.

So thank you, Gary.

All right, thank you.

But anybody else from the public wish to speak on Bill's 25625 and 257.

They told me that you would hate my presentation, but I'm going to make it anyway.

Um Kathy, will you say your name, please?

Oh, thank you.

My name's Kathy Newton.

I'm the longest tenured resident on Meadow Lane currently.

I bought my house in 1987.

It uh the home was built in 1939.

It was zoned single family homes.

When I bought my house, everybody said it's a single-family home units.

I didn't know about the 1957 or so rezoning until Pat explained it to me.

But the problem is it's uh it's not really our lots are small, and uh it's a problem.

Meadow Lane, oh, my home was built by a merchant who had a jewelry store downtown, so it's really a nice home.

Um Meadow Lane is a lovely little family street.

Um have any of you not been down Meadow Lane?

Who hasn't been there?

Everyone's been there?

I was gonna invite you.

Any rate.

We we are in a walkable neighborhood.

We can walk to the library, the R MKT trail downtown.

Children, joggers, and dog walkers all love our street.

What's more?

Nearly everybody owns a house.

They're not it's not uh it's an affordable neighborhood.

People can buy houses there.

And there's a high rate of home ownership compared to Columbia as a whole.

Somebody told me that 70 percent of Columbia residents are renters, not in our street.

When I first went to buy a house, I really wanted to buy in the East Campus neighborhood.

Uh and there were lovely graceful homes uh on Wilson and University.

They had beautiful gardens.

It was a mixture of students and faculty and families, but I couldn't afford it.

It was quite expensive.

So I went to Meadow.

Which I have loved.

Meadow Lane has remained a pleasant single-family home, residential street, with the exception of the duplex Fred belt.

Um It breaks my heart to go to East Campus, because those beautiful stately homes have been torn down and replaced with high-density housing, some of the homes are turned into rentals and gardens have been paved over.

I know the people who transformed the stately homes of East Campus into student housing did not intend to destroy the character of a neighborhood.

They just wanted to make money.

Nothing wrong with that.

Um but do we really need to bring this kind of transformation to a little street in central West Columbia?

I think not.

The owner of 105 Meadow Lane, he could build another house there.

There's no need to build a duplex.

And if he can build a duplex with up to four bedrooms on each side and have only four parking spaces for the whole thing, and then if the other house can build the same thing, that is an enormous number of cars.

And I've seen when this is rented that there's no place for people to park in 105.

So I just implore you to say no to this replanting.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on bills 256-25 and 257-25?

Hi, I'm David Cathomas.

I live at 411 West Walnut Street, which is very close to Aldea, which Carol mentioned earlier, having problems with the sewer issue.

And it's really it can really impact your ability to want to be out in your yard, to have a hang up clothes, things like that.

My neighbor, I live one house away from the creek, I guess you'd call it as the drainage that carries the water to Flat Branch, I think it is.

Certainly not before this problem is fixed.

You know, that would be really irresponsible to allow that.

So I'm really hoping that you do not approve this 20-foot driveway, apparently.

That's as big as the street that's connects.

Aldea to, I mean, uh, Meadow Lane to Anders to Anderson.

That's that's an insane amount of new water that's going to come down and eventually down in our neighborhood.

So I'm going to ask that you please not approve this plat.

That would allow, you know, two very big buildings, the just the amount of water coming off those buildings, let alone the impervious service, is not what this sewer system can sustain.

So that's my request not to allow this to happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Good evening.

My name is Christine Gardiner.

I live at 112 Anderson Avenue.

I'll be speaking about this replant with the context of the general neglect of infrastructure within this whole area that we're speaking about, but also all the older central neighborhoods.

The current UDC puts us all at risk.

Our homes were built before anyone imagined development codes as they exist today.

We have small lots where R2 on R1 lots, the increased development of buildings without size and character to the neighborhood.

We have narrow streets and courts and carrying the largest number of short-term rentals.

All this on top of our aging, failing infrastructure.

So isn't it time to think outside the box and locate new approaches?

Let's fix this potential problem coming in front of us today, but then go on to the next one and the next one and the next one.

We have problems like this throughout central neighborhoods.

So instead of waiting to do a big multi-million dollar project, capital project, we need to start just fixing these problems one after another.

And my hope is that this constant need for us to come before you pleading for help in issues such as this to go to the next level towards solutions for my livable neighborhood and these others.

And would anyone who is in support please standard for requesting?

Please stand.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

But anyone else from the public wish to speak on bills 2625625 and 25725.

I'm James Birchler on Meadow Lane.

I think that I shall never see a duplex lovely as a tree.

And if a duplex surely rises, Meadow Lane will see surprises.

High up on the duplex, the rain will trickle down and gushes onto Meadow Lane, where all of us will drown.

The corner now in question is quite uh quite a squeeze.

So let's keep down the traffic, if you would kindly please.

Meadow lanes, fragrant flowers, pretty colors shown in bloom might soon all fade, I fear, to concrete slabs and gloom.

Meadow Lane is also calm, a quiet, quiet street.

We often gather for a nice and friendly meet.

To make low cost housing, this ain't the good solution.

The rents will be all sky high as well as noise pollution.

Can a person of one disturb our community, taking away our precious calm that we wish to guarantee?

One's home is one castle, that really is for sure.

But when affecting others, it's not simple or pure.

So keep us really happy and keep us really sane, living our wondrous quiet life down on Meadow Lane.

Thank you, Tim.

All right.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on bills 25625 and 25725?

Hello, I am Jewel Kevins.

My husband and I are the ones that own the property in question.

Our viewpoint is we bought an R2 lot and we're simply asking that it be processed through as an R2 lot, as Jay mentioned.

Nothing can be done, no building permit can be pulled until it is a legal lot as opposed to it's now a non-conforming lot.

We are not the changes 10 foot, 20 foot, whatever the city you know asks for or wants is what we will abide by.

Again, this isn't a zoning question as much as it is a platting question.

Uh if traffic is the concern of the neighborhood, there are things such as yellow curbs, which could eliminate parking on the street that is too difficult to pass.

Alternatively, uh, if the street needs to be wider, everybody could do what is asked of us as we replot, um, which is to give up the the additional space so that the street can be made wider.

Um the neighborhood did not want the sidewalks or the wider street, which is fine with us to please them.

Um again, if if uh again, stormwater, if they're concerned about the size of the roof of what might be built there as a single family home, it it could be you know made something much larger with you know two smaller houses, one large house.

That the question doesn't really in my mind apply if they want a driveway at 10 foot, that was fine with us.

That is what the fire department had approved that that's fine, that it's just the satellite lot, that there's not it's not an access way that uh emergency vehicles would pass through.

Um again, you know, a number of cars there, you could have a single family home where a family of six.

Uh we had up to five cars at our house, and they're all in the driveway or the garage.

Uh you could have R2, a duplex with one car from each you know, home.

So again, there to me, you know, they're all a lot of maybes.

Again, it's just a plat that has been approved by the um city staff, and we're just asking that that uh that we not be held hostage to other infrastructure problems that may be occurring in the neighborhood.

And that's uh again, yellow curb could uh reduce parking on the street and a wider street would allow for better passage, and we are uh open to that if that's what the city wants or if that's the neighborhood's concern, then those are other options.

But I'm here if anyone has questions.

Thank you, Jewel.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on bills 256, 25 or 257 25?

Um good evening, Tracy Wilson Cleekamp.

Uh my comment is um somewhat rhetorical in that in my neighborhood we had a plant that was not recorded.

It was R1 and it was a uh rezoning request that came to us.

There were some waivers for stormwater, which today we still have problems with that.

Um we have a lot of problems.

Um there were problems with the maintenance of um the some stormwater area.

We had to have a lot of bargaining and fighting about that.

Um I guess my rhetorical question is why are we not doing environmental impact reports in advance?

Why are we not looking at stormwater and traffic and all these things in advance and amuleting those negative impacts up front?

Um rather than basically sort of leveraging how much pain we can cause one side or the other, playing a game of divide and conquer when there are actually tools out there to do environmental impacts.

I mean, I I don't know why we keep putting neighborhoods through this when those two tools are available.

So the rhetorical question is what is keeping our city from using an environmental impact process so that we look at infrastructure impacts upfront, collect the money for it up front, pay as you go, and not burden the neighbors with infrastructure neglect.

Just a rhetorical question.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak on bills 25625 and 257 25?

Seeing none, we'll go to council comments and questions that have.

Valerie, we'll start with you.

Um I had two questions.

Um the easy one.

Do we have the ability to restrict parking?

Maybe that's not easy, but it's the easiest to ask.

Uh can you clarify?

Are you are you talking about on the public street or on the individual?

Um sorry, I'm talking about on the public street, particularly on the portion of meadow where it is the most narrow, the 20-foot portion of meadow.

Yeah, and I think that that's a is a good thing to bring up, and Pat might have some more information, but I understand.

I think that was raised at the public hearing at Blend Zoning, and I think that was directed to our traffic engineer as the proper route for I think a neighborhood or community to engage the city about potential parking restrictions on a street if they see some sort of issue there.

How do we initiate that process?

Well, I think that's citizen initiated, but but I think that those those concerns have, I think, been passed along to our public works department as well.

If I can interject, Valerie, I think we can also initiate that as council.

So I would suggest doing that in this case, whether this goes forward or not.

Um I live not far from here, and I will say it is more common that there are cars parked there than that there are not cars parked there.

And it is basically impassable if you have cars parked on both sides.

Um my next question might be a little bit trickier, but I was wondering if we could pull up the um or perhaps Aaron Keys could pull up the PCCE, um the cure in place pipe project map.

Um Carol Rhodes mentioned um flooding with fees feces in basement.

Um that's not extreme.

It's a somewhat common problem where there's water infiltration in pipes that have um that need cure in place project.

Um the water from stormwater infiltrating the connector um will cause the sewer line to back up.

Um and and they do repair these frequently um without digging up the street.

Um it would be nice to see when the the last repair was and if we can just send something there.

So your request was to get more information then uh council.

Sure.

Are we able to pull up that map perhaps today?

Today.

Uh I I don't have that information.

I would have to defer to our utilities department, whether they have access to pull that up.

Maybe we'll go forward with the questions and then if Aaron has an availability to Carlin to respond to that.

We have Erin come out.

I think she said all pipes have been lined.

All pipes have what?

Have been lined.

Have been lined.

Okay.

In this area.

So then it's probably the private line from the pipe to the city.

Yeah, I think there's some wall houses.

There's some inflow infiltration that needs to that can be done on the property owner's side.

Thanks.

No questions that's the last of my questions for now.

I do see Aaron Keys approaching.

Thank you.

Sorry, I didn't expect to ask that question in advance.

It was from testimony.

Sure.

When I did a quick check, all the pipes, all the sanitary sewer pipes have been lined in that area.

Okay.

Especially the ones that are in the in the low spots.

Do we have cost share programs for updating the private connectors that maybe you could refer people to maybe get some contact info?

Yes, we do have uh reimbursement programs for people who have basement backups.

And I didn't hear which street they were on.

I know on Glenwood in particular, I've offered it to some of those property owners.

Thanks.

That's the last of my questions for now, so I'll pass I did have comments later.

I have a question though.

Well, Aaron's there.

Okay.

Okay, because she's standing right there.

What about stormwater?

I mean, because I know at one point we were like doing smoke.

Smoke testing or whatever for stormwater, making sure the rainwater and stormwater wasn't getting into the sewer.

Right.

And that's why we lined all the sewers, correct?

So has that been fixed or we've disconnected them as best you know?

And where are we with stormwater?

Because I expect you're over that also.

Right.

So there the stormwater is not directly connected to the sewer in this area.

Now, people's downspouts, sump pumps, uh they could have uh leaky laterals, all those things uh put stormwater into the sewer system.

And so that's the issue in this neighborhood is a lot of the downspouts and sump pumps are connected to the sanitary sewer.

And so that's causing the excess flow on the sewer system when it rains.

And so that's the purpose of our reimbursement programs for private inflow and infiltration is for people to uh fix those problems on their private property.

And we'll help reimburse that.

So the existing stormwater system uh on meadow.

I know we've been out, you know, in the last few years and had to clear the system because it got clogged or something.

Uh I believe there's also a private stormwater system out there.

So I'm not I'm not 100% sure, you know, where the issue is that some of the property owners are talking about.

But that's a private system and a public system.

Okay.

Thanks.

I also have a stormwater question.

Sorry, Erin.

Sorry.

I just figured you have uh you have a captive audience here of people that are expressing um issues with the pipe infrastructure.

Can you give like a elevator pitch on what the cure in place program is and how it can help solve this problem in the private pipes?

Sure.

So it's a way to rehabilitate the pipe without having to dig it up.

Uh we put a liner in the system, so uh think about pulling a sock inside out through the pipe.

Uh and then they use steam to cure the resin that's in that sock and make it hard, and it basically you know forms uh a liner inside the existing pipe and it's very thin and it'll last for decades.

Uh this also seals up uh the joints in the pipes and the cracks and things like that, which keeps the stormwater out of the pipes.

But as I mentioned, the stormwater still gets in the sewer pipes from you know people's downspouts, some pumps, uh their own cracked laterals, so the portion of the pipe that goes from the main to their house, that's the lateral, and that is belongs to the private property owner that does not belong to the city.

So those are not as well maintained sometimes and have cracks in them and can allow that stormwater in.

So that's what our reimbursement programs are for, which you can find on our website or call us and we're happy to come out and talk to you about it and see if it works for you.

Thank you for the surprise educational program tonight.

Thanks, Aaron.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Other questions from council?

Yeah, Don and then Betsy.

So if the replen is approved, um then when it's ultimately decided what they're going to do with the property as far as construction.

Will that come back through council or if it's just an R2, it'll just buy by right, basically?

Okay.

Correct.

Yes, correct.

It'll be by right.

So once they have that legal lot, they'd follow all the other standard unified development code uh ordinances for new development.

Uh and it would be approved administratively through our uh building sites now.

And if it's if we vote down the replat, then basically nothing happens, nothing can happen, and the empty building sets there and continues to deteriorate and deteriorate.

I think that's one scenario, yes.

I think uh not approving this, there'd have to be some re-evaluation on on what the course uh to move forward with this property is because I would say they would not be able to get a permit from the city.

Okay.

Thank you.

Betsy.

Um there were so this belongs to two different people, correct?

Correct.

So what is the reason that the um let me see if I've got the property?

The southern replat would not come off Broadway.

Why are you all recommending that it come as a private road off of meadow lane since it does not belong?

Right.

My understanding is the folks that uh the keevans that own Broadway also own the plot right behind it, correct?

So why would that not be the access?

I would say the access uh was allowed to remain where it has been through that access easement.

Um I don't think there's anything where we could require them to plat a street or dedicate another easement through an existing lot that they own.

They already have access now through that access easement.

So they already have access to the back?

They have access to the north to Meadow Lane through a recorded access easement.

So they are entitled to access to Meadow Lane right now to this lot.

All right.

Thanks.

No questions or comments.

Yeah, Valerie.

Yeah, it was stated earlier um that they would already by right be allowed um an ADU structure.

Um well, an ADU or an ADU structure, both.

Um with the plating as it is, if this didn't go forward, um, how many dwellings could be added via ADU?

On on this side, if they if it was not uh platted to create legal lots, no new construction could occur on the property.

Uh so that and then I mean there may be opportunities there to create something in that existing footprint, but if you're talking of new construction, that that could not occur.

And if they re if this replat as it's shown here went forward.

Each plat would be allowed in ADU, is that correct?

Each lot would be allowed all permitted uses that's allowed in the R2 district.

One more question that I didn't expect.

We've had a lot of um discussion about no building permit would be allowed because it's a substandard lot.

It's not a legal lot.

Um I guess it's not legal and at least not substandard by width or acreage.

It's it's a large lot.

It's just access confined.

I almost certainly remember part of the code saying that it could rebuild that if the existing structure were demolished, it could be rebuilt in the exact footprint demolished or destroyed.

Was that removed when we added the new language allowing a nonstandard lot to use cottage standards essentially?

Um, no, I think if you're not a good idea.

So of a nonconforming structure, which would be one maybe that's built into a platted setback if it was destroyed by like an act of God.

So if it burned down, lightning struck it, I think we then we would uh per that section be allowed to rebuild that in its exact footprint with the same nonconformities, which is different than a legal lot status.

Legal lot status means it never platted.

Nonconformity means it was probably platted, but rules have changed uh or you know, property was taken and now it doesn't meet setbacks or some other kind of uh uh bulk regulation within the code.

So a little bit different scenario, but uh similar.

Yeah.

Okay.

Same, actually.

All right.

Other questions?

I I just have I have a couple um in relation to this one.

Um I think it might be useful if for to help visualize in our heads like what what could if this replat goes through.

You say, you know, duplex.

Like what I mean, this is not that wide of a lot.

Like how what what would be do we have any ideas of like what could be what it would look like for the this this the size of the or the form of the structure that could be built there?

Um I would say that uh it you know it's actually uh it's not really that narrow.

It's 90 feet wide.

It just seems so it it actually is wider than is necessary for minimum for uh for a duplex.

So uh it could probably look like standard duplex that you see on a lot of lights now.

Um, the size of the structure isn't necessarily relegated to being larger because it's a duplex.

You could have a single family home.

I think that was stated at night that's just as big as any type of duplex that's built on that site.

Um but uh yeah, to answer the question, I think uh any range of duplexes and it's again not something we evaluate per se in this scenario.

Yeah.

And then um in relation to legal lots, you mentioned you know that this is not a legal lot.

And like two or three years ago, we we had this conversation about um changing, like so that you know existing lots that we're aware of now are we're calling them legal.

Are you saying that was only if it was platted at some point in time, but because this one was developed by survey, done by survey, that's why it's not a legal lot.

So the amendment we passed.

I think it was two years probably two years ago, which was to reduce the necessity to consolidate plates, was designed was designed in order to allow a lot that was less than our standard 60-foot lot width to be able to be classified as a legal lot if it were platted as it existed.

It still had to go through the plating process in order to attain legal lot status.

Um also at that same time addressed an issue of adding the RMF zoning district back into the definition of legal lot, which had been removed in 2017.

So there were a couple of different things that we did with that amendment.

This particular scenario, as I think has been pointed out, it is not a non-standard sized lot.

It is a lot that is of standard size just created prior to 19 or created after 1964.

So if it was created before 64 and it was recorded, the survey was recorded, which it has been, but if it was recorded before 64, we would not necessarily be having this conversation.

It would have then been determined to have been a legal lot because it has legal access to meadow via the existing 10-foot-wide access easement that is being widened to 20 feet.

Thank you, Pat.

Thanks for clarifying that.

All right.

Yeah.

Yeah, Nick.

Well there's far more to hear here to consider than I I thought we might.

I I think I feel pretty limited as to what we can actually do here, given the UDC, given the code, given the zoning that's already that already exists here.

What I hear from the neighbors is concerns about stormwater access traffic, parking, and sewer.

Um, you know, in addition to that, a concern about uh preserve preservation of existing housing, which I share.

I think that it's one of the things as we're addressing housing, we really need to be attentive to.

And in this case, we're losing a home, which I hear was beyond repair, but uh it still brings that up for me in this regard.

So some of these things, some of these issues related to stormwater and access and traffic and parking, all these things I think can be addressed and should be addressed, regardless of what happens in terms of uh our action tonight and what is eventually built on this site.

So we need to keep that in mind.

In these older neighborhoods, this is these are ongoing issues, they're going to continue to be ongoing issues, and I believe our utilities are doing everything they can to address them and do that in partnership with uh with the residents.

So keeping all of that in mind, uh I'm just I guess I'm just speaking to the complications I see here and the concerns that I think are legitimate concerns on the part of the neighbors.

Um how to move forward with this, I'm not exactly sure beyond what our responsibility here is tonight, which again I feel we're pretty limited on what we can do.

Yeah, Valerie.

Feels like we've progressed to comment portions, so I'm gonna give my comments.

I will address the sidewalk um waiver as well as the right-of-way waiver now.

Um we have a tendency to wave sidewalk requirements in the name of affordable housing.

Um we also have a fee-in-lugin that is very underutilized.

Um we have a tendency to waive both fee and loo and um construction of sidewalk in the name of affordable housing in situations like this.

What I want to say is that this practice would be a lot more effective if we had the proper ordinance structure to allow fee waivers that are connected to creation of affordable dwelling units.

What I want to say is that this practice would be a lot more effective if we had the proper ordinance structure to allow fee waivers that are connected to creation of affordable dwelling units, and there exists agreed upon structures for those kinds of codes that we have not yet implemented.

Um so I'm gonna call forward this practice and and make sure that we remember that we do tend to do this, and there's a route to go that would be more effective.

In this case, it's decoupled from actual creation of affordable dwelling units, so I'm not sure that it actually does what we want.

Um I will say I am usually very reticent to approve sidewalk waivers because of the accessibility needs.

Um I realize that this doesn't fit a sidewalk.

We couldn't have a sidewalk here.

Um and I think in some situations that means that this lot is not very accessible, and it can't sustain what we want to put there.

Um I don't like that.

Um I want more dwelling units too.

I want better infrastructure to serve dwelling units.

Um I have to acknowledge that the road itself, you know, we tend to waive this if you could walk in the road to access it.

It's uneven pavement, it's uh weird traffic conditions.

I don't have a better way to describe that.

Um, but it's not that great to walk in.

Um as far as the project itself, the replat, um I want to acknowledge that this is a very difficult case.

Um and it's it looks so similar to something that we really really want.

Um and it also is in an area that doesn't I don't feel have the infrastructure to support it.

Um I wish that it I wish that we could make it work, and I understand if we want to make it work.

I don't blame anyone, but for me it's a no because there's too many constraints.

Um Meadow is a tiny street.

Um I just I don't see any more cars on it physically possible.

Thank you.

Other council comments for in this one?

See none.

Uh we'll read them separately.

Um and I'm assuming, Valerie, at the end of the meeting, you'll bring up a request about the parking review for Meadow.

Okay.

I just made a note for that.

All right.

Sheila, will you please call roll on bill two fifty-six twenty-five?

Sorry, can I clarify?

Are we um able to vote separately on the sidewalks versus the right of way, like P and Z did?

Uh no, two fifty-six will are both together.

Sidewalk and the right-of-way are the same um bill before us.

Okay.

Um but we are separately on the plat versus the but we cannot separate out sidewalks from the bill.

Correct, Sheila.

What um Mayor said is correct, and Becky can correct me if I'm wrong.

Um if you have a concern, there can be a an amendment made to that existing bill, but there has to be some language for an amendment.

But the actual two design adjustments are in the same bill, so those both have to be voted on in that bill unless something's removed or changed.

Okay.

So section one of the ordinance attached to that uh is the design adjustments uh for the required dedication right-of-way dedication, and section two is the um sidewalk waiver.

So you could propose an amendment if you wanted at this time to remove section one or section two if that's what we want, and then propose that that would be the amendment that would come to us and then for vote up or down, and then it would either be then voted on as amended or as originally proposed.

Is that correct, Becky?

Yeah.

Are you wanting to make an amendment or propose an amendment to the ordinance attached to bill two fifty-six twenty-five?

I think I will proceed as is.

Okay.

All right.

Sheila, will you please call roll on bill two fifty-six twenty-five?

Council Bill 25625, Ms.

Carroll.

No.

Miss Elwood?

No.

Ms.

Sample?

No.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters?

Yes.

Miss Buffalo.

Yes.

It passes.

You ready for me to move on to the final plan?

Bill.

Yeah, so the final platform.

So Bill 25725.

Council Bill 25725, Ms.

Carroll.

No.

Miss Elwood?

No.

Ms.

Ample.

No.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Peters?

Yes.

Miss Buffalo?

Yes.

It passes as well.

Moving on to old business or sorry, consent agenda.

Sheila, we please read the items on the consent agenda twice and call the roll.

Items on the consent agenda include bills 258 25, 259, 25, 260, 25, 261, 25, 262, 25, 263, 25, 264, 25, and resolutions, 140, 25, 141, 25, 142, 25, 143, 25, 144, 25, and 14525 bills 258, 25, 259, 25, 260, 25, 261, 25, 262, 25, 263, 25, 264, 25, and resolutions, 140, 25, 141, 25, 142, 25, 143, 25, 144, 25, and 145 25.

Miss Carroll.

Yes.

Miss Elwood.

Yes.

Ms.

Sample.

Yes.

Mr.

Foster.

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman.

Yes.

Ms.

Peters.

Yes.

Miss Buffalo.

Yes.

Moving on to new business.

Sheila, will you please read resolution 14625?

Council Bill 14625 is a resolution granting Raider Hospitality Company LLC a temporary waiver from the requirements of section 16185 of the City Code to allow possession and consumption of alcoholic beverages in section 16-258.1 of the city code to allow amplified sound exceeding a distance of 300 feet for the area along a portion of the alleyway located north of Locust Street and between 6th Street and 7th Street on October 31, 2025 and November 1st, 2025 for outdoor events.

Do we have a staff report?

Yes.

Amy Schneider, Director.

Sorry, I got too close to the microphone.

I apologize.

Amy Schneider, Director, Commission and Visitors Bureau.

We're here to ask for council to consider a resolution granting a temporary waiver from the requirements of the City Code allowing alcohol service and consumption and the use of amplified sound in the alleyway located behind my house at 119 South 7th Street.

I'd like to introduce Julie Osmus, the assistant director of the CBB, to present this.

So this is the annual Halloween event for my house, and this year's request included the closure of the public alley that is adjacent to my house from 5 p.m.

to 130 a.m.

both nights.

And the purpose of the alley closure is that the added alley space will enhance the entrance and the exit of the venue.

So at the end of the night, it provides more space to get everyone out of the venue.

It also creates a defined and secure area to monitor alcohol consumption and crowd management better.

The alcohol will only be permitted in the venue and the designated barricaded area.

The closure request was presented by the event organizer and discussed with city staff during our October city special event committee meeting.

And it was agreed that the alley closure would provide a more controlled environment for enforcement.

It helps better with crowd control and it enhances event security to prevent alcohol from leaving the premises.

And there will there are no other children's activities in the downtown area on Halloween at this point that we are aware of.

The event organizer was requested to provide a certificate of insurance, an alcohol plan, an emergency and public safety plan, and they did notify the district of their event.

And just as a reminder, um the city does have a special event committee that reviews all of our special event permits.

It's made up of city staff representatives from various departments.

That's police, fire risk management, public health and human services, business license, building and site inspection, utility solid waste, public works, street engineering, parking, and transit, the convention and visitors bureau and parks and rec, as well as staff from the Boone County Office of Emergency Management, University of Missouri Office of Reservations, and both the Boone Hospital and University Hospital Ambulance teams.

Are there any questions for staff?

Or the event organizer is here tonight to answer any questions you might have.

Does council have any questions for staff?

Seeing none, are there any uh members of the public with that wish to speak on the proposed resolution 14625?

Seeing none, we'll come back.

Uh council comments.

Yeah, Bureau.

I had a question.

Um so looking at this map, it's looking like there will be barriers on either side on either side of the alley.

Um the edge of the alley that's towards the parking lot.

Is there a wall or a barrier there between there and the parking lot?

Yes, there is a concrete wall.

Thank you.

Any other council questions or comments on this one?

Seeing none, I'll ask Sheila to call the roll on resolution 14625.

Council Bill 14625, Miss Carroll.

Yes.

Ms.

Elwood?

Yes.

Ms.

Sample?

Yes.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman.

Yes.

Ms.

Peters.

Uh she stepped out.

Miss Buffalo?

Yes.

All right.

Resolution passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moving on.

Uh Sheila, we please read the items that are under introduction and first reading.

All bills are introduced by the mayor unless otherwise indicated bills 265-25, 266-25, 267-25, 268-25, 269-25, 270-25, 271-25, 272, 25, 273, 25, 274, 25, 275, 25, 276, 25, 277, 25, 278, 25, and 27925 reading.

All right, moving on to reports.

Our first report, 5125.

This is the strategic plan quarterly report.

I'm just going to keep saying words, assuming that there is a staff member coming out here to tell us what's in the reports.

Stacy Wiedemann, I assume the assistant to the city manager.

Or the city manager.

Well, moving on.

No, I'm just kidding.

I'm just kidding.

Yeah.

Lacey's going to offer to do the report.

Oh, no.

No, no, no.

I was so impressed that she was actually going to consider interpretive dance.

Good evening.

Sorry about that.

Staff report.

Stacey Wideman and Carol Rhodes, City Manager's Office.

This is our third strategic plan quarterly update.

Have any questions?

Be happy to try to answer any of them.

Council questions for staff.

Yes, please.

Okay, so I had asked how often the employee engagement surveys completed and received answers that they were previously completed in 2011, 13, and 15, and then 2018 and 2020.

So we're at 2025.

So those time periods are all kind of all over the place.

Do we have plans for when the next one is going to be completed?

Just talking with Kathy about this back there.

I think she said ideally it would be on a two-year basis, but we're just going to kind of see what wait and see on that.

And then I received an answer for this, but I think it's important asked publicly regarding the equity audit that is currently being completed.

So the completion date is said to be December of this year, so December of 2025.

Do we anticipate that it's going to come before council at that time, or is it just going to be completed in December of 25?

The Andre might be able to.

I saw he just came in here.

Good evening.

So the equity audit, um, the tentative date is the completion by 2025, but it's still currently active in terms of aspects of the audit still being conducted.

Um the hope is to have the council uh review the recommendations and findings at the completion of the audit, so it will come before council, um, but it may be after December, depending on after the report is completed and finalized when it will actually come before council.

Okay.

I'm just trying to plan ahead to know when to accept it.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you.

No problem.

Um see, I think.

Um we talked about um.

We had talked about the interpretation services.

I think it would be repeating for some of our people who might be watching regarding if they require um a sign language interpreter or um transcription of the meetings.

Could you comment on those services and how people would request that?

Yeah, so I believe for any council meeting, if any um accommodations are needed, they just need to make their request in advance.

Do you know how far in advance I might be putting you on the spot?

Uh I don't know offhand, but I can't.

What was your question?

If somebody needs um an accessibility like sign language interpreter for a city council meeting, how much in advance do they need to request that?

Well, we have a note on every agenda that's the same, whether it's council or something else, and what it says is members of the public may attend any open meeting for requests for accommodations related to disability.

Please call.

Um it's 874-2489 number or email city at Como.gov.

In order to assist staff in making appropriate arrangements for your accommodation, please make your request as far in advance of the posted meeting date as possible.

So there's not really you know, all this is on all the agendas, and some agendas are posted, you know, like ours are posted the Thursday before the Monday meeting.

Some are a week, some are just the 24 hours.

So it's it varies.

We don't I'm not aware of any consistency on the post.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um I feel like I'm jumping all over the place, but there was a lot of information in this report.

So um the 73 curb ramps that were discussed as far as I believe it was replacement.

Um the clarification regarding the truncated domes, the preference of both public works and the disabilities commission was a directional trunk truncated domes or detectable warnings.

But there I I don't see clarification.

I see that that's a the preference for public works, but I don't know if public works is hearing this and if they have an idea of how many of those 73 curb ramps will include directional domes, or are they planning for the full sweep of the corner, whatever whatever those are called?

I don't know what they're called.

The full corner, non-directional.

I could have told you one minute ago.

Yeah.

Transitional directional versus transitional.

Yes, thank you.

Transitional.

I just said it at the same time.

I'd have to if you might have to find back.

I'm not sure.

We may bring that up in a little bit when the rest of the staff is out here.

We can do that.

Um then my last question was just regarding um the contract with the opportunity or excuse me, with the Wilkes Boulevard.

Um we have an active contract with them.

Will that contract continue in its current form when the opportunity campus opens?

This might be a decurrent question, or will it be altered once the opportunity campus opens?

Well, I I know they plan to move to the opportunity campus.

Uh we will have some type of contract with them that may have to be amended dependent on the totality of everything that's going on in that space, but we will have a contract with the that provider.

Okay.

So we have to wait and see.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Yep.

Don, you had your hand up.

Yeah.

Um it just occurred to me when Sheila read the paragraph about attendance and arrangements for disability.

Um, is that included in the cover email when it's distributed?

Um buried at the end of the agenda.

I'm just wondering how many people, you know, read through it to to get to that point.

I guess I don't understand the cover email because we don't email it out to people.

It's just posted on the website.

So you know, a little paragraph under the right above introductory items.

Move that paragraph there so that I mean yeah, put that information there so it's up front, readily available, readily visible.

Um just put that out there for consideration.

Yeah, if that's something council wants to do, I'm sure it can be done.

Um I need to double check with the people, because it's part of the software program that we use to publish the agendas.

Okay.

Um I need to double check, but if that's something council as a consensus wants to do, we can probably make it happen.

Yeah, is there any um so the question is about putting the disclaimer about asking for accommodations to the front page if it's a multi-page agenda?

I think that we may be able to do it as just part of the website.

As opposed to putting it on the supposed change in the format of the agenda, there's a place that we can place on for ADA accommodate accommodations that people can kind of go to and it can kind of explain what those are.

But that's something we can look at through our website design.

I would say also maybe see what it would do for the paper copy or for that printer copy because that is also the one that's hanging up in the hallway for people that are coming by.

I uh that said, I'm not sure how easy it is to do that within the software system we have because it's kind of like multiple pages.

It's obviously kind of at the end.

Yeah.

Or maybe if you know, specifically to the one that's posted, you know, here at City Hall, put that paragraph on a you know, separate.

Well, I will say this.

We use the same agenda for everything, so there's no question on what the agenda that was posted is saying the one posted online as what is printed and posted on the website.

Okay, right.

So I would say for consistency for the example.

For consistency, I agree.

And not an accidental error.

We don't want to do multiple agendas.

Yeah.

No, I agree.

I agree.

So but that's what I'm saying.

Let's, you know, let's put that out there where people can more readily access it.

Yeah.

Jackie, you had a follow-up on that question.

Yeah, would it be possible since that statement is consistent across agendas?

Would it be possible to post that statement just permanently out on the board where all the agendas are posted?

Oh, yeah.

I don't see that.

That would be the that would be the easiest it is.

Because it wouldn't cause for you have to change your documents.

Large print.

Yes, ma'am.

All right.

Any other questions on the strategic plan update and report?

Yeah, Vera.

Um Yes.

So I was um first really excited to see the continuation of distribution of naloxone and how many save a life events there have continued to be throughout the community.

Um I was also wondering if you can talk a little bit about the ride home program in the strategic plan.

Um it talks about the recent implementation, um, incredibly recent, and what that has looked like in the first couple of weeks.

I know Rebecca is in here.

Maybe she could come talk a little bit about it.

Or we you could just read out loud the answer there.

So we are only about two weeks into the program.

Um we've had a handful of referrals.

At least one successful uh ride has been given, and I think we have three people that they're working out transportation for right now.

So for the beginning phases, I'd say we're on a good path.

Um the referrals come to the health department, our social services staff determine eligibility, verify that they do have a support system that they're returning to.

Um, ensure that they don't have any outstanding warrants in Boone County, and then we collect whatever data we need to collect.

You know, I know one thing that's of particular interest is where's this person from, what led them to our community?

Um, and then we're working with uh first last mile to arrange transportation.

First last mile is also in their infancy for this program, so we're being mindful of that and trying not to overwhelm them as they get staffed up and have their vehicles ready.

So it's going well for the beginning.

Um we expect it to just continue to grow.

Thank you, Rebecca.

Oh, yeah, Betsy.

Rebecca, will we get a report and maybe I should be asking to Carl in this, like in six months or so?

Yes so that we have a better idea of how many people use it or don't and where they come from.

Yeah, yeah, we can do that.

Um it it's also because it's an ARPA funded project, it will be included in the next ARPA report like we did a few months ago for council that gave you an update on all the ARPA funded projects.

Thanks.

Yeah.

Thanks, Rebecca.

Any other questions on the strategic plan report?

See none.

Thank you both.

Uh moving on.

Uh the final report of the evening, 5225.

This is our monthly finance report.

So we were going to have slides for this, but they got missed in the shuffle, so we got handouts.

These are just what was located in the report, but we just wanted to go over it so you guys could reference it.

So I'll just pass it down the row here.

Okay, thank you.

We also have copies for uh anyone in the a few left over for anyone in the public who might want.

I'll put those in the back after I'm done.

Okay.

And they're from the report.

So, they're directly from the report.

So anybody can see if they go on to the website.

Thanks, Jim.

So we wanted to clear the air on the on the city funding and the city cash balances.

There's been a lot of speculation out uh lately about those.

And so uh basically what we did was create a uh a handout that kind of explains the operating cash, restricted cash and capital project uh funding as well.

And basically it it it takes you through more a more layman's terms of understanding what those balances are.

Um like the operating cash for the city purpose is daily services and operations, but like a household example will be your your normal checking account for bills and groceries.

So we tried to take our language and put it in language that could be uh used across the board.

So the next page on the report is just kind of a breakdown of the major changes that have occurred from the prior quarter in the prior year to date to the current quarter.

Um really the only major change that isn't cyclical is the um increase in the general fund fund, which had a quarter to date increase of 34 percent.

This was largely due to the $14 million settlement from the century link litigation.

Um every other kind of change is kind of typical for this time of year, as the uh report explains.

Flipping to the next page, the total cash bounce for the end of the fiscal year into the third fourth quarter came to 540 million, uh two percent year to date increase and a four percent quarter to date increase.

The year to date increase was again largely due to that settlement claim.

And the next page is a kind of a breakdown of our operating cash.

Um it had an end in uh year-to-date amount of 241 million dollars.

Uh I kind of spoke about the general fund increase.

The other thing I'll kind of point out is utilities has uh quarter to date increase of 27 percent.

That's usually typical this time of year.

Uh the the quarter that this is covering uh uh July, August, and September typically higher electric electric bills, and that kind of reflects the cash levels that we have at that time.

On to the next page is the restricted cash.

Um this this uh shows all kinds of all the cash we hold that has various restrictions placed on it.

Uh the only thing I'll point out is that the ARPA money at the end of the fiscal year is down to 15.4 million.

So we spent roughly 10 million of that of the 25 million that we originally received.

And the rest is earmarked?

The rest is earmarked in that restricted amount.

Yeah.

Just wanted to make sure we weren't returning any money.

No.

That has to be spent by the end of October.

The end of the yeah, December 31st, 2026.

Okay, so we've got about 14 months.

And then the final page is just our capital project breakdown.

You usually see a decrease of this as the year wears on as money was appropriate at the beginning of the fiscal year and as capital projects start uh the spin down of these uh various funds occur.

So we saw a five percent quarter date change, which is fairly typical.

Is there any questions on uh anything in this report?

Any questions for staff on this?

No, I think you worked really hard to put this into normal people speak and appreciate that.

You had the similar handout at our uh Let's Talk Local last week and appreciate that.

Yes, yeah, done.

I apologize.

On the capital projects, um real quick, what was the significant uh increase for railroad?

You know, offhand.

I do not know off the top of my head.

Uh it looks like some it looks like in this fiscal year they got an a million dollars increase.

I'd probably have to go back or decronity.

We received a we received a grant.

Well, I was gonna say for did you say railroad?

Railroad.

We also have a went up 347 percent.

We we we approved two uh equipment replacements in the last year as well.

Okay that came to us.

I was just thank you.

No more questions.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Now we'll go to general comments from the public.

Would anyone from the public wish to speak?

Magic.

You want to bring up your slides from before?

Yes, please.

Okay.

I think if I keep saying that, it will magically happen.

Oh.

Do you want to talk while your time is going down?

Sure.

Um.

So three minutes.

Um I wanted to talk about this legal lot status, I guess, more than the um application of the uh street standards.

But the uh legal lot uh standards.

Now D is your IT person.

Thanks, D.

Um my perspective, uh probably at least once a month, sometimes two or three times a month, I get a homeowner who calls and uh needs to have um has found out they've been denied a permit to build or get a uh addition or whatever it may be they're trying to do.

And it's all based upon this legal lot status.

In my 35-year career, the that definition has changed at least five times.

And each time it's changed, it's gotten more restrictive.

Um I understand the purpose of the public need for dedication of easements and and right-of-way and such, but um it's getting to the point where um you're just requiring everyone to plat.

And in an example tonight's example, that was a $15,000 action.

So if I I have another one right now, uh guy named Justin Helmke is got a home that was down on Lakeview that uh the house got in and uh burned, burned down.

The city then sent them a notice said the house was unsafe and he had a need to demolish it, so he did.

And now he's trying to build back another home and he can't because he can't get a building permit because it's not a legal lot.

These are the types of situations that I feel um need to be addressed.

Um we can talk about another time about the uh application of the street standards to that with sidewalks and additional right-away.

I think the UDC already has language in it that um would have made the design adjustments tonight unnecessary.

Um but I am working with staff on that and hopefully can come to a resolution with that.

But um, you know, I there's a lot to this uh legal lot status, and and a lot of people are just flabbergasted.

They say, well, there's a house there.

I bought a house.

No one told me it wasn't a legal lot, and and now I have to do what?

You know.

And so it's it's it's one of those kind of things where it's not affecting developers, it's not affecting people doing necessarily doing this for profit.

It's it's it's affecting just normal people of their own homes.

And many of the people here tonight that were come to um protest that live on Anderson, um, they don't know it, but they live in a lot.

Does not meet the definition of a legal lot.

So when they need a new roof or they need you.

Thank you.

Your magic can go away now.

Sorry, slides.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak?

We'll come at the end.

I'm a shorty.

Christian, second ward.

Um pre-council the um and even a little bit in council tonight.

We talked about, or you guys talked about, I didn't talk about it, um, about people with additional needs.

People with disabilities.

I'm here before you as a person with several disabilities.

I had zero spoons left tonight, but I still made it to council, and I am so glad I did.

And it was I was in pain the whole night setting there.

I'm about about a level five pain, and at points in time I was about a level seven pain tonight, but I still came tonight.

And I am so glad I did because tonight on race matters, friends.

I've been running some notes.

And my title for the thing was guess how much council doesn't care about the public.

You guys did not disappoint.

Tonight, both in pre-council and in council, I heard over and over again about how much you don't care about the public, very specific in pre-council.

And you talked about some of the things that you talked about was accessibility needs, and we were talking about, you know, well, it's it's just not fiscally responsible, and we've got other things, and we don't want to be here late and all these other things, but you forget about you are here for the public.

You are not volunteers, you are elected officials.

It drives me nuts every time, Barbara that you say that you are a volunteer, you are not a volunteer, you are an elected official.

You are here, you were assigned up for this.

You knew what you were doing.

And when the public comes with needs, when they come to talk about things, you guys need to listen.

And tonight, well, pre-council very specifically.

I only heard one person at both sessions that consistently fought for people like me, people who do not have the spoons to come every single week.

People who are in pain, people who have additional needs at home, people who don't have the time, people who will work, and who can't come, only one person consistently fought for those.

I will let you guys guess which one it is.

I'm not going to tell you it was not you.

Um but I I cannot tell you how disappointed I was in you guys tonight.

Thank you.

Thanks, Chris.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Eugene Alkin, 3406 range line.

Heard me say many a time, I'm one of those disabled.

I'm being tested each and every day.

I see how miserable she's in feeling, and I've had many days since the month of August that I've laid in bed all day long.

I happen to fall through a handicap ramp.

I have told the city council many times, today you could be a perfectly healthy individual, and tomorrow, by God, you might be in the disabled line.

How come?

Maybe he was in a car wreck.

Maybe you twisted your ankle.

God doesn't provide you health every day.

And someday, if there are individuals that do not care, it will come back to haunt you.

You won't be setting in the council position of changing the world around you.

Tonight I come with suggestions on housing.

I've come across something that's rather strange.

And I'm hoping Mr.

DeCarlin will look into the matter, because I do not have history.

But at midway, we will find A frame housing.

We might have two groups of those.

If you'll take IS-70 and get the outer road that takes you to the Millersburg exit, you will also see A frames.

If you'll continue east of Millersburg, you'll find A frames on that road.

If these were built in the 1970s, and one other item is here in the city at Worley and Klinkscales, we have Quasa huts.

We also have them appearing right next to the University of Missouri.

As you leave the University Hospital, you'll see Quasa huts.

Columbia's been known to have tornadoes over the years.

Ain't that strange?

I'm standing here talking about these oddball things.

Hey, they took the wind.

They've took the tornadoes.

Why is Eugene talking about something so stupid?

Because it might be low-income housing in the future set aside as a entire subdivision.

How cheap can an A-frame be built?

Is it something people would live in?

I'm not saying the elderly might not want to live in them, but by gosh, everybody needs to have a home.

And you've seen the many years go by, and you're trying to do better and better things for the homeless.

I appreciate it.

This past Friday night, I decided to go downtown.

I really hated to hear that somebody would blame our homeless for the crime.

The truth of the matter, we have very good police at this moment.

I seen cars, I seen men on street walking, and I hope some of this will continue, but don't forget, while they're in the Central Columbia area, that doesn't protect our city.

Thank you.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Good evening.

My name is Bonnie Steinmetz, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Como Renewal Project.

And I wanted to talk about the pedestrian safety issue.

So the CBB transportation report, the consultants who did uh the analysis of this for our city.

Um most of what I'm going to speak about is from their report.

So Vision Zero is identifying that traffic-related fat fatalities and injuries are often preventable.

And so thank you all for bringing this issue forward and addressing it.

Um a quote from that report is unless specifically designed and designated as pedestrian areas, it should not be assumed that areas adjacent to the roadway are safe for pedestrian use.

So that was from the report that they had.

The proposed ordinance that I read by council kind of had three criteria of what pedestrians would be allowed on medium, and that was speed, the number of vehicles per hour, and the size of the median.

So in the report, um it talks about medians being at least six foot wide.

They state, quote, to serve as a place of temporary refuge for pedestrians who are attempting to cross, um, waiting for a gap in traffic.

So then they showed an actual diagram of what that would look like.

And so it was basically two islands on each side of a pathway for the pedestrian.

Our pedestrians have lots, our medians have lots of different configurations.

So even if a median is six foot wide in one section of it, it may not be in another section.

And when you think about pedestrians who are near the edge of these medians, all it takes is a trip and a fall, and they're in traffic.

And CBB speaks about that specifically.

So what percentage of preventable death and injuries is acceptable to allow people to hang out on medians.

13% of pedestrians struck at just 20 miles per hour will either die or suffer a severe injury.

40% at 30 miles per hour.

73% are 40% at 30 miles an hour, and 73% at 40 miles per hour.

These are pretty low speeds.

How many drivers actually obey speed limits?

Nowhere in this document did CBB condone pedestrians lingering on medians or near roadways.

In fact, just the opposite.

Are you requesting the full five minutes representing a group?

Okay, two more.

So we would request that the ordinance be standardized across all medium and intersections in the city.

It's very confusing to try to single out specific medians that would meet those three criteria.

And basically, it's unsafe, no matter what.

Medians were not intended in the city to be designed for people to linger on them.

And then lastly, just a little bit of homework.

If anybody has heard of the Swiss cheese model, um this gives you an idea of what it looks like.

So it's this theory that we place layers to prevent mishaps or accidents from happening.

So each of these layers of the Swiss cheese is trying to prevent a failure or an error.

If we don't have enough layers, then those holes in the Swiss cheese can line up, and then an error can happen or an accident can happen.

So in effect, um, please make the ordinance verbiage such that there is enough layers that everybody can be safe.

We do not want to have a situation where we could have prevented a death or an injury to a pedestrian.

Thank you.

Thank you, Biden.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Good evening, Tracy Wilson Cleek for Race Matters Friends.

Um I want to begin by saying thank you to Sheila.

We made a records request, and she endeavored to put it together for us.

It was a lot of work.

Um what I think it shows that is that you do a lot of work near, and we had wanted to see that before the election, but I think we learned a lot looking at your records.

I think it'll be a great archive for the State Historical Society to see the kinds of correspondence you get and the types of issues that you face.

I also wanted to thank the city manager for meeting with us.

We had a nice meeting.

Um upon reflection, I might have been uh a little aggressive maybe, but I I think you uh manage just fine.

Um we did talk about my concerns about sustainability, um, a sales tax, and if we're thinking about what kind of collapse could happen to us in the next six months if there are more homeless people, people that don't have snap benefits and people who don't have housing, et cetera, et cetera.

And it's very annoying to me that we're concerned about the mediums.

That's like to me the most outrageous thing ever.

The mediums.

You have people who, because of public policy at the federal level, are gonna be essentially struck down.

Those will be a lot of people with disabilities.

There'll be children that will be very much harmed and senior citizens.

I say that to help us reflect on what equity really is and to move away from the things that are superficial and to deal with the things that cause us fear.

Clearly, in this community, homelessness is something that bothers, I think white folks a lot.

I didn't realize it, but white folks have real issues with poor white people.

My husband's white, and he has explained it to me, and I think it's very interesting.

But for some reason, the homelessness situation causes a lot of discomfort.

I'm I'm also uncomfortable with the way that the council, some of you handled that situation.

And so this is my perception because I am a person of color uh near Buffalo, and I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but I I'm gonna I'm gonna make a candid statement.

That says when you speak, you speak as a white woman in a of a place of privilege.

If it was the spokesperson was DeMarcus or someone else, it would sound and come across very differently.

Because you're the mayor and you're in a power position and you're white, and the optics of your responses are normalized because you're the mayor.

And in doing this, it leaves unequal power relations unchecked and unaddressed.

So when Iana Williams is dead, and everyone's doing their fight like over the medians, and we're not focused on the trauma.

That's a display of how quickly we forget who's at the table and who's not at the table.

When you speak from a place of privilege like that, you normalize a critical principle that keeps white people comfortable.

So when people are calling to check in on you, that's not what was important.

People needed to be checking in on the family.

Thank you, Tracy.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak.

Grace Conrad, I am a concerned citizen.

I'm not representing anybody but myself today.

Um I am gonna speak on the same issue that the people, both people before me spoke on, the median issue.

I'm gonna have to agree with Tracy on this one.

I believe that if your issue or anybody's issue is with homelessness, which by the way, as much as we would like to pretend that this median issue is about pedestrian safety, it's not about pedestrian safety.

All of you are intelligent people, you know that.

Okay.

This is not about pedestrian safety, this is about banning panhandling.

Okay, let's say the quiet part out loud.

So I am asking, as a citizen, again, that agrees with Tracy, um, that we focus not on trying to criminalize acts of homelessness because we view homelessness as something that is inherently wrong, like it makes us mad, it makes us uncomfortable.

We can fix that.

We can we can do things that support people and build systems so that people don't get into cycles of poverty and abuse and depression and all of the other things that build it so that people go into homelessness.

Almost nobody chooses that, and we all know that.

But there are very influential groups, which I'm sure you are aware of.

The real Columbia, Missouri.

If any of you are using that as a source, I would sincerely question your ability to properly serve on this council.

Um again, as a concerned citizen, I care about every member of my community.

I'm a library employee.

I work with the public every single day.

The library is a safe haven for my homeless community members, okay.

And some of these people can handle to survive.

And you know what?

I don't care.

I don't care because that is their right to free speech as given to us by our constitution, which I'm sure some of you guys still appreciate.

Um again, I just I really I'm really tired of people being like, oh, homelessness is so bad, homelessness is so bad.

It's all talk, it's no action.

You don't do anything.

You don't do anything to actually prevent homelessness.

You don't do anything except be like, oh, ew, somebody's on a median right now.

That's disgusting.

Like we have to do better.

I know that we can, and I know that you guys who are aware of public policy are a lot more capable and a lot more minded up here to be able to put things into place that again, systems that can support our community members.

Thank you very much for listening to me speak.

I know that I came across a little emotional, like I said, I deal with um homeless people a lot, and I care a lot about them.

Seriously, because they're people.

Thank you.

Thank you, Grace.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Be none, we'll go to council comments.

Uh Valerie, we'll start with you.

Yeah, I didn't think I had many comments tonight, and then a lot of things came up tonight.

Um legal lot status.

Um Jake Epphart came back and spoke during council or during closing comments for the public.

Um that was very enlightening.

Um I thought that the last action related to nonstandard lots was to lighten the um restrictions for building.

I thought that um conferring the ability for any nonstandard lot to build according to cottage standards by right would make it easier.

Um I did not fully consider more ways that lots could become nonstandard.

Um and there are more problems than just lot width and acreage.

Um I'm not sure what the recipe is.

Um I would like for us to look at that.

Um this case was challenging because of the access, um, because of the configuration and the turn and the substandard street.

Um the lot was quite a nice size.

Umilarly, one person with a single lot and a single building.

Um I don't know why I didn't read it carefully.

I didn't realize that if it had burnt down, it would be different than if it was demolished.

Um I don't want it to make it easier to demolish old houses, but I also don't want to make it impossible to replace housing on lots that need livable housing.

Um I don't know what action you want from me if you need any action.

Um that's another thing that maybe we need to look at at a planning level.

Um I know I've sent a lot of things your way recently.

Um do I need to make some kind of motion?

Is there any consensus on council to revisit?

What is that you're asking?

I'm asking council.

I'm sorry, I'm asking planning to revisit legal lot status and what conditions create nonconforming lots if there are any more code adjustments needed that can reasonably unlock non-conforming lots.

We addressed lot size, lot width.

We didn't address any of these other various conditions.

Um and I don't thoroughly know all the conditions.

The fact that more come up means that I don't predict them.

Um but I know that our planners see all of the requests, and if there's a need, they probably know what the need is.

So would you like like uh ask them to send us back a brief report as to what the barriers are to having a legal lot size?

I don't really want them to go into a lot of detail.

I'm not sure we want to set it off to planning and zoning without more uh c a better definition of uh what we want them to do.

I appreciate the leading.

Thank you.

Um I think maybe appropriate would be to hear from planning, whether in the form of a report or even a short, short memo.

Um do you see existing trends in terms of like have you had applicants that weren't able to make legal lots in a way that could be addressed?

Do you see something that's more than just needs to be addressed?

I'm assuming that's more than then just coming up here and giving up brief remarks.

I think it's I think it's more than that, don't you?

Still reviewing no, I mean brief memo.

Okay.

I'm trying to say I don't want to create a lot of work, but it is reviewing application data, I'm sure.

Um it might give us a better idea of if we want to ask planning and zoning to do something.

I hate to dump anything more on them, exactly.

That might be the wrong word, but you know.

Hey, to ask them to do anything else without more clarification of what we're asking.

It's got a question from Nick and Descartes and has a comment.

I'm generally supportive.

I want to be sure I know what we're asking for here.

I I happen to know the situation that Jay mentioned.

I I I know Mr.

Helmka and he and I have had conversations about exactly that circumstance.

And I think that one of the things that we need to be looking at is the expense that is incurred under certain circumstances that looking back seems undue.

And I'm assuming with a new housing department director online and another and a new planning department person online.

These are the kind of things we can and should be looking at, and I encourage it.

So I support generally what you're talking about.

I I guess I'm not completely clear about what we're asking.

And I don't want to ask more than what is going to be beneficial immediately, but there may be a high-level uh report that they could bring back to us that gives us some idea.

I suppose I don't want to limit the scope because I don't want to put my own read on it, especially since I haven't reviewed the applications that didn't go forward, right?

Um is there a trend in applications that don't go forward because they're not able to be a legal lot is what I'm asking.

Um the particular case that I'm thinking of is a house burnt down, and I guess it's he can't get a building permit.

That sounds exactly like what our ordinance was written for.

Um there must be some other criteria that I don't know about.

Um I did talk to someone over in Beton Stevens who isn't really sure they have a platted lot even though they have a house on it.

So maybe this is more widespread than we think.

And then perhaps I mean, they're not trying to build anything different, but you know, maybe I don't know exactly what to do either, but it seems like some of these things ought to be able to be resolved without requiring a tremendous amount of planning and zone of the planning department's time or $15,000 worth of money just to make sure we know where the lot lines are.

I can say it was the intent of planning to make it easier to build on nonconforming lots while still requiring needed infrastructure.

Um I think re-platting to two lots as opposed to a single lot is very different than getting a plat for a single lot.

Yeah.

Um can I interject?

Can so first DeCarlin, for this point, um I'm assuming that this is the sort of thing that we're asking for a review of current like applications that have come in as well, as well as review of just the anecdotal feedback that they're also receiving on this.

Is that the sort of thing because this is not a lot of we don't have the clear direction of what to do?

And I know that's one thing that you want from us.

Yes.

So would it be useful if staff at your like community development meeting, if you talk about this request that's come in both both from Mr.

Gephardt as well as Valerie, uh, and then come back to council with is this what you want?

And then they can tell us how long it's gonna take.

Does that make sense?

Why don't I have a conversation via council inquiry and I'll get back.

Um I want to address it because I was surprised to hear about this and um just that the most recent action that I knew was to make it less restrictive and not more restrictive.

So the idea that it's getting more restrictive is news to me.

I think we have we have a couple we have a number of issues, and so it's it's a non-conforming lot is the non-plated lot.

Yep and all equals out to a different different.

And so I agree with the mayor.

So we meet as a development group on a monthly basis.

Let us kind of talk and kind of come up with questions, and then we can come back with the council and say, okay, here's what we're hearing, here's what we think you're seeing, here's what you think you're asking.

So we can kind of get a more of a framework of exactly what kind of report you're looking for.

Yeah, and I imagine it's all part of the conversation around housing that we're talking about the study when they did the review.

So thank you.

Um if they have any recommendations.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Like this is what we think would be helpful.

Well, I think the probably the hardest one is the non-platted ones, because those still have to go through some type of public platted process.

But let us kind of talk as a staff and try to come up with questions.

That's good.

I think at a very high level, my biggest question is do your observations match what we just heard tonight.

Are there a lot still a lot of non legal lots?

Is that still a hurdle?

So the next question we had was the parking restrictions.

Um along the narrowest portion of Meadow Lane.

Do you want to do that?

Or do you want to do so one of the things they said in our comments was have traffic engineering do a review and make recommendations?

Because the other thing you mentioned was potentially also north-south or only the east-west.

What were you?

I've been overly simplistic.

Again, partially because I want to allow them room to do their review and based on their review, decide if they're going to do the birth south or so yes, I am asking for a review.

Is there any uh objection to that from counsel?

Nope.

Thank you.

Um we heard from Tyler Travers about illegal video gambling machine.

Um given that they're already illegal and other sister cities within our states are making ordinances to prevent illegal gambling.

Um I'd like to restrict use of illegal gambling machines in Columbia.

Nick had this planned.

Well, I intended to bring this.

So uh I I do what we can you can go ahead and do it this way, and it's fine with me, but I think just to ask of legal that they bring to us a potential ordinance uh about this.

I mean, I I do believe that they're predatory.

Uh their eagle their legality, I'm sure is probably uh in question.

Um I do know they're also a concern to law enforcement, and we've seen some positive things happen in Springfield and in uh Plat Platt County, I believe, and um we're seeing stuff in Jackson County as well.

So that would be what I would recommend is that we just ask them to bring us an ordinance and um and that we can consider.

I'm in agreement.

Betsy and then done.

Just ask if they're already illegal in the state of Missouri, why do we need an ordinance to say they're illegal in the state and the city?

Yeah, so it's I think there illegality is this weird space where they're illegal but they're not illegal.

And so that's part of the lawsuit that you had with uh in Springfield.

And for a while it was let's take a wait and see and see exactly how those those lawsuits are progressing.

Uh with the two recent lawsuits, I think we're a little bit more comfortable bringing forth an ordinance.

And so I think that that was because I think we've we talked about this last year.

Okay.

And I think the thought was, well, let's wait and see exactly how some of the lawsuits that have been filed kind of play out.

And so I think the gray area is how you classify what these machines actually are and whether they constitute illegal gambling under the statute.

Because what they like to say is their amusement.

Yeah.

Entertainment.

Okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

Yeah, done.

Yeah, I uh met with Tyler also, and as we were discussing it and he was explaining, you know, Springfield had their ordinance been upheld in so far, anyway, has been upheld in uh court and and a couple of the others.

But my question was, and I think Tyler kind of agreed.

If we ban it, is it just going to maybe push it underground?

Um I would actually more like to see it put it like what we currently have with scratcher tickets and whatever, and it's more of a regulate and tax.

Um, you know, because there's a lot of revenue that is going into these.

Okay.

So I just, you know, I I don't know.

Uh if somebody has, he thought there might be, he was going to do a little research on it and see.

But I would be, you know, if you bring forward the count, you know.

I'm not going to hold out just for that, but uh I just want to throw that out there as an option.

Uh regulate it and tax them.

Of course, if they're predatory, I'd hate to do that.

But no no more than you know, the scratchers' tickets, the power ball, powerball terminals, you know.

Casino at Boonville, you know.

I mean, yes, there was a lot of pushback when you know the various forms of gambling came in.

We're getting DraftKings is going to be going active here shortly, you know.

So uh, you know, more gambling.

So gambling is I'm not gonna argue that gambling is not predatory, but you know, alcohol and tobacco are not good for us.

What do we do with those?

Syntaxes.

Did you want to Carlain and then Vera?

Yeah, I I think for I mean trying to regulate it and tax it, that's gonna that would be a state proposition, not something that we can do on a local level.

Okay.

I think the process of actually creating an ordinance that doesn't that doesn't allow the practice is probably more something that's within our ability.

Vera, you had a question.

I was just gonna say I was going to suggest the exact same movement as council members Carol and Foster.

Um I'm concerned that there are many businesses in town that have become more so of a casino that happens to also fuel your car.

Um they are becoming deeply predatory.

And if you spend very long in those places, you will see the physical and emotional impact that they're having on our community.

All right.

So we have a request for an ordinance to come back.

Is there any objection to requesting for ordinance to come back?

Seeing none.

Well, wait to see.

Um I don't know if you have a timeline on it or if you've already had something drafted.

No, I don't think we have anything drafted.

I did talk to Nancy uh want to say last week about the the conversation about starting the review.

And so I think that's where she's at.

I think she's actually going to reach out to the attorneys that are representing Springfield to kind of give some of their thoughts.

Okay.

All right.

Follow up with that.

Anything else, Valerie?

Otherwise we'll go into Vera.

I have made three motions, and that's enough for me.

All right, Vera, any closing comments.

Um I am very tired of starting my council comments this way, but I want to start by offering my deepest sympathies to the family and loved ones of the cyclist that was fatally injured on I-70 and range line earlier today.

Um I've been watching press releases come in about that throughout this meeting.

Um, and I'm devastated by the loss of someone in our community.

Um I also want to mention a couple of opportunities coming up to learn about um important topics in our community.

Um both happen to be on October 28th, so it can be a fabulous day of learning for everyone.

Um in the morning afternoon, you can come to the community classroom about snow removal.

We are coming up on the winter season.

If you want to know why your street is plowed in the order that it is plowed and how that happens, um that will be here in City Hall from 12 to 1.

And then that evening from 5:30 to 7.

Um, I will be hosting my first Ward 2 Let's Talk Local.

Uh the topic of the Let's Talk Local will be the Office of Violence Prevention, which is a more timely and prescient topic than I could have ever imagined when I initially picked that as the topic.

Um that is going to be hosted at the Molly Thomas Bowden neighborhood policing center in Ward 2.

Um then I did have a couple of action items.

Um first I was wondering if we had an update on the timeline for the report I had requested on outsourced jobs.

Last we talked, we would meet back to figure out what a reasonable timeline would be.

Yeah, so our plan was to bring uh the beginning of that discussion.

I want to say it was a second meeting in March.

Not March, November.

Pick another month.

Second meeting in November.

Okay.

Fabulous.

Um then the second piece, um, and this one is also perhaps nebulous and tell me if this is the wrong moment for it.

Um but it came to mind after our um conversation in our pre-council meeting um where we were talking about public comment.

Um and I know that in the report it had talked about clarifying the expectations of public comment.

Um I think that is something that we see frequently in our meetings um where people are incredibly invested in the topic being discussed, uh, want to share their input and don't necessarily understand the process.

They don't know if they're allowed to ask us questions.

They don't know if we're allowed to answer, they don't know how long they have to wait to get that information or what the process looks like.

Um I think in the report it had talked about putting that into the ordinance somehow.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to put that information out somewhere else, perhaps on the website page about public comment.

Um talking about kind of the procedures and expectations.

So it might be covered in the council meeting handbook that's on the city council website.

We might be able to direct people to that where Lacey, I don't know if Lacey's microphone works, Lacey.

Okay.

Um do you want to come to the podium really quick and say what the handbook says in it.

Lacey Salazar, City Fellow.

Um I do believe we're thinking about making some edits to the residence guide.

It does go into some depth about city council and there's a little script that I put in there to anyone who you know may be like, how do I present myself?

Like how it does have uh the amount of time as well.

Um it has the structure of the room so they know where you guys are sitting, where they can sit.

Um just to I cre the intent of creating that was to really kind of break that barrier of kind of intimidation, because it is kind of intimidating coming up here and being like, hey.

So that was my intent.

It is on there.

Um we are thinking about going through and making some edits to that, so that is something that I can add to that as well.

That would be awesome.

Okay.

And if that information could maybe be duplicated elsewhere.

I I love that handbook.

I've looked at that handbook even before I got on council, referred to it many times.

I don't know that everyone is looking at that every time they think I have something I'm passionate about to talk about.

Um so maybe just that section could be multiple places, so no matter how they come to us, they'll stumble upon it for sure.

We might want to ask the GIS guys if they could uh say Google search it.

But I mean if you go into the city website and just search you know public comment or how to do public comment or whatever.

So I I don't know if they've got that, if they're not.

But I can add that to our discussions and ask them.

Good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lacey.

Yeah.

That's all.

All right.

Jackie, any closing comments?

Yep, just real quick.

Um I just wanted to thank um the police department for their work this weekend.

There were thousands of people downtown and um it was very organized and shout out to the organizers as well.

Um it was it was organized and well and well attended and um the police did their job as far as monitoring crowds, so I appreciate their work with that.

Um and additionally, I was downtown Saturday night for a show at Missouri Theater and um just wanted to say, you know, it was great.

We it was rainy, but other than that, um things were looking good downtown.

So thank you for all of our la law enforcement for working on those issues.

Um I had asked a question about how many of those truncated domes over the 73 were directional versus transitional.

I don't need a number.

I just wanted to emphasize directionals the gold standard.

Um and then the other kind of observation question I had, the neighbors on Meadow Lane had talked about how the trash trucks were having difficulty getting down their street to pick up their trash and had to honk their horns so people could move their cars.

Do we have a process in place um where our trash collectors or the truck drivers can report when there's a street that consistently has those issues?

I mean that might be like a red flag that we need to be looking at parking.

Do we have any process like that?

We don't, but we can add something.

But I mean they're the ones that are there every week, so absolutely ones we see it, so they sh Yeah.

Okay.

We can go to process.

I and I would add to that, you know, I think that's one of the things like our frontline staff, if they have suggestion things like that we um try to actively encourage for that feedback to come.

I know on my street getting the feedback that it helps to put all the roll crowds on one side because it has to back down our narrow street anyway, was helpful to hear.

So we all put it on one side, so it's easier for them to do their job.

So I think if they have ideas like that, just letting us know and how to make it.

That's a good idea, Jack.

Anything else?

All right, Nick Foster.

All right, Don Lauterman.

Doesn't have anything.

No, nothing.

Nothing for you.

Okay.

Uh a couple of things.

One, um, I would like to make a request.

I don't know whether it needs a motion or what for us to go into uh closed session to discuss the locations for the Southwest Water Tower.

Put that back on the table.

Make a request to have a closed session or to go into closed session.

Not no, I'd not requesting you to go into closed session tonight.

Not tonight.

Okay.

So do DeCarl, do you need me to make a motion on that or just a request?

Okay.

Then I will make a motion that uh we have a close closed council session in the near future uh to discuss locations for the Southwest Watertower.

I would second that.

Any discussion on the motion?

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Carl will work with you on scheduling that.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Second topic.

I requested and did a ride-along with the CPD Friday night.

And because I wanted to go out and see for myself without the uh whatever you want to call it privately, if you will.

And it was, I mean, it was noticeable.

There was a very visible police presence between CPD, highway patrol, Boone County Sheriff.

Um talking with the officer I was writing with.

It has had a positive impact.

So that's that's good.

Um we hope to continue that.

Uh ironically, there was one assault.

Uh they were quickly identified, and we were there to make the apprehension.

Um they were from out of town.

Um, and from what I understand, that's not that uncommon.

So I guess the memo hasn't gotten around about uh some changes we've made in Columbia recently.

So but anyway.

Um again, part of the reason that I went on the ride along was all the communication and the back and forth between President Choi and the city and others about violence and homeless.

Um the point I want one of the points I want to make is that they are separate issues.

I know that they tend a lot of people seem to have forgotten that President Choi actually spoke out or said, hey, we seem to have a problem with the homeless.

We need to look at that a few days before the incident where the young lady was killed.

Um but since that time, all the communication has been violence and homeless, violence and homeless.

And a lot of people have taken that to mean we're trying to blame the homeless.

I don't believe that's the purpose.

I see them as two separate issues.

Um we should be clear of that as we're communicating.

Different approaches, different solutions.

So let's try to keep that separate.

Again, with all the visibility and communication, the heat's been turned up.

A lot of a lot of push to let's do something now, now, now.

All you've done is turn the pot up to a boil, and I don't want to get into knee-jerk legislation.

I want something that's thoughtful and deliberate.

So let's turn it down to a simmer, please.

Okay.

I don't want to take the pot off the stove, but let's just turn it down to a simmer so that uh we can continue to move forward with it.

The cooperation that's currently going on between the again, various police departments.

It can't be sustained, won't be sustained from what I understand, or my guess is it would probably be uh largely till the end of the football season, maybe the end of the year.

Um, and then it's gonna gradually come back to where it's just gonna be CPD that's gonna be responsible for it.

During the current budget process, Chief Saluti had said that she would needs over however long, 50 more officers to fully staff and fully provide what they think they need for the City of Columbia due to its growth in population and acreage and size.

Um fire department has asked for some large increases as well so that they can put additional people per shift in the firehouses.

Um all that said, all this is gonna come at a cost.

So how do we do this?

How do we pay for it?

You know, we can look at the city budget and we can go through and comb it and comb it and comb it, but if you actually look at personnel costs for fire and police, you're gonna be looking at roughly a 25 percent increase.

And I don't think there's enough room left outside of that uh to do it the way we currently are structured with revenue.

Yes, we're looking to recruit new businesses for more sales taxes, more retail businesses, more sales taxes, but that's gonna take some time.

It's come up that uh an option may be a public safety tax, uh, however that can be structured.

And so my question is gonna be very simply for those that are advocating and saying yes, look at the success we've had with the increased police.

Um support whatever means we have to do to increase the revenue.

So if you're gonna if you want the help, you're gonna it's gonna be a cost.

So let's just be honest about it up front.

Thanks.

Thanks, Tom.

Betsy, any closing comments?

Um yeah, I have a couple.

I did also hear um about the great um protest or demonstration, whatever you want to call it this weekend, and what a wonderful job.

Um both the uh demonstrators did about behaving themselves and the police did about helping them stay safe.

So I wanted to thank folks for that.

Um I also have been in downtown Columbia late at night, but not as part of a parade.

Um and there are a lot more police officers there, and I agree with Don that that's great for now, but not really sustainable in the long term.

Um the only other thing I had was I think the email I sent out to you all regarding um looking at when we want to have budget.

I know I can't believe I'm bringing this up.

Um budget workshops sessions next July, because it is in the summer.

Um, and a lot of people would like to take vacation at some point, but would like to not miss the budget meetings.

At least that's what I would like to do.

Um so I don't know if um Mr.

Liu and you have had a chance to look at that or not, or if we just need to bring that back at another um another council meeting to see if there's a week that we're actually gonna be doing workshops so that people can sort of plan their summers.

Um and the other one is just whether we want to have a meeting on July 6th or not.

I understand the three-day weekend for July 4th, which is on a Saturday would be Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.

Um you sort of run into the yin and yang of do you not have a city council meeting and then people say we should have had one, or do you have one and people say how dare you do business when everybody's out of town?

So um I just bring that up.

I have no answers.

I'm just bringing up for uh something to think about over the next few weeks.

You you will get with finance departments think about the budgeting schedule.

Yeah, we'll put together a budget scheduling and we'll send it to you guys.

Um so we'll try to do that as quickly as possible.

Okay.

Yeah.

Time for for the city.

Yeah, and I think maybe looking at the workload of things that would have to come to council for voting on that, because to Betsy's point, maybe then that means since we'll have so many other public meetings that week, that month, then maybe we don't have to have that first Monday meeting.

Okay.

Well, and another thought, sorry, I was almost done.

Um if we're going to to upgrade the A V equipment, both here and then 1A and 1B, that would give them like four weeks if we don't have a July 4th meeting.

And we do the budget meeting starting after the middle of July meeting.

So just look at all that scheduling stuff and I'll leave it to you all.

Thank you.

Um I think just for mine, two things.

One, um, just uh one exciting thing tomorrow is the groundbreaking of uh Burr's Behavioral Health Crisis Center on Texas Avenue.

So this is something that was one of our ARPRA priorities.

Um so this is the um basically on the same campus as the Phoenix Clean and SOA 24-7, um 365-day crisis care, which is desperately needed in our community, and it will basically triple the size of their existing one that's on walnut.

And so just really thankful for that and um excited to see that project finally um well break ground but be built.

Um and then my second one is um I am not gonna be uh available to attend the November 3rd, 2025 council meeting.

So I want to make a motion to delay the second read and vote for Bill 26525.

That is the discussion around the um uh pedestrians on major road corridors and intersections.

I'd like to make a motion to delay that second read and vote to the November 17th meeting so that all of council would be here.

Can I get a second?

Second.

Second by Nick Foster.

Is there any discussion on that motion?

All right, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right, thank you.

Uh staff comments, DeCarlin.

I don't have any Becky, anything?

No, thank you.

Sheila, anything?

All right, I'll go ahead and adjourn us.

957.