Good evening.

Good evening.

Welcome to the regular November 17th, 2025, Columbia City Council meeting.

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

Under God, this is all with liberty and justice for all.

Sheila, will you please call roll?

Ms.

Sample?

Here.

Mr.

Foster.

Here.

Mr.

Waterman.

Here.

Ms.

Peters.

Miss Buffalo?

Here.

Miss Carroll.

Here.

Miss Elwood.

Here.

Awesome.

I'll make note that there is overflow in conference rooms 1A, 1B, where they were also showing the video in case you want to sit down if you're one of the ones standing.

Or if you're closer phobook and would like to be in a space with more room.

All right, so there are multiple opportunities for community members to speak at Columbia City Council meetings.

The public can speak during the public hearings, old business, new business portions of the agenda.

I do remind people to keep your remarks to the legislation being discussed.

At the end of the council meeting, you can talk about whatever you want to talk about for three minutes.

And three minutes for an individual and five minutes if you're an organization that is represented or affected by the legislation.

We do these rules so that everyone has an opportunity to speak.

We want to make sure we have that availability to them.

And I also don't want to keep you here until Tuesday.

We're happy that people want to come and talk to Columbia City Council meetings.

All right, so now moving into our agenda.

Up first, we have three different minutes to approve.

So I'll make a motion uh to approve the October 6th, 2025, the October 20th, 2025, and the November 3rd, 2025 meeting minutes.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Nick Foster.

Any discussion?

All right.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Moving on to approval of the agenda.

Um we did get a request from staff.

Uh so I'll make a motion to remove R 16025 from the agenda per the request of staff to allow staff additional time to review a third-party agreement.

Um, do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Don.

Any discussion?

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Are there any other uh adjustments to the agenda?

Seeing none, I'll make a motion to approve the agenda with the removal R 160 25 from the council minutes or council meeting agenda.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Don.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

All right.

So up first we have a special recognition.

Uh this is special recognition of our um Civic Academy Fall 2025 participants.

For those unfamiliar with this, uh, Civic Academy started in the fall of 22 with the goal of engaging, educating, and empowering our community members.

This evening, I have the honor of recognizing some of the participants from our fifth Civic Academy cohort, which was the largest one to date.

It was 30 participants.

Uh they even had a special guest join the city manager from Webster Groves, Missouri, who is interested in blatantly stealing the program for Webster Groves because it's so successful here.

Um over the course of eight weeks, Civic Academy participants got to tour city facilities, hear from city leadership across multiple departments, and learn about the impact local government has on their lives every day.

Uh it's our hope that by completing this program, they have learned more about their local government and what we do and why we do it.

Um it's my pleasure to recognize some of the participants joining us this evening, and I will have I will call your name from down there to give you your certificate.

So hold on.

All right, if you wouldn't mind come up here when I call your name, I'll give you uh your certificate, and then we'll pose for a photo.

There's Josh.

Okay, camera.

All right, so up first we have Russell Boyd.

You're up first, Russ.

Oh, yeah, hang up, because we'll take pictures, right?

He wants you to over there though.

Aaron Right, Aaron Powell, Aaron here.

Some people might not be able to be here, so I'll hold on to theirs.

I know, right?

All right.

I'm saving hers to the setting.

David Devos.

If you don't mind, I don't want my picture taken.

Okay.

Diamond Tabron.

Elizabeth Hornbeck.

Evan Hankins.

Freddie Heinz.

Jordan Barnes.

Justice Stanley.

Ken Rice.

Kyle Owen Sullivan.

Liz Ayton Aten Ayton.

Attin.

Logan Kirkendal.

Marcella Silvan.

Oh, you go that way.

Marcia Walker.

Nigel Cochran.

Stephanie Cooper.

And last but not least, Tony Acrusero.

Oh, oh, you did come.

Where do you want everybody?

So for group photo, what's the question?

See if we can get two.

Well, I want to thank all of you for being engaged, members of our community.

Um, so with these participants, uh, we've had nearly a hundred and fifty community members go through our civic academy program.

Um so if you or someone you know is interested, participated, um, keep a lookout because in the spring we will ask uh open up the next class.

Um moving on to appointments to boards and commissions.

The City of Columbia have multiple opportunities for you to serve.

Uh we have over like 50 boards and commissions, it seems.

And so vacancies will be posted on Wednesday for the next round that will be appointed in December.

Uh this evening we have a few applicants for some of our vacancies, and so we'll go through them as the ones we have.

Up first, we have for Airport Advisory Board, um F agreeable, one applicant, uh Ramon Puri can be appointed as the hotel motel industry member if if there's no objections.

Uh and also um one applicant, Randa Rollins can be appointed by voice vote as the representative from a major employer within the city if there's no objections.

No objections.

No objections, okay.

Moving on, Climate Environment Commission, we had five applicants for five vacancies.

So if there's no objections, all five can be appointed.

No objections.

Um commission on cultural affairs.

We have one applicant.

So Simone Sparks can be appointed by voice vote if there's no objections.

No objections?

All right, moving on, community land trust organization.

So up first, we have one applicant for the role of land trust occupant of a land trust home.

So if there's no objections, we'll point Jay Trotter to that one.

No objections.

No object.

Um second, um, the one applicant, Tracy Bush Cook can be appointed if there's no objections as a neighborhood representative residing within the current CDBG eligible area.

There's no objections.

No objections.

Um and then we'll do roll call vote on the remaining uh one vacancy because there are multiple applicants.

Diamond Tabron.

Mr.

Fosteron.

Mr.

Waterman.

Benjamin Hamra.

Ms.

Buffalo.

Uh Diamond Tabron.

Miss Carroll.

Diamond Tabron.

Ms.

Elwood.

Diamond Tabron.

Diamond Trab Tabron is appointed.

Okay.

Uh moving on to the Hermit Human Services Commission.

Um, we'll need a roll call because let's see.

We have one, we'll do roll call first on the one that is ending term ending December 31st, 2025.

Um, you want to uh it's up to you because the person's gonna have to automatically reapply, which we can reactivate their application, but we're advertising to others next month that we'll have a 2028 vacancy.

So it's uh it's our term, so it's up to you if you want to go ahead and appoint this person knowing they're gonna turn around and reapply or not.

It's up to you guys completely.

Okay, so they don't meet in December, so it doesn't impact uh quorum issue for them.

Okay.

Um so then why don't we do this?

Why don't we appoint the 2026 one first?

Um so the one potentially serving for continuously, and then the second one next.

So if you wouldn't um as a quick note though, I just got a message from uh the fire department.

And so if you are we are in fire code violation, if you are standing, please go into conference rooms one A and one B for our overflow.

And in just a little bit, there's gonna be some seats opened up um once the reserved are taken off.

And so I'll make a little announcement then too to be like, come back in.

Okay, sorry.

Sorry.

You get a text message, you know, related to fire code and you respond.

Um, Human Services Commission, call roll, please on the term ending in December of 26th.

Ms.

Sample.

John Fabsitz.

Mr.

Foster.

John Fabs.

Mr.

Waterman.

John Fabsetz.

Miss Buffalo.

John Fabsitz.

Ms.

Carroll.

Ratasha Belcher Harris.

And Miss Elwood.

Ratasha Belcher Harris.

John Fabsits received four votes.

So he's appointed to the 2026 term.

Okay.

And then next we call roll on the term ending in December 2025.

Ms.

Sample.

Blaine Rabert.

Mr.

Foster.

Blaine Revert.

Mr.

Waterman.

Benjamin Hamra.

Ms.

Buffalo.

Benjamin Hamrah.

Miss Carroll.

Retasha Belcher Harris.

Miss Elwood.

Ratesha Belcher Harris.

We're going to have to do that again because it was 222.

Mr.

Foster, we'll start with you this time.

Ratasha Belcher Harris.

Mr.

Waterman.

Benjamin Hamrah.

Ms.

Buffalo.

Benjamin Hamrah.

Miss Carroll.

Ratasha Belcher Harris.

Miss Elwood.

Ratasha Belcher Harris.

Ms.

Sample.

Ratasha Belcher Harris.

Ratasha Belcher Harris received four votes.

All right.

Moving on to the Mayor's Council on Physical Fitness and Health.

If agreeable, all three applicants can be appointed to this one.

We do have three terms ending on November 30th, 2028, and one term ending November.

I'm going to say all three should be appointed to the 2028 terms ending, and then we will re-advertise for the 2027.

Is there any objection to that?

No objection.

All right.

So all three will be appointed to that.

Moving on, public transit advisory commission.

We have one applicant.

So Ethan West can be appointed unless there's any objection.

No objection.

We'll need to do roll call vote for substance use prevention advisory commission.

We'll start first with the under 25 designation.

There's one vacancy for that, and then two vacancies for the general.

So Sheila, will you please call roll on the under 25 member position?

Ms.

Sample.

Patricia Curtley.

Mr.

Foster.

Lashmi Mandala Madala.

Mr.

Waterman.

Lakshmi Madala.

Miss Buffalo.

Lakshmi Medala.

Miss Carroll.

Lakshmi Medala.

And Miss Elwood.

Lakshmi Madala.

Lakshmi Medala is the under 25 appointment.

And then because there's two vacancies for the general and now only two remaining for the general, if there's no objection, we can appoint the two remaining to the vacant positions for general.

There's no objection.

No.

Okay.

We do have to clarify terms because one term is 26 and one term is 28 for the general.

You might want to do the student as a 261 just in case they graduate and then that's a suggestion, but suggestion is to have Patricia Curtley serve for the expiring in December 31st, 2026, which would have been the same as the under 25 one this way.

Is there any objection to that?

And then Mia Snyder would be the 2028.

All right.

No objection.

That works.

Is that do you follow that clear as mud, Sheila?

Yep.

Got it?

Okay.

I suggested it.

Okay.

Okay, so moving on.

Um we're going to need to re-advertise for the tobacco retailer license review board and also get clarification, probably make the comment at the end of the council meeting.

Um it's one of the vague ones where it's not clear on if it's supposed to be a citizen member and uh legal opinion is that it should be, so we'll need to clarify the legislation, but in the meantime, re-advertise um for for that vacancy.

And I think that's all the ones we have right now.

So there we go.

Yes, off you.

Multiple opportunities.

All right, so moving on.

Um so members of the public can contact the city manager's office by noon on the Wednesday prior to a city council meeting to schedule public comment.

Um schedule public comment can't be on items that are on this evening's agenda.

And of note, it has been typical practice of the city council to address or request for additional follow-up, the conversations or questions that are asked uh if warranted at the end of the council meeting.

So this evening we have four scheduled public comments.

So I'd like to first ask Reverend Molly Hosh Gordon to come forward to speak.

Good evening.

Uh I'm the Reverend Dr.

I'm the Reverend Dr.

Molly Haush Gordon, pastor of the Unitarian Universalist Church of Columbia, board president for Como Mobile Aid, and resident of Ward 1.

On September 28th, during downtown revelry after the Mizzou homecoming game, a tragic shooting left a beloved member of our Columbia community dead and two others injured.

Amid the deep sorrow and fear of our Columbia community, the University of Missouri system president stepped in to claim a portion of the public narrative.

He wrote an open letter to City Council, made presentations to various groups, and got himself in front of news cameras to tell a story about our town.

He spoke of a terrifying crime wave anchored in a narrative about unhoused people on the streets of Colombia, painting a picture of depravity and threat.

And he exhorted the city council to crack down, particularly on homeless Colombians.

It is important to note here that the person who has been charged with the shooting on that terrible night was not a member of our unhoused community, though there are many now who believe that he was due to this narrative slight of hand.

In the weeks that followed, the pressure on council to control crackdown on unhoused folks steadily grew.

I understand that your inboxes received many emails from frightened Mizzou parents, mostly from St.

Louis County, whose imaginations were caught by the stories being told about our unhoused neighbors.

In addition, a right-wing group on Facebook that spends their days posting mocking photos of houseless folks going about their lives began to amp up their rhetoric of incitement.

One thing I want to impress upon you this evening is that not only does the research give a clear consensus that unhoused people are far more likely to be victims of violence than perpetrators of it, but also that a criminalizing narrative about this group of people puts our already vulnerable neighbors in further danger.

Every other Monday I drive the mobile soup kitchen route for Como mobile aid, which I also serve as board president, as I mentioned, and I can tell you from my experience with our clients that increased criminalizing rhetoric has resulted in increased verbal abuse towards folks flying signs or sleeping on the sidewalks of our city streets.

And that over the last year, this abuse has escalated to assault by BB guns and pellet guns being shot from the windows of pickup trucks roaring by these vulnerable citizens.

The danger is not coming from folks existing in some of the very few public spaces available to them.

The danger is coming from hatred born of stories and policies that criminalize the existence of poverty, mental illness, and addiction in our community.

The stories we tell and the words we use to tell them matter deeply.

They play out on flesh, like the bruising of a pellet gun.

Some of these stories even pave the way to collective punishment and authoritarian control.

But the first step is always the story about who is dangerous or hopeless or inherently criminal.

That story is what allows authoritarians to consolidate control under a tidy guise of restoring safety.

As the city takes up various policies in the coming weeks and months, I want to raise a dire warning about the stories you may be co-signing with your decisions.

Scapegoating our unhoused neighbors in Colombia, punishing them or controlling their movements and lives is exactly how the larger authoritarian playbook begins here in our town.

The playbook looks different in large cities with ice raids and National Guard militarizations, but here in Colombia, it looks like the quiet marshaling of public policy to support a criminalizing story and control vulnerable people, all dressed in the language of safety.

Here in Colombia, you might not even realize what you're doing until it's already done.

In the policy decisions you make in the coming weeks and months, you will be deciding between a quiet acclamation to authoritarian control or an intentional investment in communal care.

This is especially true when it comes to decisions regarding those being scapegoated.

I know sometimes the choice between care or control won't seem that obvious.

Things get tangled up.

One way I would invite you to tell the difference is by asking yourself in all of your decision making.

Does this decision criminalize someone or does it resource them?

Criminalizing means literally putting them in further contact with the criminal justice system, while resourcing means meeting their survival needs.

Will your decisions criminalize or resource?

Is this control or care?

Now is the time to resist authoritarianism in our community.

It starts by choosing care, and it starts with telling a better story.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Molly.

I now like to please ask Douglas Miller.

Douglas Miller and Elizabeth Keach to come forward to speak.

Mayor, if I might just uh because we do have people standing.

Oh there's some seats up here.

I know they say reserve, but if you have an empty seat next to you, raise your hand.

Find the if you're standing up and please come sit down.

Please don't stand up at the back.

I appreciate it.

My name is Elizabeth Keach, and this is my associate, Douglas Miller.

We run a production company called Detect Nerd.

Our mission is to foster creativity and community through nerdy pursuits, and we're here today to speak in support of community media and Vidwest studios.

We produce actual play improvised podcasts of tabletop role-playing games, but before stepping into the studio, we produced live stage shows in Columbia and teamed up with younger folks to create their own live productions under the umbrella of Detect Nerd Jr.

Personally, VidWest has given Detectner the opportunity to collaborate with other businesses, artists, and creators in the tabletop gaming community, creating connections that simply wouldn't be possible if VidWest hadn't opened those doors for us.

Before we get too far, uh VidWest uh we'd like to quickly revisit a question from VidWest's October presentation.

VidWest Vidwest has received the following letter stating that the city no longer receives funding for public educational and government channels.

The current city budget shows that it does continue to receive cable franchise fees in the amount of around 400,000 through the Federal Communications Act and the State's Video Service Providers Act.

This funding source was created with the expressed intent of supporting community media.

While the legislation does not require using the funds this way, it is how Columbia has supported community media for the last 21 years, even through periods of economic downturn and tide budgets.

So we would appreciate an explanation or clarification of the city statement that it no longer receives this funding.

When we decided to share our local productions with the wider world, we realized we had no access to the equipment or skills we needed.

So we were amazed to discover that for a reasonable membership fee, VidWest would provide us with a film studio, cinema grade cameras, photography lenses, soundboards, microphones, lighting, and industry standard video editing software.

And they taught us how to operate everything.

They have brought us from zero to the point that we just crossed our thousand subscriber mark on YouTube.

What Vidwest offers to our community goes beyond cable access.

VidWex welcomes so many different kinds of people through its doors, musicians, filmmakers, podcasters, and small business owners who share this space and equipment to bring their ideas to life.

VidWest is a place where collaboration, creativity, and community meet.

Recently, one of our biggest fans stopped by the studio for a visit.

We gave him a tour of the equipment and spent some time talking about what we do.

It was such a meaningful experience, a chance to share our passion with a young person.

We like to think we helped spark a little inspiration and showed him what might be possible.

Maybe one day he'll find himself behind the camera telling stories of his own.

Business access to media technology and skilled workers has never been more critical.

A dozen years ago, the job title of social media director didn't even exist.

But now organizations are expected to maintain active social media presences by producing regular video content.

This requires media proficient workers and access to affordable equipment.

Seeing the importance of this media sector to economic development, Missouri resurrected the Motion Media Production Tax Credit Program, which in 2024 brought 30 million dollars of film production to our state.

All of these productions require trained local workers.

While many people in Columbia would love to be a part of this job sector, not everyone in this uh position to attend a college program or pursue formal training.

VidWest removes this barrier to entry by providing affordable training and equipment access to any person from any background at any point in their career.

Historically, Columbia has valued removing barriers to success by providing grants to programs that provide access to job training and equipment.

Such projects include Ready, Como Cook's Shared Kitchens, and the Voluntary Action Center.

VidWest operates in this same space, but unlike these programs, has had a continuous source of support, a portion of the cable franchise fee, using only about 10% of those funds this year.

And VidWest has been very efficient in its use of city dollars, returning benefits to sit Columbia citizens at a rate many times greater than its funding.

As media ownership becomes even more consolidated, it's important that all the voices of our community have the means to speak for themselves.

Now, one could make the argument that you just need a phone to make yourself heard on the internet, but a phone can't provide Columbia musicians with a place to rehearse or the sound equipment they need to put on shows.

A social media app doesn't lead lend equipment to photographers to affordably shoot local weddings and earn income.

Much of the Columbia life we value is enabled by the same media creators you saw crowding these chambers last month.

Many of them would not have been able to continue without the affordable access to equipment and training that Woodwest provides.

Year after year, Columbia has chosen to support our community media, even during economic downturns.

When media access and skills have become so vital to our workforce, economy, and local culture, we believe this is not the time for our support of community media to waver.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Guys, oh wait, I I please No, no, not you, not you.

Um I have a rule not to have the clapping namely because then we have the intimidation, so please do uh go along with it.

Even though everyone wants to clap for everybody because we all love everybody.

Um next, I like to ask Jessica McNair to please come forward to speak.

Because then what if no one claps for her and then she's sad?

So, like, let's just all these oh no, no, no, no, no, no.

Save it for the next person.

Yeah.

Okay.

My name is Jessica McNear.

I'm the recently appointed shelter director of Opportunity Campus, which is a program of Voluntary Action Center, which has been serving the community for 56 years.

Um we thought it would be a good night to give some updates on the opportunity campus and some information.

We know that there's a lot of questions.

Um I've been a resident of Columbia for over 20 years.

I most recently was at the rape and abuse crisis service in Jeff City, so being back in Columbia in the community service department is amazing.

Um I've been in social services for about 15 years, so I'm really thrilled to be a part of Voluntary Action Center that has had an amazing reputation in our community, and I'm not just saying that because two of the three executive directors are in the room.

Uh now to the opportunity campus.

So this is a recent drone photo of the campus.

You'll notice on the left side with our heart logo, voluntary action center, um, will be housed in the Cindy Mustard Resource Center.

Cindy Mustard was our first executive director at Voluntary Action Center, and they will be joined with Burl and Clarity Healthcare in that resource center that we're expecting to open in March of 2026.

You'll notice that there's uh some yellow lines there.

We have additional space for other community partners that might be interested in uh being housed on the opportunity campus.

Um basically all of Voluntary Action Center's programs will stay the same.

We're gonna continue offering basic serve uh basic survival services, um, access to birth certificates, photo IDs, um, our summer program for fans, our holiday program for families.

We're just gonna have more space to be able to utilize that in.

Burland Clarity Healthcare will be providing primary and preventative services, a substance abuse program, a mental health services and dental care, um, not just to those who are on campus, but anyone in the community needing to utilize them.

You'll then see on the right our shelter services building.

We will house fishes and loaves who are loads and fishes that have been providing evening meals in our community.

They are currently housed with room at the inn at the Ashley Street Center, um, and they will be transitioning down as a tenant.

We'll also have turning point, the day program that is currently at the church at Wilkes that will be transitioning first into the shelter program, um, providing the same day services, mail services, meeting spaces, um, lockers, all of the same services that they've been offering.

They will also be a tenant, so they will be paying rent and operating autonomously as turning point.

Room at the inn will be transitioning um January 1st.

Um, they will actually be dissolving and we will be absorbing their um staff.

Um, everything logically is gonna stay the same.

Um, they'll still be operating the shelter out of the Ashley Street building until the shelter building opens.

We're anticipating that to be June of 2026.

And then we also have our friends at CCUA that will be facilitating a community garden also on site.

So we are bringing seven programs onto one location that's gonna improve access for our community service individuals as well as the clients we serve.

How do we get there?

We're in a capital campaign, um, estimated 18.6 million.

We have, I say we very lightly because uh a lot of that rests on Ed Stansbury.

Um we've raised 15.25 million with one-time ARPA um funding, uh as well as 4.3 million in private donors and foundations.

Operationally, we're anticipating our budget annually to be 1.2 to 1.5 million.

Um that will be funded with rental income from our tenants, including Burl, Clarity, Turning Point, and Loaves and Fishes, various grants.

We're also going to be a subcontractor for the VA and private donations.

We plan to achieve a lot of things.

It was hard to put everything into a five-minute presentation, but we want to be a cross-system collaborative hub and an after hours resource for the community.

We do have lots of great nonprofits.

We have our law enforcement, our hospital system, our school system.

Um, and a lot of times we get siloed in the work we do.

So we are really looking to streamline and get everybody communicating so that we can be providing the best services.

We're going to increase capacity, hopefully, for other shelters for families, reducing that hospital ER use and law enforcement calls.

We're going to be supporting the immediate residential neighborhood and the loop.

Um, obviously reducing those unhoused shelter numbers and really looking to increase positive long-term outcomes.

We are going to be 150 bed low barrier.

We are not a safe injection site, we are not a wet campus.

We will only be serving Boone County in Jessica Your time.

Thank you.

I appreciate the additional information.

No clapping.

And I'd like to ask Christine Dorr to now come forward to speak.

Oh, it just went away.

Christine, I think adult might be able to help.

Because I think it just I don't know what it was.

Okay.

All right.

Go ahead.

Hi.

Thank you.

An elder from the Osage Nation told me the worst sin when we were kicked out of our land was that the whites never asked us what they needed to know in order to live on and protect this land.

Bulldozing the Gans Bike Trail started in March.

They didn't notice the millions of wildflowers peeking through.

They told me it's all invasives.

Most land at Gans are hills of lus, a clayy soil, very poor at absorbing rain.

Heavy rains drain from the fields carrying clay and silt toward the wooded ravines.

Eroding runoff filters through the unprotected topsoil to the streams that feed Gans Creek.

Trail bulldozing has permanently damaged the system of water filtration in these ravines.

Now the filtered water never makes it to the streams.

Instead, it shoots out in little springlets along the trail, no longer protected under the topsoil.

It runs dirty over the tr over the trails.

Into the streams, the Gans eroding, it wrote it, sorry, it runs dirty over the trails into the streams and then to Gans Creek, eroding the fragile wooded slopes along the way.

The only topsoil in this area is on these now imperiled wooded slopes.

But a century ago, the fields also had topsoil.

Since the 1800s, Missouri has lost most of its topsoil.

It was second worst in the Union, losing 177 million tons of topsoil every year by 1982.

Topsoil erosion is a huge issue, and we are backsliding.

And trail construction has set off new erosion.

Adding to this trail catastrophe is that we have done nothing to re-establish the erosion controls farmers built decades ago in the fields above the slopes.

Rain retention and runoff dispersion systems that have failed with age have been made worse by directing runoff into ditches, draining the fields.

Planting trees is not enough.

There are massive benefits to preserving this natural ecology.

Full of native life and mystery.

Stop construction in the fragile wooded slopes, and don't even think about touching south of the creek.

Plus, GANs lives in a major corridor for bird migration.

Fun is great, but not at any cost or damage to this beautiful natural area.

Respect God's gift.

Instead of more habitat destruction for speedy, racy excitement, we should take the time to really be with our children, walk with them, empower them with the knowledge of wildlife.

Let them learn the earth.

Experts tell us this is the direction we need to go.

So let's get it together, folks.

Honor the men and women, farmers and conservationists who worked tirelessly to protect our soil and water over the past century.

We demand a full review by competent and impartial soil scientists.

I beg you, stop trail construction when it means undereducated disregard of this natural preserve along Jans Creek.

Thank you very much.

You, Christine.

All right, moving on to old business.

Sheila, will you please read Bill 26525?

Council Bill 26525 is an ordinance amending chapter 14 of the City Code to add a new section relating to the rights and duties of motorists and pedestrians in major road corridor roadways and major corridor intersections.

And fixing the time in this ordinance shall become effective.

Second reading.

Do we have a staff report?

Yes.

Shane Creech, Director of Public Works.

Um Lee White, the assistant director of public works, is with me tonight.

Also in the audience is um Brian Rensing, who is our consultant that helped with the with the study that was included with this item.

And once we give our presentation, the police chief will join me up here for any questions you might have that more apply to police than they do to public works.

So I will let uh leave um do the presentation here.

Thank you, Shane.

Given a brief overview of where this came from.

Uh on December of last year, uh data was presented to council, which provided a large amount regarding uh pedestrians and medians.

From that uh public works hired CBB to uh conduct a intersection and pedestrian safety study.

The results of that study was presented to count council at a pre-council on June 16th to share the results of that study.

Based on that study, an ordinance has been drafted for review and potential adoption.

Purpose of the ordinance is to enhance safety for motorists and pedestrians on major corridor roadways and intersections by reducing traffic hazards and distractions from Columbia's busiest streets.

Some of the key definitions you'll see in this ordinance is major corridor roadway, speed limits, which are greater than or equal to 35 miles an hour, and roadways that have 15,000 AADT or vehicles per day on it, and a major corridor intersection, that same type of uh street, but with a six-foot median or less at that intersection.

This also includes the intersections 100 feet in any direction.

You'll see distribution conduct, which is exchanging items between pedestrians and vehicle occupants there.

So prohibitions in the ordinance, crossing major corridor roadways outside of crosswalks or at pedestrian signals, lingering on medians less than six feet wide, and exiting vehicles or approaching vehicles on major corridor roadways.

And that's in there because we need people to act in an expected manner for the safety of themselves and the motorists, traveling public.

Exceptions include law enforcement or public employees acting in official duty, any emergency repair or activities going on when the cars break down or permitted special events.

And the key point here is this is not applicable to pedestrians on sidewalks.

So we're talking about within the roadway only.

Have some diagrams here.

These are the roads that have 35 mile an hour speed limits and above.

And here's roads that have ADT greater than 15,000 vehicles per day.

And the third part is roadway and median islands, six feet in width or less.

And here's where they're all combined, you can see there.

This is uh or I think Nancy has it written as a and or in which means any one of the three criteria, it would apply.

And with that, I'll take questions.

Questions from uh council to staff on this?

Jack, you want to go?

Yeah, we all have questions.

We all have questions.

Um of the things I noted in the data that was presented in the report was that most of the pedestrians who were involved in pedestrian crashes were under the age of 24.

And further, the top three locations for pedestrian crashes were um right around campus.

So we have College Avenue and University Avenue, College Avenue and Rollins Street, and Stadium Boulevard and Monk Drive slash Champions Drive.

Um so my question and is um do we, can we, will we have continuing and ongoing collaboration and discussions with the University of Missouri in an effort to improve um community safety in regards to pedestrian safety?

Uh yes, we do currently we meet with um Mazoo quarterly about a variety of topics, but traffic in pedestrian safety is one of those things.

So we do that frequently.

Um that's played out in several successes, the what you see down college um um avenue right now is one example of that.

Um but those discussions are always ongoing.

Do you know if they've provided any feedback on this report?

Or have has it come up in your meeting that you've had with them recently?

Nothing um nothing in writing or anything like that.

I think we've had discussions where they know that this was this was coming forward, but nothing nothing in detail.

Specific, okay.

Um and then same question regarding um CPS regarding the business loop and providence road intersection, which was number four in the number of pedestrian um crashes.

Has there been will there be collaboration with CPS regarding uh their student safety?

Yes, we don't meet with CPS quite as frequently as we do Mazoo and Modot, but um we have recently met with them about some mid-block crossing locations.

Um also we have um just gathered some data doing a road safety audit along business loop 70 where the Hickman High School principal um was was included in that and participated.

Um we've met with their PTSA, um, provided um the survey associated with that road safety audit with both parents and students through their communications.

So all that um points us towards looking at the business loop and what we what we do now and what we can do in the future um to improve safety in in that particular location.

We do something similar with other schools, but that's um that's a really recent example.

Right.

And number four on the list.

So thank you.

Um and then this is a question more for legal, I think.

Um under the the prohibitions uh regarding the occupant of a vehicle.

My question was can that or should that be moved to Article 4 operation, which discusses the responsibilities of the vehicle occupant?

Actually, it's better off in this location because this particular section deals with these major corridors that are defined specifically for this section.

And and the uh movement and and blocking of the roadway only applies to those major corridors and major intersections.

So it's more about the size of the road and not the the responsibilities of the uh vehicle occupant.

Well, it's both, but it's both, but yes, it's about it it's about you where it's located doesn't change whether or not it can be enforced or how it's enforced.

It's gonna be enforced the same way, but there are definitions in this particular section that apply to that activity that are specific to that activity in those locations, which is why it would be uh in this section.

Um then I also this is also a legal question, I believe.

Um a common concern that we hear from citizens in reaching out to us is uh there is concern for people who are on the medians, perhaps laying on the medians and they have an arm or a leg that is extending out into the road.

So my question is if that would be violation under Chapter 14, Article 10, Section 14-583, um, Section D, it shall be unlawful for any pedestrian to walk or move upon any roadway in any manner which obstructs the flow of other traffic.

So if they have a limb extending into that lane of traffic, even if their body proper is not in the roadway, is that would that still be considered obstructing the flow of traffic?

You know, it it would be depend on each uh case would be looked at in a different situation.

Generally speaking, a limb would not obstruct traffic in its entirety.

It would be a dangerous condition, obviously, but it would not necessarily obstruct traffic.

So that section would not be adequate to handle the vast majority of cases that you're describing.

I don't know if I agree with that.

And that's okay that we disagree on that.

But is is there illegal term?

I mean, I guess what I'm not understanding is maybe the definition of obstruction.

Like is it something that would cause a vehicle to swerve out of the way, or is it not permitting passing or continuance of the Trevor Burrus?

Well, it'd have to be something that would actually not allow a vehicle to pass, would be an obstruction or a vehicle could not pass.

A swerving could be an obstruction.

It would really depend upon the circumstances.

I don't know that I can give you a black or white answer without having a specific.

And so hypotheticals are not something that we can really answer at this juncture, but an obstruction is something that would would basically stop traffic.

I think as we continue to have this conversation, um, which I think we will continue to have this conversation, that is something that I would like for us to talk more about to further define, because I do I would say from the emails and the conversations that I'm having, that's one that I'm hearing a lot.

And so I think maybe it's important within our within our city code that we really define what that is if we move forward with any kind of um enforcement or intervention.

Vera, you had your hand up.

Um so I I also have a few questions.

Um and the first couple are both um related to some of the data in the study that this ordinance was inspired by.

Um in the council memo, it mentions 47 crash areas where speed, volume, or medians were hazards relating to the crash.

Um we know that this ordinance isn't actually looking at speed, volume of road capacity or median size.

So I'm wondering of those 47 crashes.

Do we know how many involved a pedestrian standing in the median?

Um I I'm not aware of that.

It's something we can take a look at those, but we would need to look at look at each one in greater detail.

That's not something I have tonight.

Um then the ordinance is based on the length of traffic signals.

Um you need to cross the roadway for two you have to cross the roadway within two intervals of a traffic signal.

Um otherwise you are in violation of the ordinance.

And so I'm wondering what is the average traffic signal along the affected roadways and which roadway has the shortest traffic signal, and do we know how long that is?

Again, I don't have that information.

It's something we can come up with.

Um obviously some of the roads that we're talking about tonight are MODOT roads, and so they are in control of that timing.

Um little bit easier for me to get you the information on the signals that uh we maintain, um, but we can work with MODOT to get that information as well.

So wonderful.

Um then a few a couple more questions.

Um of the major corridors that are listed as um uh being affected by this ordinance have very few crosswalks or pedestrian control signals of any kind.

Um so for example, on business loop, there aren't really many inner intersections to use either.

So what would be the safe way to cross this road without violating the ordinance if you do not have access to crosswalk pedestrian control signal or an intersection?

Sure.

Um I I'd start first with one of the reasons we're doing the road safety audit on business loop 70 and that we pursued and received uh reconnecting communities and neighborhoods grant to look at business loop 70 is to look at the pedestrian limitations associated with that roadway.

Um as far as the way it exists today, it would be to cross, you know, kind of the shortest distance between two points.

You'd want to you'd want to cross at the safest location perpendicular to the roadway.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um aside from this ordinance, because the the pedestrian traffic study um or pedestrian safety study, sorry, mentioned quite a few um ways where roads can be improved upon.

Um so I'm wondering what other strategies will be pulling from this or will be inspired by this to make our roadways uh and sidewalks safer for pedestrians in Columbia.

Sure.

We're we're always looking at different ways.

Um is mentioned in the study are things that we're aware of and we're doing in some fashion in different locations in town.

Um we've got a pretty um comprehensive list of potential traffic calming locations.

Um you can only do so many at a time, only have funding for that and staff to do that design.

But that's something that we're looking at, depending on which location we're talking about.

Um we also um have money in the capital improvement sales tax specifically dedicated to sidewalk projects.

Umly that is putting sidewalks where sidewalks don't exist today, but there are some locations where we've done a more comprehensive replacement of some while filling in gaps.

Um we've been very successful um obtaining some grant money to make that money to make our to be do more do more projects with the money that we have.

So all those options are on the table.

It's um this I just look at this as another like tool in the toolbox and as a way to improve um pedestrian safety.

And then my last question um is about enforcement, so probably for Chief Schlute.

Um but a piece of this ordinance says that it an exception can be determined for someone whose mobility is restricted to a degree which makes such person unable to safely cross.

And I'm wondering what it would look like for the police to determine someone's mobility status when that's often not easily perceptible to the eye, and how you would enforce an ordinance that has an exception based on mobility or ability.

Well, I think we have to take a common sense approach and use discretion, which is widely um it's a thing we use every day in law enforcement.

And so obviously there's provisions of the ordinance that dictate light cycles.

You're supposed to watch, I think it was two light cycles was in there.

So obviously the officers observing this, they could go up to them if they've observed them not crossing for two cycles, they're in a median in the middle of the road, for instance.

They could further watch and see is there an issue, go talk to them.

My my encouragement would be that they would contact them and say, hey, do you need assistance getting across the road?

What's the issue and have a conversation?

I don't think this is an automatic you get a ticket because you're sitting out in the middle of the road.

There's a concern factor there too.

So I don't I don't see that being a barrier to this.

We have to do a lot of that type of communication and all the work we do, honestly.

Thank you.

All right.

Valerie did you have your hand up?

Yeah, I did.

Um I heard some concerns from the public about um item four.

This is probably a question for legal.

Um person other than the occupant of a vehicle shall be upon a major corridor roadway except to lawfully cross such roadway.

Um I believe the concern is related to whether or not they would be allowed to be present on the roadway as a pedestrian where sidewalks are not available.

Um I'm wondering if that could be clarified.

You know, I'll have to take a look at that.

Um certainly it's one of those where if you don't have a sidewalk available and there's no other way to go, you're going to have to find a location for them and whether or not we need to take a look at making an amendment.

I have not looked at that specific issue in the ordinance tonight, but I will I will take a look at that.

My other question regarding enforcement, um, this could be legal or CPD.

Um from my reading, unless this appears in more than one place, which I'm sure that it does actually, um, I don't see two light cycles.

Um I see failure of a person to leave the median after two consecutive opportunities to cross the roadway.

Um and I'm wondering practically how you would determine what a consecutive opportunity to cross the roadway looks like and how that's enforced.

I mean, I think typically that would be the lights, the the light cycles that are being referenced.

Now, if there's no light there, then then that's going to require the officers to use again their discretion on whether or not there has been ample opportunity, safe opportunity for a pedestrian to cross the roadway if they're waiting to cross the roadway.

How many of these high high speed corridors with medians less than six feet and volume?

How many of them are not signal um regulated?

I couldn't put a number to that.

The vast majority of the ones that you think of have traffic signals or possibly a roundabout, you know, those kind of things.

That's more indicative of what you would see on a roadway that meets this criteria.

There could be a couple that are that way, but I can't put a number to that tonight.

And how what would occur to enforce this legislation from CPDs and what would that look like?

Can you give me a little bit more?

What do you mean what would occur?

Would you write a ticket?

How would you respond to a situation and what would transpire?

To be perfectly honest, if you look at our traffic stats of the number of traffic stops we do and the ratio of warnings to tickets, warnings vastly outweigh the number of citations we issue.

Sometimes to my dismay, frankly, on more serious violations that involve safety.

But again, officers have discretion in those matters.

So I can tell you before this became a legal gray area when I worked the street, it was voluntary compliance.

I can't, very few people did we have to say get out of the car and actually go, okay, now we're going to issue a ticket for something, whether that was trespassing or whatever it was at the time.

A lot of it's just the officer saying, hey, you can't be here.

We got to get you moved along, whatever the issue is.

I mean, by their nature, police officers don't want to do any more paperwork than they have to do, just being honest.

And I think the one in the back of the room would agree with me on that.

I've known her a long time.

So I don't think this is people are going to be looking for extra work.

Um I think it would just be voluntary compliance is always our first option that we would like to see happen.

And so that I think that would be the first first tier of this.

Do we need to have a law on the books for that interaction to occur where we say, hey, this isn't a safe place for you to be?

Personally, I think you're putting an officer in a very difficult position if they're having that interaction and the person says whatever they say to them, and then they're in kind of this standoff situation of, well, you're asking me to do something.

Why are you even having this contact with me?

So that's one of the reasons why I think it's it being ambiguous is is problematic for the officers out there trying to just do that work every day.

Yeah, I can see that.

I I'm also concerned that it's a bit too ambiguous to ask them to do this as part of this legislation.

Well, I think right now the number of calls that we receive, and I know this was a question, so I wish I could quantify it for you, but it's just very extremely difficult to pull that information out of CAD.

But the number of calls we receive just strictly out of people just being concerned about people is very high.

Um this is something they're gonna they're gonna have these interactions no matter what.

The question is just what's the outcome?

Could we um and perhaps is there any broader effort on an educational basis for um calls out of concern, calls for service?

Um could we have any um educational basis for those to go places other than CPD?

Um, especially as until now we didn't have a law for you to respond to that call.

A good portion of them are what I would consider check the welfare calls, and those get coded a number of different ways.

A fire chief has exp his staff experiences this too, so I think a lot of it would be fall under that, and I'm not sure who else that would potentially fall to.

Um would welfare checks be appropriate for a 988 call, or perhaps for for a change.

Um I'm not sure if for a changes location is specific to MDT.

Um I'm looking for what other services overlap with this.

From what I understand of the resources available through 988 as far as a physical person being able to go out there, those are very limited at this point.

So you're talking hours, maybe even days before that team is available to go do something of that level.

Okay, thanks.

Yeah, Nick.

Well, I'm tempted to follow up on the question about how many calls you get, but I I I'm of the impression that it's really difficult for you to quantify it really at all.

I think in the letter that you said, you said there is a steady stream of these calls.

But beyond that, it's really hard to say.

Yeah, and I can get tech a little technical about that.

So every time a call comes into joint communications, they're trying to geolocate that call to an exact address, even with coordinates that are in in the computer system.

And so when they don't have any place to put it specifically, you know, a lot of people will call and say they don't know the exact street address, especially if they're on a roadway.

They'll just say, hey, I'm I'm close to Vandever and Rangeline.

And so that's where those calls get plotted.

And so you would have to look at every call to that location and then determine which of these apply.

And then many of these intersections have multiple medians.

So it gets really, really difficult to pinpoint, unfortunately.

And then you have the added layer of depending on the dispatcher, they're coded differently.

So one dispatcher may code it a welfare check, somebody else may call it a check subject, somebody else may call it um unknown problem, and so that's another layer that makes this a little bit hard to pull out data-wise, unfortunately.

Okay, thank you.

And I think this other question is is probably for Nancy, the and I've had this question from others about exactly what's defined as a median.

I think that for a lot of us when I think about this, the primary concern is in those medians that are in between uh uh in the same direction, but in different lanes, in between lanes.

Uh well, in differ different directions, but in between lanes in those opposite directions.

But this ordinance covers more than that, is that right?

Would it, for instance, thinking of brought provenance in Broadway, would it cover those islands that are at the corners as well.

You mean the those that those that provide for the turning movements, yes.

Yes.

Now whether or not the the size and scope of those are whether they're six feet or not six feet, usually those are a little bit larger.

Um we tend to call them pork chops, right?

Yeah.

Um from my perspective, the purpose of those is because between those raised medians is where we want pedestrians crossing.

And so to have someone standing in there would be counterintuitive to what they're there for, and that's to predict the pedestrians that are that are trying to cross the intersection.

And so a median does include those areas that are between lanes of traffic uh to help guide that traffic movement.

So it is included.

Those those pork chops would be included in the in the definition of a median.

Okay.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah, Don?

I think it kind of piggybacks on what Nick was just asking, but about media, because I've had a couple of inquiries and questions.

If someone is choosing to walk on major corridor, uh and for whatever reason, I'm I want to say maybe an example might be forum near the section that's going to be widened.

It doesn't have a sidewalk.

You know, um I know maybe paragraph four that Valerie was asking about a moment ago.

Um this wouldn't cover somebody, a pedestrian that's choosing to walk.

This wouldn't be they wouldn't be covered under this or in violation of this.

Is that correct?

I know maybe a matter of interpretation.

No, I so I think I think that points out makes a good makes uh Valerie has made a good point, and and I heard what you said, and I think we're gonna have to draft something to make sure there isn't a violation for uh pedestrians when there is no sidewalk available or no usable sidewalk in uh that would meet the needs of someone who has some sort of mobility or mobility assisted device that they utilize as a part of that.

So we'll have to we'll have to see how we can um modify that to take care of that.

All right, thank you.

And so what the ordinance does say is then no person shall cross a major corridor roadway at any place except a crosswalk.

So in the locations that you're speaking to, from the perspective from the perspective of public works, I'm not intending to keep someone if we had a sidewalks closed.

It's blocked for some unknown reason, you know, not having to do with construction.

It's not my intention to stop someone from doing that.

It's more how you cross how you know how long you're there.

Some of the other things we talked about.

Yeah.

Like I said to Valerie's point, paragraph four, no person other than the occupant shall be up on a major corridor except to lawfully cross.

Well, if they're walking, they're not necessarily crossing.

That's fair.

I think we can develop an uh an exception for that.

Okay.

And and I'll just ask um my question is just more towards Shane.

Um when the study was conducted and completed, um, part of the recommendations for these 47 sites.

Um speak, you know, could to Jackie's point, you know, the number one places we have are near the campus, right?

That we have or in some schools.

Um but um am I correct that those are lower speed areas?

And so the rec this was more for the higher speed areas because of the fatality risk, is that or in this?

Walk me through this.

Sure.

There's there's a variety of reasons.

Um but um you know the the main reasons are the higher the speed, the the more dangerous that accident is.

Um and the more cars it's you know, the the more chance there is of that.

And so those are the two main reasons.

Um you got a you get a high concentration of people around campus.

So that that contributes around campus to that.

Um but you're right in that most of the roadways around campus are lower except at the periphery.

So and then Valerie Just to clarify, because I I know we've talked a lot about the speed piece and the volume of traffic piece, but my reading and looking at the map, if there is a median that is less than six feet, this ordinant uh ordinance applies regardless of speed limit and regardless of volume.

Is that correct?

Correct.

So just if there is a median, this ordinance applies.

Correct.

Yeah, Valerie, is that the same or no?

That's not the same.

But um I was interpreting that incorrectly as it turns out.

Um the true false um it's clear, but it allows me to make a lot of conclusions.

Um I was going to ask, um of the things that I note about the area next to campus is that um campus as well as the city, I believe, has undertaken um significant engineering um cautions to prevent students from standing on the median.

Um and I'm talking about college and the enormous fence that um is along the median so that you can't stand on the median to cross that street.

Um I'm wondering if we have considered or intend to use those kinds of controls in other places as opposed to using an engineering control as opposed to legislation.

I would say that that's that's a tool in the toolbox.

Um what we're talking about along college was a very significant investment.

Um not all of the roadways that we're talking about tonight are um under city maintenance as we've talked about, and the time frame to address some of those would take quite a while.

And so I think you have to factor that in um to that decision making.

Isn't college also MODOT controlled?

Yep.

It is.

Um and that brings me to my next question, which I know you've already answered, but I'm gonna repeat it because people will ask, and there's people here ready to listen.

Um and how do we engage with MODOT to request street maintenance and or redesign of high-speed corridors?

Sure.

Um we my traffic staff meets with basically their traffic staff monthly, and we talk about a variety of things.

Um different than from the city perspective.

Someone can come up to me tonight with um with a road project idea, and all project ideas are good ideas, but you know, I'm looking at a window of about 10 years if it's a major roadway before the city's gonna, you know, we've kind of told we told folks with the capital improvement sales tax what we're gonna do with that.

And so those are the projects that we are pursuing.

So it's gonna be quite some time.

Modot's in that same situation on a larger scale.

And so the timing of those is going to vary.

We can have some of those discussions.

If we can find grant money, we can move some stuff up.

If um it coincides with something else that they want to do, you'll see that stuff move up.

It it just kind of varies um with our um with our vision zero.

We've been very lucky with some grant funding there to pursue some planning projects that I think will drive some of those kind of things moving forward.

Um so there's lots of different ways to go about it.

But I do want to acknowledge that the um planning grant um for business loop 70 um has a lot of uh potential to improve some of the conditions along that road for pedestrians and the medians and the traffic interactions with pedestrians.

Um do we bring forward some of these specific um intersection concerns um for redesign?

How do we bring that forward for consideration in the next 10-year cycle?

I mean, I think those would be things we talked to to MODOT about.

Um you'll see at times um they have an unfunded needs list.

Um they'll solicit comments about that publicly.

Um that's an opportunity where usually we're having conversations about um development we either are uh development that's occurring or development we see occurring that's adjacent to their roadways or nearby to their roadways, and so that factors in.

Um some of our comments go into that unfunded needs list, but then it has to be programmed and it has to be funded.

And so I can tell you that if the city was interested in taking on some of those roads that they currently maintain, well then suddenly we'd be able to move some of that stuff forward if we had the money to do so.

Um I'm not in any position from my perspective to run around and take over a bunch of MODOT roads while I've got close to 1,500 lane miles a road to take care of myself.

So any other questions for staff before we move on?

Yeah, actually.

Um does the public have any visibility or even counsel for that matter on um the types of things that staff is bringing to MODOT so we know what's discussed.

Almost anything we're bringing forward is coming from either citizens or council in one way, shape, or form.

Um I would tell you that MODOT does have a public engagement process.

It's a little bit different than what you see at the city, and I'll acknowledge that, but they do solicit that public comment.

And so when it comes to their roadways, I would encourage you to reach out to MODOT, no different than folks reach out to either public works or to you all for you know for those kind of comments.

Thanks.

Any other questions for I'll make note before I open up for public comment.

Um at our last city council meeting, uh Jackie had requested um to um send this this ordinance proposed ordinance to four of our boards and commissions.

So I say this to say as a result, the vote on this ordinance uh will potentially be tabled until the February 2nd meeting to allow time for them to discuss during their regular meeting and for staff to add that feedback as supplemental information to the posted agenda.

Um I also want to say I know we have a lot of interest in talking about this topic.

That's why all of you are here, or a lot of you are here, so maybe here for other things.

Um I would encourage you to speak your um at the meeting where it will be voted on.

Um or if you speak tonight, just try not to repeat because we will have your comments on record.

Um we're also going to be opening up a be heard site to put it on as well for those who are not able to be here, or those who also want to give additional information if you don't run out of time, if you don't have time tonight.

Um we'll also put all the additional supplemental information that we've received here that staff has responded to us on that um site as well.

So I just say that to say, like in case you know you find yourself that you're like the thousandth person in line, like there's a good chance that you're gonna be have uh other opportunities to also speak on this.

All right.

So would anyone from the public like to speak?

Good evening.

My name is Denny Perez.

I will not be doxing myself.

So the number one threat to any pedestrian is of course the vehicle, the large vehicle.

I'm sick and tired of pedestrians being treated like we're some sort of minority.

The truth is we are all pedestrians at one point of the day.

But not everybody's a driver, but every driver is behind the wheel of a lethal weapon, and there are numbers to show that at least over 7,300 people that are pedestrians died from a car.

No death from any pedestrian is a mere accident.

It's a failure in policy.

And a policy that is empty or build on bad faith is just as deadly as no policy at all.

It is obvious to me that many of you do not walk these streets every single day because the way you talk about building sidewalks and infrastructures is like pulling teeth while we are dying.

This ordinance does nothing to control the car and its behavior and the driver's behavior.

It doesn't do anything to aid in its visibility.

It only polices us as pedestrians.

And you can only place us so much before you have to start policing the cars.

We need to build better infrastructures.

I know it may inconvenience some landowners and may inconvenience some drivers.

Medians and crosswalks aren't conveniences, they are protection.

Build fences around them, fine, I guess, but we're going to climb over them because it gives us protection.

No matter if we are homeless or like me, have a job.

We have a place to go, and we deserve dignity and safety.

Drivers do too.

In fact, drivers in the state of Missouri are one of the highest pedestrians to die because whenever they're broken down or on the side of the road, they get hit by hit and runs mainly at night.

The problem isn't necessarily the crosswalks.

It is everything, our infrastructure in cars entirely.

So do better.

Stop being derailed by people talking badly about panhandlers.

The problem is our lack of infrastructure.

We have an opportunity in Columbia to be a leading example where drivers and pedestrians can coexist.

Because the Midwest is dying.

We can be better.

You guys can be a leader in the Midwest, and we can save lives.

Let's do better and save lives.

Build the infrastructure, not ordinance to police people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Mark I am.

I live at 1402 Richardson Street in the third ward.

I lived in Columbia for 54 years now.

I serve as the director of Midmissouri Peace Works.

And if my comments go over three minutes, hopefully they'll fit within the five, but I'll be keeping it short.

I've heard a number of very important statements made here tonight around safety.

I think that's important, and that's a reason for discussing all this.

There's something else that uh really needs to be put into the mix.

Many of you, if you've seen me, you've seen me holding something like this.

Oh and where I often do that is on a street corner, often one which has a uh I guess a pork chop is what it's being called.

It's not quite kosher, but it's a pork chop.

And uh I guess where I'm getting at is I see a slippery slope here, folks.

Right now, this ordinance might not impede much in the way of public discourse and intersections, but it's a step in that direction that's scary, particularly at this time in our history, because this time in our history, our civil liberties are under fire.

I think we need to recognize that and respond to it by creating as much openness to discussions, debate, public displays of uh concern, whether that's standing in front of the keyhole here at the uh intersection of Aeth and Broadway, or if it's a faster intersection.

Over the years, Peaceworks has demonstrated at Broadway and Providence, at Broadway and College, at Providence and uh Stadium, it's stadium in West Broadway.

Those are the ones I'm thinking of right off the top.

And some of those have nice wide medians, but many of them it's questionable in those workshops, they have a narrow part, and I often see people standing in those narrow spots.

So please consider that we don't want to impinge upon people's ability to express themselves.

And you know, if you can avoid this whole thing in general, that's great.

If you can't, let's keep it open as big as possible to people being able to express themselves.

It's really important.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark.

Good evening.

My name is Erica, and I'm in the second ward.

Um mine is mainly a lot of questions after hearing.

Um I'm sorry, and I can't remember your name.

Um of the things that I thought about was the First Amendment at risk for those that do stand at like mainly at like Providence and Broadway with their signs.

Um I seen that as a risk.

I did want to know about how many surveys did you get from parents and students in regards to the Hickman area.

Then I wanted to know will there be an enforcement of the ordinance closest to the campus since that's where it seems like a lot of these accidents were happening.

Then I wanted to know.

I'm not looking for anyone to be hit, but to hear when the chief of police was talking about common sense in some of this, would that be used?

I guess my concern was and she was talking about disabled, and to see people try to get through two lights to try to get across the street.

And I'm just thinking, so what about if there's a cop that is having a moment and someone has to go through three lights?

Um would they be possibly deciding to stop them?

What if they're not even homeless, are unhoused, or disabled?

Um I see the concern in the Hickman uh area where a lot of uh black students they are going to McDonald's and Taco Bell and all of that.

So that would be a concern for me.

And then the um I wanted to know in regards.

Uh you've put several items into the toolbox.

Um do we have access to this toolbox?

Um to see what's actually in it, or will you be bringing it to the council in the future?

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Matt Shacht.

I live at 211 North Ann Street, apartment 101.

Um I've been in Columbia since about 2009, and I have been without a car since about 2010.

So uh very familiar as a pedestrian and a cyclist in town.

I can tell you the streets aren't safe.

I mean, there's a certain amount of danger when you go on these major roads.

Uh I've been hit by students twice on my bicycle over the years.

Um there's a photo of my father's truck.

Not from Columbia, but it rolled over and he almost died.

So public safety is real.

Um traffic safety is real.

I um sympathize with the public sentiment to make streets more safe.

I think that's a good sentiment.

I'm a little questions about the timing of our public sentiment to make things safe.

I've been in Columbia a long time.

I've seen a lot of unsafe things happen on our streets, especially 2 a.m.

when the bars get out downtown or on football games when cars line Providence Road.

And people seem to just kind of live and let live, but recently this issue of safety on the media seems to have caught fire.

I was uh 1700 miles away when I heard about this.

I was at a funeral and I read the K OMU article, and I was like, I gotta speak at this.

So here I am.

I think for most of us, these are the headlines we see.

Um it kind of generates a sense of fear without data.

I love that you guys are asking questions about data.

I would love to know if there's any data about homeless people with medians and their effect, because that's the population that's going to be affected by this.

Um I'm concerned about how this law is overly broad, how it's going to wrap up First Amendment speech, whether it's panhandling or whether it's protests on these medians when there's no actual proof that they're causing danger.

I think that's not the right move right now.

I do think that there is a way to say if somebody's foot is in the road, you have a law that says they can't put their foot in the road.

I mean, that's really cut and dry.

If somebody is on a median and they're not in the road, maybe that's okay.

Okay?

So I'd like to see that differentiation made so you don't have people who aren't being dangerous somehow being told they're dangerous and having unfortunate encounters with law enforcement.

Um I want to get to this graph because I look at ordinances and I ask myself, how do you enforce this ordinance?

Well, if it's like any other traffic ordinance, eventually you get a citation if you ignore it.

A citation often comes with a fine.

If you don't pay the fine, uh you end up getting a notice at your home to appear in court.

If you don't appear in court, then the judge will issue a bench warrant.

Uh if that bench ward goes out and you are found by law enforcement, you get arrested.

So I ask you if you are finding homeless people, uh, are they going to pay those fines?

If you tell them to attend court, are they going to attend court?

And then do you want to be arresting them and housing them in jails, which is much more expensive than putting them in a facility.

Is this in your long-term financial interest to be enforcing this uh ordinance?

I'm not sure it is.

So those are my concerns.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

It might be one tab over.

There you go.

Oh, no, maybe not.

You can just shrink it.

And it will magically go away.

Ready.

Hey, my name is Joseph Anderson.

I'm disabled resident Ford 1, and I'm asking you to vote no on Bill B26525 because it violates several laws and precedents.

And the nine the safety study disproves this ordinance because it does not does not once listed as a safety problem.

And yeah, is not is pretext.

The six-foot median rule is inherently discriminatory.

It's based off 88 design guideline meant for construction standards, not criminal enforcement.

It's sort of widen disordinates, narrows media's dangerous as dangerous, fans disabled people using them and criminalizes resting while crossing this.

That punishes disabled residents for infrastructure decisions the city itself made.

The two opportunities to cross-rule is unrealistic and constant and unconstitutional because it turns it into suspicion of wrongdoing.

And the transit system makes this even more so because they run about 90 minutes and sometimes longer and for a few hours and not every day.

But the most important thing is the cuts happened more than two years ago and the city has not restored it.

It's a long-term mobility failure.

So yeah.

And cannot now criminalize the very pedestrians who are walking because you left disabled people no other choice.

And if the if they genuinely want safety, don't criminalize pedestrians.

Bring extend service later into the evenings, make better headways, restore, make Sunday and holiday routes and expand it and transit step.

And Springfield courts have struck in down in Stringfield a similar law and several laws within the St.

Louis area and Rogers v.

Bryant in the Eighth Circuit and Olmsted in the Supreme Court and Reed versus Gilbert and even the own chapter 12, human relations ordinance, prohibits this and the Mo human rights law.

If you pass the law, Columbia will violate all those.

And this every city that please vote no and choose real safety, not criminalization.

Thank you.

As I express my freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

I find it very concerning that we as a city want to make this city safer.

Claim that we want to make this city safer, better, a greater city.

And we decide to do it by criminalizing the residents of this city instead of finding ways to make things better for all of us, safer for all of us.

I find it shameful that there's even the possibility that this would be voted on tonight when there are so many questions, not just from the community, but from the council itself.

And the people, those questions are being asked of do not have the answers.

I want the streets to be safer too.

I want the intersections to be safer too.

I spend a lot of my time on intersections with signs.

I want to be safe while I'm doing it.

If we have danger in our streets, and we do, I see it.

I've lived here for a couple of years now.

And I can tell you that there's a cycle to it, too.

Our streets get a lot more dangerous when schools in.

And criminalizing those standing on street corners is not going to change that.

Where are we right now with enforcing the laws we have?

Our speed limit laws.

The laws that make it dangerous to stand there on that street corner.

And how making it criminal is going to change anything when the police say they're already flooded with calls.

So what?

This is going to make it any better?

Now they have a response.

Instead of going to provide help, they get to go with their ticket book or their handcuffs.

We should be making our city safer for all of us.

Not bowing down to business interests or community interests that don't want to look at what they don't want to see because it doesn't fit their narrative.

I hope we all consider as we think about the future what kind of city we really want to live in, what kind of community we want to be a part of.

I hope that's not it.

Thank you, Red.

Thank you.

I'm going to make a quick pause.

Sorry, hard.

I I really do request.

Um we have people speaking to all kinds of things this evening.

And I want to make sure that everyone feels comfortable.

So please do not do the applause, the clapping, the snapping, just because I want to make sure that everyone's voice is heard, and this is a place that we continue to have people coming up and speaking.

So thank you.

Drew.

Hi, my name is Drew Amday.

I'm a resident of the fourth ward.

Um, I am here also asking you to vote no on this ordinance.

Um a lot of what I wanted to say uh has been acting, well, has been said by other speakers, so I'm gonna echo some of that.

But yeah, uh as long as I've lived here in Columbia, I have seen people fundraise our medians.

I don't think that there is really a good distinction between a student or a firefighter or what community group is out there raising money and somebody on a median trying to make enough to live.

I don't think that's the distinction that we should be policing.

Um I've also been at many protests on those pork chops.

Um, you know, not letting people access the pork chop uh is a real First Amendment uh issue.

Right?

That is a popular place to protest here in Columbia.

This ordinance would not allow that anymore.

I think that's a real problem.

Now there's a section of the ordinance that would allow like exemptions or whatever, right?

But if the city should not be in the business of you know deciding who gets an exemption and who doesn't, uh public infrastructure should be um accessible to the public.

Those are my medians.

I should be able to stand on the median.

You know, that is my infrastructure.

I would like access to it.

Um so to me, that is uh a big reason why I'm asking you to vote no on this.

I also think that the uh the question asked, you know, answer period that council had I thought was shameful, the lack of answers to some of those questions.

A lot of those questions should have had answers before this ordinance came to a vote.

And so for the fact that there were not um, in my opinion, acceptable answers to many of the questions asked by council, and that's also reason to vote no on this ordinance.

Um please vote no.

This will not lead to a safe and more equitable Columbia.

And I want a safe and equitable Columbia.

Um, but this won't do that.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Luke Jensen.

I am a member of the Fourth Ward, and I have lived here in Columbia for 11 years.

I had something written down, but in the interest of you guys' time, I decided to just kind of keep it short and wing it.

Um first of all, I don't think that criminalizing panhandling at these intersections and pork chops is going to make or suddenly fix this idea that uh panhandlers are you know causing such a safety concern.

We're still going to see them.

They're still going to be there.

We cannot deprive them of some of their only means of getting money.

Okay.

Like this will not solve anything for safety, pretty much.

And I also want to talk about um the First Amendment crackdown that this poses.

I myself have been to numerous protests at these mediums and pork shops, and you know, criminalizing us being out there is going to reflect badly on the city and the community.

If we want to truly see more safety at our uh intersections and streets, we need to make sure that people's basic needs are met, first of all, and then we will see less panhandlers.

Whether that means that coming together as a community or city to do that, or we need to um, you know, like more lobby more at the state level, I do not know at this time.

But there are going to be many, many unintended consequences that the city will face if we pass this ordinance.

So I plead with you all to vote no.

Thank you, Luke.

Um hello, my name is Samantha.

I'm a Columbia Ward 1 resident, and I am encouraging you to vote no on this ordinance.

Um specifically, I have many questions that were one were partially addressed in the question and answer period about the language of degree of mobility restriction in the exception clause.

Um I find that this is uh very vague, and also uh I think it should not be up to police discretion on who is disabled enough to be standing at a median or sitting at a medium.

I myself have been almost hit by many cars at many medians in this city.

Um I know that I don't believe that stopping pedestrians from standing at medians will stop cars from hitting pedestrians.

I think obviously it's brought up many times before that these issues with cars and not with pedestrians itself.

Uh pedestrians themselves at medians.

Um I also want to discuss um the the First Amendment violations that has been brought up here.

Um I don't see how as a city we are deciding that we don't want to see freedom of speech on our streets.

I I don't understand how in a city that it prides itself on its diversity and a diversity of thought and opinion that we would we would like to restrict people's access to displaying their opinions out loud uh or on our city corners.

Um I believe this ordinance should be taken back to disabilities commission, especially for those exception language.

Um but I think that it should be ultimately struck down internal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Verity.

I am a resident of Ward 1.

I don't have a car and I don't plan on owning one.

One of the reasons that I live in Columbia chiefly is because it is a walkable city.

When I walk, I get tired.

Sometimes I have to wait at a median.

The ability to play, to take in the sights, admire the beauty of where I live, talk to people, expand my community.

That happens on the streets in the medians sometimes.

That's why I made the decision to walk most places instead of drive.

At one point, we were voted one of the 50 best places to live in the United States.

I've seen most of it, and I have to say that I agree.

The parks are gorgeous here.

The beauty of our streets is tied up in words and poetry and music and panhandled diser dissertations.

We're unique in America, because here the First Amendment means taking to the street to talk about what is important to us.

That happens at the median.

Community happens when I give a water bottle to someone that is having a hot day while they're standing at the median.

Do we maintain that when we're inching each day closer towards over policing, that we are continuing to be happy?

If I'm taking my time to write something down between more than two lights, well, I have to worry about being ticketed.

It takes quite a while to write poetry.

I can't help it if I prefer to hang out while the traffic goes by.

Sometimes it's the best way to take in this city.

We sprawl as a city.

We have wonderful parks, parks that the city has spent true time and effort in maintaining so that we can meander and take our time.

If we move them from panhandling at the pork shop, they'll head to the parks.

What are we in a hurry for?

The school to prison pipeline.

Enforcing this ordinance moves us closer to that.

So let's support not putting this into place.

Let's make sure that we strike this down.

Thanks for your time.

Uh and some of you are probably sleepy.

My name is Carissa Richardson, and I work at the public defender's office here in Boone County.

And when I say that majority of my clients are struggling with homeless homelessness or being unhoused, that is an understatement.

And enacting this piece of legislation is in itself a trap.

This is going to cause a vicious cycle for people that are struggling to make ends meet, struggling to find housing, struggling to find shelter, food, education, everything.

My clients are the ones and several others that are going to be affected by this piece of legislation, and it is not something that is centered on safety.

This is a guise that was drafted under a safety cloud.

In reality, it tells you in the piece of legislation itself that it is directed its attention towards the exchange between drivers and pedestrians at intersections and medians.

That specific wording right there tells you everything that you need to know about the true goals of this piece of legislation.

If someone is being handed money, food, a pamphlet, information, shelter, any of it, that is being criminalized at this point.

And what happens next?

My clients are cited, or they go to jail.

They're likely going to go to jail because my clients can't afford to pay citations.

And what happens once they get to jail?

Any progress that they would have made while they were out is gone.

Any potential employment that they would have had, gone.

Any type of bed date for any kind of mental health or substance abuse treatment they would have is gone.

And what that does to our community and our system is it causes a complete overhaul.

We are now housing clients from Boone County jail in over 10 other counties across the state.

I have clients for misdemeanor charges similar to those that will be criminalized with this piece of legislation, being housed two hours away from home.

And what is that accomplishing?

Safety?

Has there been an increase in safety since my clients are being housed in other facilities since they've been arrested and detained?

No.

It's the same problem.

Because as the council members have pointed out, that is not going to fix the problem.

The problem here are the drivers and how the roads are constructed, not the people that are standing there.

So I ask each of you to take that into consideration when you think about this legislation as it's drafted and its true purpose, and I ask that you vote against it.

Thank you.

My name is Nathan Ferguson, uh, board one.

Um just kind of cut to the chase for um a part in the pedestrian safety study draft that um I guess I can't get over.

Uh is just um on page 11, it talks about roadways and traffic control devices, informed drivers where interactions with pedestrians are likely to occur.

If drivers interact with pedestrians outside of such designated areas, such as pedestrians in the medians, waving signs, dancing, uh entering the the roadway, uh, it often leads to drivers being surprised or distracted, which can result in driver error and my uh confusion.

I guess I I don't understand what is distracting or surprising about seeing people in the medians um doing any of those things because they do it all the time.

Um so uh yeah, I don't see the problem.

It sounds ordinary, like just mundane everyday life.

I don't understand what the uh where's the distraction or surprise?

Hello, my name is Shane Lowe.

I'm from 1133, Ashland Road.

Um Ward 6, I believe.

Uh and I just wanted to make comment on this ordinance that this is something that I'd encourage you to consider a no vote for.

Um, I think one of the things that this presupposes is what are these streets, what are these roads supposed to be for?

Um is this supposed to be a spot just for the conveyance of vehicles, or is it supposed to be part of our community, part of our public space?

And I will remind everyone that that applies from the wealthiest on down to the poorest from anyone in our society.

We all have First Amendment rights.

Is it worth curtailing those for easier conveyance of vehicles?

Is that what we need to be doing?

And I really question that because I feel like the promise of America is not that you'll necessarily be able to drive your car everywhere without with minimum distractions and so forth.

Otherwise, we wouldn't have billboards, we wouldn't have the advertisements we see along the side of the road, and we're not going to do anything to prohibit those.

Or is it that this is a place where we are able to be free, we're able to convey what is on our hearts, what is on our minds to seek better, more view uh a better life.

And I think as I look at this map, one of my concerns is that all these highlighted roads are places where the promise of America will be incomplete if we're prohibiting individuals' First Amendment rights here.

And I understand the desire for pedestrian safety.

Um I understand the desire for that.

But I would encourage you that can we make roads and streets that are places more and more of community, a place where we can stop and have a conversation about how we can love and support our neighbors uh rather than being shuffled along at the next change of a light.

Um this is just one of this is my concern.

Can we make roads and streets that are that foreground our humanity rather than just our needs to get places?

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Susan Mays.

I live in the first ward.

Um I've lived in Columbia for 40 years now.

Most of you know who I am.

Um you know generally how I feel about these things.

Um we have already established just in the questions that have already been come up is that this ordinance is neither about pedestrians nor about safety.

It is about controlling the panhandling population and stopping the unsheltered from I don't know, being this has been going on for a very long time.

Politics of Columbia has gotten a lot nastier in the last several years since the increase of unsheltered people.

What I would like to remind everybody here, and this may be a little bit tacky, but in the recent elections, most of you were outspent three to one.

Most of you, and the main topic was crime and safety.

You beat them.

You beat them by 20 points.

Over and over and over again.

We have your back.

You are our leaders.

Please act like it.

Thank you.

I've lived in Ward 3 collectively for about 10 years now, and uh the main thing that I've always had to interact with is the 7063 interchange.

I think that um that is one of the areas that's being talked about here.

I realize it's a MODOT uh funded one.

But I do want to say um the ordinance here does not make that intersection any safer.

Uh the problem is not pedestrian and driver interaction there.

The problem is a lack of lighting, a lack of uh crosswalks to get across the street.

Um, and that's what's causing a lot of danger.

Uh, when I see someone who's having to walk from my neighborhood over by the Mosers there, all the way to Clark Lane, uh, I can see no feasible way one can get across there safely.

And again, that is what I think we need to be focusing on rather than this pedestrian driver interaction, which in my mind and in my experience having to cross that every single day uh while I've been living in Columbia, uh that is what we should really be focusing on rather than uh this pedestrian uh driver interaction, which as I said does not seem to affect safety.

What affects safety is lighting and pedestrian infrastructure.

Thank you so much.

Hey folks, you guys might recognize me.

My name is Grace Conrad, and I spoke, I believe, last month um about this same issue, and I feel the same way now that I did then.

I think that this ordinance is unfortunately a waste of resources, of time and energy, and I would sincerely like everybody else consider you or ask you to consider a no vote.

Um everybody's kind of gotten into the logistics of it all already, so I won't be y'all over the head with it again, but I think the thing that gets me about this ordinance is how much question there is about it.

But I think the thing that gets me about this ordinance is how much question there is about it.

I mean, you have people asking you guys questions that you don't know the answer to.

I'm gonna have to agree.

You guys gotta know this stuff before you draw it up for an ordinance, unfortunately.

Like it really is, it is that serious.

Because if you're going to be doing things like another person pointed out, tickets can cost people a lot more than just a bad day.

And if you're gonna be doing something that can result in that for some people, it's really important to have that really clearly drawn out.

I think we have successfully demonstrated how many logistical issues there are with this um with this ordinance.

And I think that that is really what should give you pause.

That is at its core what should make you think, hmm.

Maybe there is a better way for my community.

Maybe there's a better path forward with the issues that we see.

And there are a lot of better paths forward.

There's, you know, we've been talking about infrastructure.

We've been talking about, you know, drivers and how all of all driving is drivers.

It's not pedestrians, it's drivers.

So, yeah.

I think everybody else has really made the points that I needed to make, so I'm gonna leave you guys here, but thank you all for listening, and I sincerely encourage you to consider that no vote.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Samantha, and I live in ward one.

I live near business loop, and I live near Hickman.

And the issue that I see with the traffic is not the median, it's not the crosswalks, it's the drivers and the lack of crosswalks and sidewalks and median space for people.

This is not a walkable city.

This is not a accessible city if we don't have the infrastructure necessary.

I live in the poorest ward.

I have been living in the poorest ward for the last 10 years.

I am aware that these things are necessary.

And my unhoused neighbors are my neighbors just as much as the people in the houses next to mine.

And criminalizing them for their existence for trying to find a way to exist in this world that is already hard enough makes their lives worse and our community worse.

Putting them into prisons and criminalizing them makes it harder on me as a taxpayer, because I have to pay for them to be in those prisons instead of expanding those medians, instead of creating those crosswalks, instead of paying for sidewalks, which we desperately need.

And as a driver, I am incredibly offended that the idea of a person in a median is going to distract me more than another driver, who is probably worse.

The violence in our city has not been caused by our unhoused population, which has been stated.

The violence in our city has been caused by students coming into our population and causing drama and causing problems and violence among each other more than they are causing by residents or our unhoused people.

So I encourage you to please vote no on this ordinance, as it doesn't do anything to help us.

Thank you.

I've spoken on this subject many a time.

Because if you as councilman are using empathy, what is the right thing you really should be doing?

Should you probably use the $96,000 printed on the French page of the Missourian as the issue you're about to spend on this effort.

Wait a minute.

Mr.

Okins got something to say, and I know it's very highly safety-related.

And I'm busy trying to think how can we solve this matter for there have been the ones that have been hit right along the road, 63 South, one of our ladies had been the longest with the group when she was killed.

I now battle homeless as well as the public running out in darkness.

It is an issue, but it's not gonna get solved the way it's being approached.

If we all were issued arm bands of the glowing grayish reflective medium when the headlights hit you, the homeless need to be 100% given this.

We the residents need to be able to go to City Hall and pick up us one a pair if we need them.

How better could you spend 96,000 to make Columbia safer?

It takes years of what you're trying to do, and in this matter, it's not gonna get done because we don't have the law enforcement.

We don't have the jails.

The earlier speakers have spoke on this very subject.

I was so impressed with the gentleman that got up and said, I'm a disabled individual, and I never heard so much details come out of his mouth.

I am very impressed.

I like it when other disabled come forward as well as myself.

I don't need to be the only speaker.

But by gosh, what's right?

My idea is a very good idea, and it takes care of all citizens here.

One thing I'd like for you to check on is we may be closing a city park at the corner of Rangeline and Wilkes.

If this is a true matter, please check into it.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is uh Aaron George.

I was uh born and raised here.

I asked for you guys to please vote, please vote yes on this.

Um it's much easier to make some signs and enforce some laws than it is to bury a body or to deal with all that.

Like we have people, you know, lives that are missing, family members.

They're no longer going to be with us because of something that we could easily avoid.

Um this used to be a very beautiful town.

Uh we never had these type of problems before, but recently these are becoming problems that we do need to address.

Um it's not about just uh the people, that's not about the people that are walking and that are trying to go from work or moving around.

It's about the people that are loitering and standing still.

You know, those are the issues, those are the ones that are causing the issues and getting hurt and getting hit, you know.

Um just real unsafe.

Um recently I was driving down state or uh driving down Providence, and somebody was standing there, it was raining out, it was nighttime, and I almost hit somebody.

You know, that could have been somebody I took out myself.

There's numerous instances of this.

Uh people laying out on business loop, laying down with their feet over the pavilions on the you know on the street.

I could easily hit them.

You know, that's not something I want to do.

Um, the dogs and the numerous of people loitering in one area, like we said, we have the six-foot areas, but when we got four or five people and a dog running back and forth, almost hit a dog the other day, too.

You know, these are all things that if this is something that we don't have to that is enforced for them to move on to their destination.

We don't have to worry about.

Um just a lot like a lot of these questions earlier like common sense stuff.

Like if somebody's standing there and they're they're they're disabled.

Obviously, the police officers are not going to uh harass them.

You know, it's pretty common sense if you have a walker, if you're having a problem, or if you're just sitting around chilling, you know, just hanging out, I'm looking for a handout.

That's another thing.

Panhandling is just enabling them.

You know, it's not helping the the situation.

This thing that you guys are building, that helps.

Continuing just to give them money to $15 a day so that they can go get their alcohol.

That's not helping the issue.

You know, allowing them to panhandle.

Um please the judgment is good.

We trust them.

Um, so they're going to handle that accordingly.

And then uh you can laugh if you want.

And then other places, there's other places to protest.

It's not saying you can't protest.

This isn't taking away your first amendment.

This is saying take somewhere, choose somewhere smart to protest.

Not somewhere on a street where people are driving by 40, 50 miles an hour, standing assigned.

Why don't you protest somewhere where it's safer?

So those are the things I have.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening.

Uh Mike Burden.

I live in the fourth ward, but I'll be speaking on behalf of local motion.

Um, so but I'll just go ahead and stick with three minutes, that's fine.

Local motion supports efforts to make Columbia streets safer for everyone.

We believe mobility is a human right.

And envision a community built for people where it's easy to walk, bike, roll, ride transit, and everyone can get where they need to go.

The City Street Intersection Pedestrian study cited earlier and done by CBB identified 47 locations where speed and roadway design create risks for people walking.

The study did not find evidence that pedestrians standing on medians are a cause of crashes or deaths.

The proposed ordinance would restrict behavior without providing additional safety precautions.

Columbia already regulates unsafe crossings through its existing ordinances.

Effective safety improvements come from redesigning high-speed corridors, lowering speeds, and making intersections more accessible for all users through improved design.

The proposed ordinance does not include any specific safety improvements for pedestrians and could be used to punish people for not walking correctly.

We successfully advocated for the adoption of a complete streets policy to make our community more friendly and accessible to pedestrians.

The city's in the process of updating this policy, and we're eager to see how those updates will improve safety for all road users.

Missouri Department of Transportation just released their latest vulnerable road user safety assessment within Modot's Central District.

Within Modot's central district, the state identified two roads in immediate need of safety improvements in Columbia, College Avenue and Clark Lane.

We encourage the city to collaborate with the state to improve our community using data-driven solutions.

We'd love to continue a conversation about pedestrian safety in those areas and across the city.

But this ordinance is not a pathway to improving pedestrian safety.

We encourage the city to build on positive steps like the pedestrian level of comfort map, complete streets policy, to guide design changes and make infrastructure improvements that make our community safer for everyone.

The ordinance fails to address the problems it proposes to solve.

It opens the door to potential overpolicing, which could further restrict the mobility of our most vulnerable neighbors and potentially decrease safety by pushing folks to other parts of the roadway.

This is why we oppose this ordinance, and we respectfully ask each of you to do the same.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Arch Kimberlin from Ward 1.

Um, and I actually live downtown.

Um so this ordinance does nothing to address uh pedestrian safety.

As someone that lives downtown, I am a pedestrian a lot.

Um and I have been hit actually when I was riding my bike by a golf cart on Broadway.

So I realize that the um the streets are unsafe, but the sidewalks aren't necessarily safe either.

Um I actually rarely ride my bike anymore.

Um, but I still utilize the sidewalk and I still utilize the medians um as a student that goes to the University of Missouri.

I use these medians almost every day to cross larger roads like Broadway and College Av.

I will um if I can get halfway across and just wait there for a few seconds, then I will, because um it's it's like way easier to do that than to expect all the cars on the street to stop for me because they don't, even when I'm at a crosswalk and I press it.

Um so that is that is really something that should be discussed.

But um I would say that most students at Mizzou also make this calculation at the other colleges.

They make that calculation.

I'm at a crosswalk, I need to I need to finish crossing.

I I have a class in five minutes, I gotta get across the street.

Um so I also want to note that I am 21, I am physically able-bodied, um, and I still struggle to always make it across because the timers for crossing uh these roads are not super long.

So I think that an immediate thing you guys could do is just add an extra zero.

I don't know how hard that would be.

Just add some more time for people to cross the road.

Um I know that maybe the cars can appreciate it too, because you know they can keep um crossing that way as well.

But I think that's an immediate change.

And now I'd like to talk about who this ordinance is really targeting, and that's the unhoused.

Um I know that technically this ordinance predates um the increase in uh policing downtown, but it really feels like an instinction of that to me.

Um I doubt anyone enjoys you know begging on the side of the road, but that's what they're being forced to do in this economy, and you're only most of us.

Um I don't know about you guys in particular, but most of us are only a few paychecks away or a medical event away from being unhoused as well.

So we can't hide these people away, we can't pretend they don't exist because they are us and they could become us at any time.

It's not going away, and limiting their space is going to just concentrate them more and more into tighter areas.

And the same people that have um put this ordinance and are pushing for it now are going to be very concerned about you know homeless encampments and where these people have to go when we don't give them places to exist freely.

I want my neighbors to be treated with dignity, um, and I want them to have the same rights that I do at the meeting.

Um I just want my home downtown to feel um normal again.

I know that if crime is happening, the police are right there, they have a precinct.

I see them all the time, but I don't feel the need for being constantly watched.

Um because to be honest, the police make me nervous and they made me nervous even as a kid.

Um I've never had a negative interaction.

I've never actually had anything terrible happen, but just being a minority and just kind of being an anxious guy, I get nervous.

Um please vote no on this and please um consider us people downtown and um our safety as well.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Truman Oaks.

I'm from Ward 1, and I'm speaking against this ordinance.

Uh for one, I don't think it does much at all to protect pedestrian safety.

Perhaps there are some merits to the ordinance.

But of all the fantastic conclusions you can draw from the study the city did, this doesn't seem to address very many.

And uh I think the ordinance has it'll have a different outcome uh in the state ACLU coming out against uh gives me a hint in that direction.

I think even so if you want to help protect pedestrians, if you want to help make the flow of traffic safer, it's probably going to be easier to let it slide when someone uh hands another person a dollar bill out the window, or when someone spends too long at a medium rather than pulling them over rather than uh having an officer go out onto the medium.

Because people are not panhandling unless they're uh very desperate.

And I feel like even if this ordinance passes, it's gonna be a long journey of education and uh primarily you know education through enforcement for these people.

And for that reason I think it's uh more trouble than it's worth.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Matt Jenny.

I'm one of the owners of Addison's and Sophia's restaurant here in Columbia.

Um I'm speaking today on behalf of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, of which I am the chair-elect for the chamber.

Um I know this issue is gonna be tabled, so I'm gonna keep my comments brief, but I I do want to say that the business community is a support of this ordinance.

Uh we feel like public safety is one of the main things that the Chamber of Commerce is uh supportive of.

Uh we believe that uh safe, prosperous community uh is a community that businesses can thrive in.

And this is an ordinance that really helps uh make part of our community safe.

Um it's really difficult uh to say that it is safe for somebody to stand on a six-foot-wide piece of concrete while cars are going by at 40 to 50 miles an hour for an extended period of time.

And I think that that's what this ordinance addresses.

Um when somebody is doing that, um, that means that the motorists are distracted, potentially that motorist is handing them something out the window when the light changes.

Um then it becomes uh more of an issue.

And a lot of these intersections are where a lot of our businesses are.

It becomes an issue for people getting in and out of our businesses.

Uh these are things that um we need to address by this ordinance.

Um I really think that um, you know, I know that this is probably not going to come to a vote tonight, uh, but I really do want to um lend our support for this ordinance.

I also want to lend our support to be able to discuss this ordinance if there is uh issues that uh the council wants to talk about.

Uh the business community really, really supports safety in our community, and this ordinance is a safety ordinance.

Thank you.

Um hi.

Um I'm a 40-year resident of Columbia.

My name is Alice Turner, but I won't give my address.

We don't have to do that anymore, right?

Um I'm gonna just talk a little bit about uh a panel I held this past week with a number of organizations concerned about this proposed ordinance.

Um Dan Vietz, president of the Mid-Missouri Civil Liberties Association, which has taken a position against this ordinance, um, said it's really not geared to pedestrian safety, but it's really geared to restricting panhandling in the city.

The Supreme Court ruled in the 2015 case, read versus the town of Gilbert, that ordinance to restrict or prohibit panhandling are unconstitutional.

So you might want to research that.

Um I personally am really impacted by this.

I and 50 to 70, mostly seniors every weekend are on mediums and public sidewalks in this community to protest what we perceive as the horror going on in our country.

It's happening in Boonville, it's happening in Fayette.

It's happening in thousands of communities across this country.

Please do not restrict our ability to do this.

I'm I was really shocked when I first heard this and really concerned.

A more conservative council could change this to make it four feet mediums.

I don't know.

I just want to be able to express my opinions.

This is my right under the First Amendment, and this would restrict it.

Thank you.

Hi, um, I'm Keith Brown.

I'm from the first ward, Packing Tower.

Um I was almost homeless at the beginning of this year.

I was homeless once in my life.

I've owned a house here.

I've had many parts of my life here.

And um to say that in the least that this bill was horrifying to hear would be a short statement.

Um I feel like giving us taking away the rights of people to not only speak at the workshop or taking the rights of people to um not be able to take a rest.

I mean, do I look disabled to you?

The answer would be common sense, right?

I have arthritis in both hips and at my lower back.

I have multiple more disabilities internally, like Crohn's and colitis.

You would not look at me as a 33-year-old person who's been here for 15 years and say, oh, that's a disabled person.

This law could directly affect me, could make me a victim of financial distress.

And I really would ask not only as someone who serves food homeless to homeless people once a week, every week for over a year now.

I would ask that you please not pass this bill.

This would make me and many other people suffer.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Randall Quisenberry.

I'm a resident of Ward 1.

Uh currently at the moment, I'm unemployed, and that's under the best of circumstances.

I'm a homeowner, I have a reliable transportation, I have plenty of prior notice.

But there's several people, and there's there's tiers before you get to visible homeless on the street that are rent insecure, they don't have they don't have a car, they might be living in their car, their couch surfing, uh what have you, and that could be taken away.

There's a lot that happens before a person is out on the street.

And once they're out on the street, uh it's not just traffic that's an issue for them.

They are unsafe at all times.

They don't uh they're exposed to the elements, um, exposed to assault, uh more likely if you're a woman, you're exposed to sexual assault.

Now, there are long-term solutions like housing that would fix the fix the first tier immediately.

People that don't have houses that are priced out on the market can be housed.

And the long-term benefits, I mean, there are there are long-term benefits uh for capital as well.

I didn't want to get into it, but the the fact that one, this um criminalizes people, people that have shelter, you know, that there are shelters that have punitive measures or restrictive measures that people can't pass into, and they just decide to live in a tent.

Um you make things easier, you provide housing.

Um fix the economy in general.

You that's a long-term solution that is that is better off than this.

And it doesn't and that doesn't propose uh or it doesn't violate or possibly violate First Amendment too, which I know eventually that will be a problem.

So I urge you to not pass this.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Tom Traby.

I'm a registered professional engineer and have designed many public roadways over the years.

I've reviewed the report provided by the traffic consultant, and it's thorough, it's well documented.

And without getting into all of the details of it, I agree with their conclusions.

Our roads and highways are first and foremost designed for conveyance of vehicles.

The designs, as part of complete streets, also accommodate and make provision for pedestrian crossings at crosswalks in an orderly and predictable fashion.

Individuals positioning themselves on narrow medians are not predictable.

The report section on driver distractions addresses the safety impact associated with this.

Notwithstanding all of the other comments that you've heard tonight, this is a safety ordinance, safety for pedestrians, and safety for the traveling public.

This ordinance is consistent with and supports the vision zero policy.

I support the ordinance and I encourage the adoption by the council.

Thank you.

I am not a public speaker, so I'm going to read.

I'm better at that.

All right.

My name is Kristen, and I'm here to speak against this ordinance.

I have fully shared the goal of keeping people safe on Columbia's streets, but this ordinance takes the wrong approach.

It misuses the city's own pedestrian safety study and undermines Columbia's vision zero commitment to eliminate traffic deaths through better street design, not criminals criminalization.

The street and intersection pedestrian safety study, which the city paid for, never recommends banning people from medians or limiting pedestrian presence on major corridors.

It calls for engineering solutions such as better design crosswalks, wider refuge islands, improved lighting, and slower traffic speeds.

Instead, this ordinance would make it a crime simply to stand on a median less than six feet wide, or to hand a flyer, donation cup, or petition to a driver at the red light.

Those activities are protected speech under the First Amendment, and similar laws in other cities have been struck down in courts.

Under the discretion of law enforcement, it would also fall hardest on some of our most vulnerable members of our community.

People who need more time crossing, people who have no car, who ask for help at intersections, or who exercise their right to advocate publicly.

Meanwhile, the ordinance explicitly exempts government employees, construction crews, and permitted special events.

And right there is where it feels like a slap in the face to me is you have not paid for a permit.

You are not safe.

You have paid for a permit.

You are now safe.

Even the city's own data shows that 72% of the pedestrian crashes happen at intersections, not on medians.

That means this ordinance targets the wrong locations while ignoring the real problem, unsafe intersection design, and high vehicle speeds.

If we truly care about safety, follow the study's recommendations, wider widen and improve medians instead of banning their use, lower corridor speed limits, expand the vision zero projects that protect everyone who use our streets.

So please vote no on this ordinance.

A safer Columbia will come from better design, not from punishing citizens.

Because there are also loopholes to this ordinance on both sides.

And if you think about it, you'll find that these loopholes will actually increase risks to everybody.

My name is Ken Rice.

I'm here representing the Disabilities Commission.

Um there is a vote tonight.

We wanted to get our comments read into record.

So I'm just going to read the letter that we um came up with.

The Disabilities Commission appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed pedestrian safety ordinance.

As part of our role in monitoring community accessibility and considering the concerns of people with disabilities, we offer the following input to Council.

The Commission is concerned about the provisions that prohibit pedestrians from being in the roadway or from crossing outside of a crosswalk.

In some situations, individuals use wheelchairs or have other mobility impairments, may not have a choice but to enter the roadway due to missing sidewalks or obstacles such as broken pavement, snow, or construction.

While crosswalks are generally the safest places to cross, some people with disabilities may find it safer or more feasible to cross at another point.

For example, when the curb ramps are inaccessible, when intersection designs, such as roundabouts are difficult to navigate, or when they have a clearer line of sight elsewhere.

This could include post and signage in affected areas, so residents understand the new requirements before citations are issued.

Thank you.

Thank you.

An extension too, please.

I'll add to.

Hi, everybody.

I am here to talk about the vulnerability of putting yourself out there to be judged by asking for assistance from your community.

It's not the folks on the medians or the dogs that are the danger.

As we heard from Nancy Thompson, even a limb hanging over the median is not considered an obstruction.

The danger comes most often from the drivers of the vehicles, the ones that assault folks asking for assistance while the drivers are stopped.

They spit on pepper spray, throw trash or shoot at these folks.

The danger also seems to come from what we've heard tonight from the people that call in false alarms or welfare checks because they're actually unhappy seeing panhandlers.

I spoke to our friends on the street today during Coma Mobile AIDS lunch service.

I let them know I'd be at council tonight and asked if there was a message anyone would like me to pass along.

Some of what was said was not thought to be read here because there was a lot of cussing, but my friend Tina passed along a message she wants me to convey.

She says, Hello, my name is Tina Marie, and I'm homeless.

I use panhandling as a way to help others out here with me why meeting while meeting some of my husband's and my dog's basic needs.

We didn't start out this way when coming to Columbia, but this is where we are now.

Once we ended up on the streets, we saw an immediate need for help, not just for ourselves, but the people around us.

So we took initiative and started supplying others with clothing, food, shelter, and more, while also using our encampment for a warming center during cold winters.

Our ability to assist is continuously under assault due to camp clearings and constant existence policing.

But we are able to help others as best we can.

We've seen friends come and go.

Some move out of homelessness and some have died on the streets.

Asking for support while on the medians sustains our ability to assist our community directly, whether this ordinance exists or not.

It allows me to help others who might not be able to help themselves.

It is a fast and efficient way to get immediate assistance.

This ordinance is an obvious workaround to try and subvert our First Amendment rights.

It's impractical as well.

We exist and are always going to find a way.

There are many gray areas, and I know the Queen of Gray.

She says thank you.

I want to point out again that this will criminalize rather than resource.

I urge you to vote against this further policing of people's existence and instead look for more creative ways to provide resources.

In fact, this sounds like a great job for social workers rather than the police.

So I would encourage you to look towards that instead.

Thank you.

I've lived in Columbia since 1975.

I got out of high school, and I think that uh it's it's laughable.

This is pretended to be about safety.

It's nothing more than a clamp down.

Unhouse unhoused people because of after the unfortunate incident after a football game a few months ago.

And someone else, it's always chaos there.

And you know, you could increase pedestrian safety a whole lot.

Um speed limits are not enforced at all in this town.

You're grasping its draws in, and you're not fooling anybody to think that this ordinance was proposed than for anything other than to because we don't want our homeless people to be seen.

We don't want it to be, you know, it pollutes the aesthetic pleasure of visiting this town to go to the a festival or a football game or whatever.

And it's if you're interested in safety of pedestrians and start enforcing the speed limit.

The average speed on just about every street in town is five or ten miles an hour more than what the speed limit is.

And if you ever drive the speed limit, I personally drive about a couple miles under the speed limit downtown, is 20 miles an hour downtown.

There's nobody going 20 miles an hour.

And it's not like you need the resources to enforce that on an ongoing basis.

You just start enforcing it for a little while and the word gets out and people would stop speeding.

And also the bird scooters and the e-bikes are all over on the sidewalks, going 10 or 15 miles an hour, a lot of them.

And if you want to improve public safety, instead of just harassing homeless people.

Um somebody said they're desperate, is why they're panhandling.

They don't like to be out there, but um do the obvious, enforce the speed limit, lower the speed limits around town, and certainly get the motorized bicycles, the e-bikes, and the bird scooters off the sidewalks.

Thank you.

I'll be brief.

My name is Bill Djack.

I'm from Coma Mobile Aid Collective.

And um, can anybody here on the council tell me how many people have been struck on the median?

Umsportation didn't have that number.

The CBB report didn't have that number.

But that is a driving force in this ordinance.

That seems kind of absurd to me.

That should have been step one in designing a safety ordinance, not come up at what might have been the night when the vote occurred.

Um it just seems like things are backwards here.

Um that's all I got to say.

Hello, I'm Reese Holcomb, a Ward 1 resident and a Mizzou student.

To speak to that experience, students' quality of life and safety will not be improved by this ordinance.

It will be degradated by it.

In terms of quality of life, I live downtown and I do interact with panhandlers pretty much every day on my way to school.

Sometimes I give a dollar, sometimes I have a conversation, sometimes I just walk by.

But it is a minor, insignificant part of my day, just as it is for many students.

Pedestrian safety does massively affect us though.

I have friends who have to walk along stadium or walk along Old 63 to get home at the end of the day.

And many of us who've shockingly use medions.

This ordinance is not for them, and there will not be any safety after this ordinance is voted on.

Additionally, I would like to clarify for those confused that there is a difference between safety and discomfort.

They are not synemones.

You may be uncomfortable when you see a homeless person on a median, and you may be annoyed that you miss a light because someone is so terribly handing a homeless person a dollar.

But I am not confused as a driver when I see a homeless person on a median with a sign asking for money.

I think that's predictable by definition, they're telling you.

And if an officer is asked acting upon their common sense asking questions to a person at a median, what do you think they're gonna do in that situation?

Are they going to wait till the safest opportunity to cross, or are they gonna go as soon as they can?

I think that's incredibly unsafe.

Um with all that said, this doesn't make pedestrians safer.

It doesn't make drivers safer.

It is a safety issue to pass this ordinance.

And for these reasons, I encourage the council to vote no.

Hello, thank you very much for your time.

I'm Alex Bohan, and I'm a resident of Ward 1.

I asked the council to vote no.

I agree with the eloquence of many of the other no vote speakers of this podium and will not jump into many of those talking points.

One thing I wanted to bring up was a question of feasibility in terms of financial cost and a cost-benefit analysis of this ordinance.

Has there been a comparison of how much enforcement would cost versus the construction of additional safety mechanisms for pedestrians?

As this issue will be tabled, I think any additional work on it should include data on cost and manpower required for potential enforcement of this ordinance.

As we learned in Civic Academy, the police chief from the police chief, they're not at full force and adding and we would be likely adding additional requirements to their policing routes.

Would their time be better be used on solving real crime or citing the motorists who are driving at potentially dangerous speeds?

Outside of my personal horror, the criminalization of the homeless population, there's a significant amount of data missing from this from this discussion tonight for this to be considered good policymaking.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Hello, um McKinsey Ortiz, Ward 6th.

Um y'all know how nervous I get up here, so I have written down my statement.

Um dear members of council, you may know me as a pedestrian award six resident or someone who serves on the bike pet and planning and zoning commission.

Um none of which I'm speaking on behalf of, by the way.

Uh what you might not know is that I have panhandled before.

When I lived in Kansas City shortly after graduating from KU, uh things were rough.

I went to the Bishop Sullivan Center for dinner every weeknight.

I struggled to pay rent as a young adult with no family support after aging out of a kin placement guardianship when I was 18.

Um I worked in the library district as a server and I begged for bus fare um to get home in my apartment in Hyde Park.

It was not something I did just once.

Um it was something that I had to do often.

Uh working in the service industry meant some nights I was getting cut before I had any tips, and I didn't have any money to pay the bus.

And this was before a tap to pay, so not to age myself there.

Um since then I've moved to Columbia.

I've reached over two years of sobriety.

I've become an advocate for people who do not drive.

I share this because I know what it feels like to rely on public spaces and ask strangers for help when the alternative is going without a meal or not having a way home.

I'm asking you to eventually vote no on this proposed pedestrian safety ordinance, or if you just want to vote on it tonight now, I'd be down for that too.

To me, this is not a safety measure.

It would criminalize poverty and punish people for asking for help or existing in public space while unhoused specifically.

If our goal is truly pedestrian safety, which I know it is for a lot of you, um, I know the work that you have been doing to make pedestrians safer.

Um we know what works, like building sidewalks, fixing the ones that are broken, improving lighting, slowing traffic, uh investing in infrastructure that actually makes it safer for people to walk.

So please vote with the many citizens of Columbia and residents that you've heard tonight who believe in compassion and in solutions grounded in evidence and not cruel punishment.

Thank you.

All right, I'll go ahead and end our public comment since the line has died down.

Um Jackie, I don't know if you want to make your motion before we get in the council comments just about the voting, or if you want to do council comments first.

Yeah.

Okay.

I motion to table this so that we can gather information from the commissions that have been requested.

Okay.

Uh until the February 2nd.

February 2nd.

There you go.

Okay.

Um we have a motion to table to February 2nd.

Do I have a second?

Second by Nick Foster.

Um, all those in favor of motioning uh the vote to table to February 2nd say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed?

Nay.

Okay, we have one nay.

So we have this vote.

Um, Nancy's still there.

So um I'll I'll invite council members to make brief comments, knowing that we'll be having another discussion on this, and we've already spoken obviously for two hours on this.

Um I will also make the note uh is what we made earlier is that we staff will also be putting this on the beherd.como.gov site.

So if you didn't speak this evening, you will have an opportunity to do that as well.

Um, as well as there might be other opportunity before the February 2nd for us to have conversations.

So I just want to say that for that.

Council Cummings, yeah.

Veri, you hide your hand.

Um so I know that one of the things we're working on is talking about um expectations when we table something.

Um I know a piece of that is that we are wanting the reports from the boards and commissions.

Um I also think a theme of the night was questions that people are wanting answered.

Um so I wanted to it's a bit of a long list.

I wanted to list out some of the questions that I would like to see answers to before we vote, knowing that I don't expect anyone to take notes and I will email it afterwards.

Yes, but I want I want the public to also understand what our expectations are.

Um and I also want to acknowledge that if they were here, the vast majority of these questions would be directed at CBB, the consultants who wrote the study, as a lot of this is about what was left out of the study, and unfortunately it then falls onto our city staff to to make up for that rather large gap in the study.

Um questions I would like answered.

What is the safety risk of people standing in the medians?

How many crashes involved a pedestrian at a median?

Why was that data not in the original report?

Why is standing on a median more dangerous than standing on a sidewalk that immediately abuts the road?

Sidewalks have the same distance between cars and pedestrians, but an even more narrow path of travel for the pedestrian.

What is a cycle?

How long are the traffic signals cycling?

How is a cycle determined if there is no traffic signal?

And how many of the corridors affected by this do not have traffic signals?

What are the exact exceptions that will be made for pedestrians?

For example, what about when there is not a sidewalk and someone walks in the road?

What about when there is not a crosswalk traffic signal or intersection and someone needs to cross the road?

And what is the definition of mobility restricted to a degree that someone is unable to safely cross?

What disabilities would or would not qualify?

How will police be trained to assess this in the moment?

Um, how can this be assessed by a simple um visual or even verbal conversation with a person?

What is the definition of obstruction of a road?

And if the definition is that the obstruction must be fully stopping the flow of traffic, how is anything happening on the median considered an obstruction?

The council memo also mentions a public education campaign that will be required.

What will that campaign look like and what will the potential cost of that campaign be?

And then finally, besides this ordinance, what projects or improvements will this pedestrian safety study lead to?

I know that we have a ton of incredible projects in the works to make our roads and our sidewalks safer for pedestrians and motorists alike.

Those are things that were in the works well before this study was put into place.

And I also know that you said, and I very much knew it would be your answer that you already knew and understood most of the recommendations that were included in the report for road and sidewalk safety.

And that then makes me question why we spent money on external consultants to tell us something we had the internal knowledge of when that money could have been used on infrastructure to improve safety.

And I'll send that all via email.

Thank you.

Well, in the comments that people have.

Yeah.

Just no accounts yet done.

I will say that I think by tabling it, even though I said no to the motion will give us a benefit because it seemed like there were several tweaks that could be made to this.

So I so I I look forward to that.

I also want to say to the crowd in general, thank you.

I know there were, I think three individuals that came up and spoke outside or differently than what the consensus in the room is.

And I want to say thank you for your respectfulness and allowing them to have their saying.

Well, I made a lot of notes.

And so I I intend to go back and read through my notes and then write out my responses to a lot of this.

I think that this is a good example of how often when you're sitting on this side of the dais, a lot of these decisions become much more complicated than they may seem on the other side of the dais.

And in large part because we have the responsibility for making these decisions.

So there are there are questions that are outstanding, and I look forward to hearing from those also from the boards and commissions that may respond to our request.

I want to say one thing that I'm grateful for, and I'm grateful to hear the expression of concern for our homeless and in particular unsheltered uh citizens in our community.

Um I hope that we can maintain that level of support and use that energy to make a difference uh for them and for our community as a whole, and I believe we will.

I think that's representative of who we are as a community.

Uh and really honestly, for for many, if not most of those who are in support of the ordinance, I think there is that concern as well.

And I hope that we can find that commonality and make some difference, uh, make some changes there that will be helpful.

Just very generally, because I have more to say that we can wait till next time.

Um as was observed or heard from the public tonight from various questions, I don't believe, I don't believe this is the appropriate title for this ordinance.

I believe that um this is a median ordinance.

This is not a pedestrian safety ordinance.

And there's a difference.

Um so as we move forward and have those discussions, I think that's something that we need to be talking about.

Um I do agree that we need to address pedestrian safety.

I don't know that we can address all of the layers of pedestrian safety that we need to address with a million ordinances.

I think we need it needs to be part of um careful and intentional planning and future budget allocation to make sure that we are being we are successfully addressing those needs.

And I'll stop there tonight.

Thank you.

And in closing?

Yeah, I do have some comments.

Um I have a lot of thoughts.

Um I love seeing engaged public, and I'm thankful for every person that came out tonight to speak.

Um and the variety of experiences that we heard from and how those experiences overlay with this ordinance.

Um I want to say that for myself, um I do have concerns that this ordinance may be counterproductive both to the goal of increasing pedestrian safety and preventing homelessness.

Um I know that increased citations can make it harder for individuals to obtain housing and gain employment later on.

And that for those with limited means penalties tend to pile up.

I'd like to see the city take a housing first approach in dealing with situations surrounding poverty and homelessness.

Secondly, my concern is that this ordinance erodes the rights of pedestrians on public infrastructure.

In the early 2000s, it was some municipalities were making ordinances requiring pedestrians to wear reflective gear, to have lighting on cyclic cycles, bicycles, or wear helmets.

And that all seemed like a sensible approach to increase the safety of pedestrians.

But what was seen after that was frequently blaming pedestrians following accidents, interactions with vehicles where they were the victims and the injured party.

And while this is a completely different scenario, I'm concerned that this could do just that.

And I'm not sure how the how we could avoid this with an ordinance that criminalizes the presence of a pedestrian at the median.

I would much, much rather see us put that effort towards building safer infrastructure.

Um driver education.

Shane provided us with a very compelling list of improvements that we've made that are pedestrian related over the last I don't know 15 to 20 years.

But I still want to see targeted improvements at intersections for streets that are MODOT controlled.

Um and I'm sensitive to the 10-year delay that we have in getting that done.

It's painful for everyone.

I wish there was a way to bring this up faster.

Um I hear the concerns about impacts to persons with disabilities.

I think that will be the end of my comments tonight.

I hope that we can see changes that are more pointed.

One of my concerns about this ordinance was that it is a First Amendment right.

And in order to not infringe on First Amendment rights, um the goal is to narrowly tailor the ordinance to direct on safety alone.

Um my concern is that it's not narrowly tailored at all.

Um in fact, it affects all pedestrians and all citizens.

All right, thank you.

I'm gonna go ahead and move on because we've talked a lot about this.

I do want to echo the thanks for everybody for attendance for this evening, whether or not you spoke or did not.

I think being part of the process is really important to us.

And please continue to stay engaged on this.

I look forward to hearing back from our boards and commissions on recommendations for what we can do uh on this issue because people's safety is our utmost concern.

Moving on, um Sheila, will you please read Bill 28125?

Council Bill 28125 is an ordinance rezoning property located on the west side of Hinks and Creek Road and east of Paris Road, 3815 Hinkson Creek Road from District A agriculture to district IG industrial, repealing all conflicting ordinances of parts of ordinances and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective.

3815 Hinkson Creek Road from District A agriculture to District IG industrial, repealing all conflicting ordinances apart subordinances and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective.

Second reading.

We have a staff report.

Yes.

Mayor, Council, thank you.

Clint Smith, Community Development Director.

And be waiting for a PowerPoint to pull up here, and then we can have a quick staff report.

On the rezoning.

Is it your PowerPoint or the PowerPoint from the podium?

It would be my PowerPoint.

Okay.

So it would make sure Dalton is maybe try advancing what if you do an advanced, not you, Ben, you, Clint.

Yep, there you go.

Thank you for that.

Yeah, you're welcome.

All right.

So as stated, the the uh case before Council tonight is a request to rezone property located at 3815 Hinkson Creek Road.

Uh from its current zoning, which is agriculture, uh, to IG, which is industrial general.

So that is uh essentially our manufacturing zoning designation.

Um a little bit of uh kind of information about the site.

Uh the rezoning uh affects approximately 63 acres of a portion of property uh that is spread out over three tracks and it totals 83 acres.

So we'll see a little bit more how that kind of rezoning and the break of those three tracks uh shakes out.

Um this was a a public hearing at the Planning Zoning uh Commission.

So notifications were sent to surrounding property owners and was advertised in the in the local newspaper.

So the red on your screen uh and the green constitutes the entirety of the three tracks of property uh that are owned by the applicant.

Um the uh the request then is to rezone uh parts of two of those tracks, kind of the northern, kind of northwestern portions there that abut uh Paris Road Route B, uh as you can see there in the illustration.

Uh that approximately 60 some acres would be uh IG, again, industrial zoning.

And there's a portion to the uh kind of uh lower end of that portion that is closer to the Hinkson Creek area uh that would retain its current zoning, which is agricultural zoning.

And I have a few more of these slides.

It just gives you a broad overview of kind of the rezoning and and how that is affecting that property.

A couple of things I'll I'll point out.

Uh this is good illustration, I think, of the surrounding uses and properties, which is important uh in this conversation.

As you can see, tractor supply company uh really on the west side.

You also have a MODOT facility, um mid-city lumber, um you have uh Schneider Electric, uh.

So a lot of industrial properties here up and down that Route B corridor, and we'll see a little bit more on the zoning that's also uh around this property.

But this is a little more of a very top-down view of that.

And you can see a little bit um where the ag property, uh the agricultural property that would remain is is uh borders that Hinkson Creek Road area.

And Hinkson Creek, you can see also a little bit uh in that uh illustration there, kind of runs through the green that would essentially be retained in that agricultural zoning.

Uh again, kind of a uh a um little tighter view there of just the zoning, uh, but I think this is maybe the the best illustration, I think, of when we look at a rezoning request, we look at a few things, and one of those really is the context of the surrounding property and how it's it's currently being used.

Uh the the agricultural use along Paris Road is really a bit of an anomaly when you look at the the totality of that corridor from Paris Road.

Um there we're intersect 63 uh for for quite the distance going uh further north on Paris Road.

So you can see the gray, all that essentially is zone industrial.

So uh this Paris Road essentially is an industrial corridor.

This is one of the few remaining parcels that has not been rezoned to industrial uh zoning that would allow industrial uses.

Uh so again, it is really kind of I think completing that corridor when it comes to uh rezoning that property.

Uh and it talked about the three tracks there and really that surrounding property and what it's zoned.

Um there is some floodplain, and I have an illustration there.

There were some concerns with the environmental impacts with that.

Most of Hinkson Creek and the floodplain and floodway would be retained on that agricultural zone property uh to the south.

Uh one note, this property is not currently what we consider to be legal lots.

It has not gone through the subdivision process.

So prior to any new construction, so uh development of that property, it would be required uh to have a subdivision plat completed and submitted through uh the city's processes and would come in front of City Council at a later date uh for approval, uh, depending on how that was structured, whether it's preliminary first or they went straight into just a final plat.

It also could have infrastructure plans uh submitted to the city as well.

So we'd have a better understanding, I think, of what uh the infrastructure needs on that site would be uh at some point in that future when they get to that final plat stage.

Um thing I did want to bring up uh obviously when you're rezoning a property is what what now can that property be used for?

And in IG uh you know it's industrial, so I think a lot of people understand what industrial zoning is, but it also has a lot of other uses that can be actually used on that site.

So uh looking at the list there, all the way from a hotel and office and retail, so a lot of commercial uses can be uh used on industrial zone property, um, public utilities, gas stations, heavy commercial uses.

Um but one I what I did want to kind of address, because it has something that has come up uh in particular on the site is the possibility uh of the use as a data center.

Uh and I would say that uh the request in front of council tonight is not to approve a data center.

It is approved uh uh to look at IG zoning and determine whether this is the appropriate use of this property given the context of that area.

Uh data center uh is something that could be used in IG.

Um we spent a little time, I think, talking to some of our partners uh about the potential for data center.

We have talked internally uh with our utilities uh and think when you look at I think what a lot of people think of data centers is this hyper data center, and that is a data center that would use 100, 200 uh megawatts of power and more.

Um speaking with our partners at ready, they have some relationships uh with uh Missouri Partnership, and they say that a lot of the the data centers that they see in the pipeline are of that size.

Uh and quite frankly, we do not have the capacity to to serve those.

Um the first steps uh of any due diligence for a project like this would be to contact the utility providers in an area that you're looking to locate to assure that they actually have the infrastructure you need.

Uh that's not to say that smaller data centers could not uh locate somewhere in town.

There are a lot of um IG properties that are currently zoned that could be the sites of data centers already.

So uh looking at this one strictly through the lens of whether or not a data center uh could be located on this property is kind of missing, I think the scope of of all the IG property within the town.

And so I think you have to do you do have to look at all the uses that could be located on this property and kind of draw that conclusion whether as a whole the IG zoning is really appropriate for this location.

Uh and I would point out also that IG does have conditional uses.

And so those are uses that um for uh reasons that have been identified, might need some conditions applied to them to be appropriate within that zoning district.

So that's things such as heavy industry or mining and quarry.

So those would come before council, they'd uh have a public hearing of plan and zoning, could be conditions attached with those.

Uh so those are other couple examples of uses that could be utilized in IG, but might have to go through a special approval process.

Uh a couple things I did want to point out.

Another thing we do evaluate is is the comprehensive plan.

It does have a future land use plan, but I would say ours, ours really uh addresses I think what the current land use was at that at that time that the comp plan was produced.

It wasn't really forward-looking.

Um I think we rely more on the context of the area and the surrounding land uses with the existing IG through this corridor, we really have kind of this employment district, and that is consistent with IG, so that would be consistent uh, I think with support for an IG zone uh at this location.

Uh I would point out though, to the north and to the south, immediately at IG, there is actually two different zoning districts.

One is uh is a PD to the north.

To the south is MC.

It did have a conditional use uh uh approved for that for a um travel trailer park, I believe, at some point in the point in the past, but it has never been actually um improved with that use at this time.

Uh the site has a lot of characteristics just being along the corridor that does lend itself to industrial zoning, has good access to highways.

Um Paris is a major arterial.

Uh that site is not particularly uh immediately close to large numbers of dwellings.

There are certain dwellings in that area, but given the low density there, there's not that many that are in a close proximity.

I think the nearest one is 800 feet.

Um between the IG zoning and any other uh zoning district that would have butted, I think, to the agricultural side, there'd be a uh a buffer required uh level three we call it, but it's a 10-foot uh buffer with a eight-foot screening device.

So there would be some protections offered um to any type of surrounding property owners uh in regards to buffering.

Uh there are also some additional protections that we see in the light industry category.

So if you just wanted to focus on that, which is the one I think most people associate with IG zoning is light industry.

Um here's a list of some of the things that we consider use specific standards, and so those are things that we have identified that could be issues within that particular use, and we went ahead and listed them out as here's some conditions that need to be met before you can actually utilize that property with this use.

Um are restricting harmful uh discharge of waste, uh basically any type of uh flames and smoke and noise, uh no outside storage is allowed, and 80 percent of the use has to occur within uh the building.

Uh and and to again to kind of further I think protect, I think some of those neighboring properties.

Uh another thing this came up at the hearing too was uh specific noise requirements.

And so uh this one's actually located in a little bit different location within the zoning district, but we we did locate it.

And so generally there's a limit on 55 decibels for industrial uses uh in the IG district.

Uh so that does uh provide additional protections for some of the heavier uses in IG between it and some of its neighboring property owners.

And so and there's some additional restrictions protections there as well as far as when it talks comes about or talks about smoke and other um particulates uh and heat and glare.

So there's additional protections there, not just for that light industry, but in the IG district as a whole.

Uh and I'll touch on real quickly, the site does have floodplain and floodway.

We have uh you know many restrictions and protections for development in the plain.

Floodway does not allow any type of development.

Uh that the uh any type of development in the floodplain would follow all the necessary uh procedures that any other development within the city uh would be subject to.

It also has a stream buffer, so they any development, even if it was uh outside the floodplain would need to be stepped back distance of that uh of that um buffer, which is a hundred foot total on each side of the of the Hinkson Creek.

So it's a 200 foot buffer total.

Um again, just kind of a kind of a a uh I think uh wrapping up, I think the the appropriateness of that IG there, really the access, the surrounding uh uses and zoning of this corridor.

Um they have taken some of that sensitive area and went ahead uh and left that in the A zoning.

Um the uh Hinks and Creek, the majority of that would be on that A zoning, as you can see there on the south end of the of the uh of the screen that's in the green.

Uh the access to major interchanges is 63 really um I think speaks to the use of this property, I think, being uh uh IG appropriate.

Um the city is also speaking to the comprehensive plan.

It does make mention um, you know, economic um opportunities in a city does need to have space that's zoned appropriately for growth and for industrial uses within the community.

And so this would be one, I think there was a comment um of some of the the low vacancy rate for some of our industrial zone property in the town.

And so this would provide additional opportunities for that type of growth within the community.

Uh and the last couple of things I'll say about this again is it's we do feel like it's consistent with the comprehensive plan with the existing land use patterns.

Uh and excuse me.

And I I can say with uh the conversations with our our partners at Ready and here internally in community development, we haven't had any specific conversations about that data center use within the community in any particular site.

Um the Plan and Zoning Commission did discuss some of the challenges that do come along, perhaps with the data center use.

Uh and they did uh mention the fact that they may uh find it appropriate to look at some uh additional structure for how a data center could be defined and maybe uh differently uh permitted within the city.

Uh so if they uh do add that to their work program, they might uh investigate and have staff um spend some time looking at other communities and what type of restrictions they may have on data centers in the future.

So commission did vote seven to two in favor of the motion to approve the zoning, uh the rezoning, excuse me.

Uh I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Questions um from counsel for staff.

Yeah, Jackie.

On the subject site, I believe there is an older home and a barn.

Um, can those continue to exist if it is rezoned to IG?

They can.

Yes, they can exist any type of use that's being currently used on that property.

So if it's being used as agricultural, if it's rezoned industrial, they can continue to use it in that manner as a is a nonconforming use.

Uh if they do uh cease using it, they they can't then reuse it as that as that type of use.

They do have to have a conforming use in the industrial, but they can use it as it is currently used even after rezoning.

So if they have a tenant there, the tenant could remain in the home.

Correct.

Okay.

And I'm not really sure who this question is for.

But has there been any um historical study of this particular area of town specifically in speaking with some of the neighbors, it's been brought to my attention that they're the home that is existing on the site might potentially um be an old log cabin at the core.

And then there's been excuse me, additional um uh indigenous American artifacts found along the creek there.

So I'm just curious if that has been considered any part of this.

Uh that's not necessarily considered as part of the rezoning.

Uh the city doesn't necessarily have a process to evaluate the site for for type of um you know artifacts such as that, but I do believe there's a representative from the applicant here, they might be able to speak a little bit more to some of the uh um the things that are found on that property and if they have any future plans for that.

Thank you.

Additional council questions?

Valerie.

Yeah.

Um something we asked about earlier um was at what juncture might council have oversight over uses.

Um I know that if there was a larger um data center use proposed, we would likely have a development agreement that council has oversight for.

Um would a development agreement still be required for some kind of smaller data center, and at what point do you decide a development agreement is warranted?

Uh I I wouldn't say development agreement would be necessary or um you know it think it depends on each in particular use.

A lot of times development agreements uh come out of traffic studies, you know, for traffic and infrastructure related issues, but in the case where that infrastructure in question is not traffic related, then that's where you might be looking at electric or water infrastructure.

Um we have a development agreement, it does happen at the same time as as that plating stage because we do have more information about the development of that site.

There would be potential infrastructure plans.

Um if there is extension of utilities needed, they would need to start designing that infrastructure uh for review and approval by the city.

And so that's generally we we're we would expect if a development agreement were to be uh discussed and agreed upon uh between the city and the applicant.

That's probably where those conversations would would start.

And on this particular case, because there is not currently a legal plat, there would still be a plating agreement that comes to council before any use is decided on, correct?

Or at the same juncture?

Yes.

No new development could occur on the site before they subdivide the property.

And would we have purview to make a decision based on use?

I I think at that time they're not necessarily required to submit what a what an end use is, but I think they are required to provide, I think the necessary information we'd need to evaluate the infrastructure.

And so even without a particular use, I think we we would probably be asking those types of questions, and that would that could lead to the development agreement at that point.

And but I also need to I need to weigh in and say that at a plotting action, use is not one of the criteria uh under which council makes a decision.

What you do during a rezoning is you approve a, in essence, a category of uses that are appropriate based upon the location of the tract and the comprehensive plan overall uh design of of and progression of land use in a particular area.

That's what rezoning is.

Plotting actions are really only have to do with the specific layout and configuration of a piece of property, not the use of the property.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

Um it's tricky in this particular scenario as the use hasn't been defined yet within our code.

And I know we have a desire to speak specifically about the zoning and separate our discussion on the use later.

And uh actually I value that, but um now I'm fighting myself in a pickle because our approval of IG includes more gray area on uses based on your description of different data centers than I may have anticipated.

I'm reticent to approve if I don't understand what could be approved under the listed uses for IG zoning, if you follow my meaning.

Yeah, I have two questions.

First on the floodplain piece.

Perhaps I am confused maybe re-explain that part.

Because I thought you said that there can be absolutely no development whatsoever in the floodplain, but then part of the IG plot would be in the floodplain.

And there was a note that the development would be subject to certain restrictions.

So is development allowed?

Is it not?

How does that work specifically with the floodplain?

Yeah, and I apologize.

I probably skimmed through that a little quickly, but if you can see the illustration on the screen, so there's a floodway and a floodplain.

And so floodway, uh that's essentially kind of the channel of the stream.

And so no development is allowed within the floodway.

Uh the floodplain is kind of the outer dotted area within that graphic.

Uh and there can be some development in there.

There is some study that would be required that, and I think their engineers here who can probably speak a little bit more to what the requirements of developing in that floodplain are, but the city has specific requirements for how that how that would happen.

And so it's the same as any type of other development that might develop in the floodplain.

Um but generally all of the floodway is retained on the agricultural zone property.

Uh that's the kind of the hashed uh section of the property that you see on the screen.

Okay.

Is well hold on, let me see.

Does anyone else have, yeah, Nick?

Um upon there being a plan provided to the city, that would happen at a stage where it would need to be permitted.

Is that correct?

Can you repeat that question?

I'm sorry.

At what point is there uh is the permitting process uh begun in the development of a property?

Sure.

Yeah.

So the the next step uh in the development of this property would probably be dismission of that preliminary or of subdivision plat.

And depending on how they subdivide it, it could be in the form of a preliminary plat if they subdivide it into more than five lots, if it's less than that.

They'd come straight to a final plat.

And the final plat is is generally accompanied by construction plans for all the necessary infrastructure that's going to be required for the site.

Uh so staff would be reviewing that and generally have that approved if prior to the subdivision plat coming before council.

So once the subdivision plat would be approved, uh then they could actually uh submit building plans uh and and or site plans that would go towards the improvement for that site, um, you know, whether it's infrastructure, extension, whatever it might be, but they can also submit a building plan for a building permit, and that would actually allow them to construct on the site.

And how much of that is administrative and how much of that would come to council at that point?

Subdivision plat would come to council.

Uh the building plan and the building permit issuance and the site plan permit issuance would all be administrative for the city's building uh code and site and development code.

Yeah, and part of that consideration is the accessible the access to uh necessary infrastructure for the plan, is that right?

That would include roadways and utilities and so forth.

Correct.

If they needed to extend sewer, they'd need to provide you know construction plans that illustrated uh how they're going to uh construct that and would be reviewed by the city.

Okay, please.

Yeah, done.

Um if their proposed plan cited the need for enhanced utilities to the site, i.e.

electric water or something like that.

Um at what point would that come back to us or would that still be administrative?

Uh it's probably getting a little bit outside of my wheelhouse as far as what uh utilities, what process utilities would go through depending on what type of uh utility extension or new infrastructure might need uh to be constructed.

Uh but I think there is there is the possibility that some of that could come back to the city if there is significant infrastructure construction required.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, I just wanted to check on this because it's really uh technical and I didn't know if we have the zoning graphic with the floodplain and floodway on it.

Does the IG portion include part of the floodplain overlay?

It does, yes.

I think there is a portion in the IG that includes floodplain.

And so that would be the floodplain overlay, yes.

So no buildings would be allowed to be constructed within the FPO, right?

I think in this case, uh with the location of Hinkson, I think with the 100-foot buffer as well.

I think there's probably little uh possibility it could be constructed in the floodplain.

I don't have that pulled up right in front of me.

Uh so I might defer to the to the applicant's engineer on the plans.

I would also say I think the most likely developable portion of this property is a long route B.

Uh the property does slope down as you get close to that floodplain, and would be very unlikely that that would be the development.

Not to say that it couldn't, but I think the most you know developable piece of this property is a long route B.

That makes sense to me.

All right.

Don, you had a follow up, and then let's let the public talk.

Yeah, I'm sorry, on this same go back the slide you were just on.

Yeah, right.

I'm sorry.

This one.

Okay.

Third point development uh 12 article B of the code.

Is that our code?

It is.

Yes.

That is that is the code that uh is our stormwater code, so it has a uh bevy of regulations on developing within uh or stormwater regulations on how that is going to be addressed with new development.

Which would, to my understanding then would incorporate if they were attempting to build in the floodplain would fall under that.

Is that correct?

Correct, yes.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I'm going to open up for public comment, and I just want to make a reminder, just like I do at the opening part of the council meeting, the comments for this portion of the agenda are on the legislation we are discussing, which is the rezoning.

Um we will soon get to general comments at the end of the council meeting where you can talk about anything you want.

And I do expect that I imagine my fellow council members are all going to be asking for the thing that you said that planning and zoning also talked about, which will be when it gets to the discussion around data centers, what legislation can we put into rules?

I imagine that's going to come up during our council comments at the end.

Um would anyone from the public wish to speak?

Oh, yeah.

Hi.

Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Alison Kellenberger.

And I'm here on as a board member of Missouri Rural Crisis Center.

We are a statewide organization, but we have many members in Columbia and have been based here in Columbia for 40 years.

Missouri Rural Crisis Center's mission is to preserve family farms, promote stewardship of the land and environmental integrity, and strive for economic and social justice by building unity and mutual understanding among diverse groups, both rural and urban.

Every day, MRCC fights to support an independent family farm system of agriculture, prevent environmental degradation, support social justice and economic opportunity, encourage efforts that promote stewardship of the land and a safe, affordable, high-quality food supply.

Formed 40 years and 1940 years ago in 1985, so much of our focus today is as it was during the farm crisis of the 1980s, trying to keep family farms in operation.

We do so by advocating for policies that support Missouri's farmers, hold mega corporations accountable, and we also run a local food cooperative and local pork marketing project called Patchwork Family Farms.

On behalf of Missouri Rural Crisis Center, I'm here to respectfully request a denial of the rezoning request at 3815 Hinkson Creek Road.

As a farm farmer advocacy group, we are concerned about land disappearing from agricultural production and urge hesitancy when considering rezoning agriculturally productive land.

The lack of transparency about what is meant to become of the rezoned parcel of land in question feels deficit, feels efficient.

And when it comes to the council's decision to rezone, we are watching with serious concern the competition that certain types of developments around the country have posed when it comes to the resources that farmers and rural communities rely on.

Farmers rely on steady and reliable energy as well as a protection of the region's water resources.

Will the new development be more demanding on both of these shared resources than our community's power grid and water supply can sustain?

The electrical grid for our region is likely to be insufficient as it currently stands if the new development is in the upper realm of energy needs.

Do we care whether the energy is clean and renewable energy?

Or is our community okay with enabling more climate change?

What are the negative impacts of large energy users to the other utility users in the region?

And how will those impacts be mitigated?

Will the new land use produce waste, new land produce waste?

We should know that ahead of an approval so as to consider our capacity as a city for the potential for increased waste.

Alison, you're at time.

Were you requesting, though, to be the five minutes as representing an organization?

Yes.

Okay.

We had two.

Sorry, thank you.

Including metal, tech, and battery waste.

If you need a legal reason to vote no, the false information regarding current agricultural usage provided by planning and zoning should suffice.

City Council should act within its power to impose contingencies upon approval.

It would be prudent for our city to develop a comprehensive approach to data centers before they start going in if they are too.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is James Gordon.

I live at 703 West Boulevard North.

I do not often dig deeply into routine rezoning applications, but here I am standing at this podium where I spoke a month ago.

And after everything I've learned in the interim, I want to restate my prior conclusion.

The risk of allowing this rezoning to proceed are too great, and therefore I believe council would be wise to vote no.

These risks are exacerbated by this restricted public discussion, which requires us to willfully ignore pertinent information about the owner's intentions, which he has stated consistently on the record and in private to me and to others.

Even now, many of us are grasping to understand exactly what range of developments are allowed by right under the proposed IG zoning and how well the owners' intended uses fit into that zoning.

These risks are also exacerbated by misunderstandings and miscommunications throughout this process.

You may have heard this property is not being actively farmed, but in fact it is.

You were just told that this property is an anomaly, which is a funny word to describe land being used in a manner consistent with its historical use and consistent with the farming happening to the east and to the south of Hingston Creek Road.

For these reasons and others, I believe a yes vote tonight would be a gamble.

So before you take it, I really want you to listen to your constituents, including and especially folks who live and farm on Higgson Creek Road.

Time and again, they've been burned by encroaching insufficiently regulated industrial use that never actually generates the jobs or broad economic benefits that are promised.

Swift meets, just to name one example.

Through rezoning applications such as this, you're being compelled to make policy by exception rather than a deliberative, comprehensive community planning process.

This planning by exception is biased toward commercial real estate development and speculation and often out-of-state money to interest.

This process has not been fair to farmers nor sufficient in conserving the land that they need to grow the food that we need to eat.

In closing, I want you, I want to rephrase the question before you tonight.

Instead of should you approve a bit more industrial zoning in our city, I want to ask: will you help us protect our farmland?

Because if you won't, I know you for sure that you will regret it.

Thank you.

Thank you, James.

Hi, Danny Perez again.

I think it's very interesting.

Um at least for me, it's just not clear about the protection of the environment when it comes to rezoning and the honor of the land, especially when we're hearing things like there might be indigenous artifacts.

And so I'm quite concerned about the health of Hinkston Road historically and environmentally when we rezone because let's be let's be real.

Rezoning is for industrial purposes.

That's why we rezoned for big land like that.

And so I just think it's something we should be very mindful that when this land was stolen, so how we care for it should be very, very mindful, especially when it comes to some of our more poorest individuals in the Midwest and Missouri alike, and that is our farmers and rural people in a time when people are starving and have had their food stamps like taken away, partially given, taken away, partially given.

Farmers are needed more than ever, then possible data centers, which is a gamble uh economically anyway, because there might be a massive bubble burst.

So just something to think about when you pursue a zoning of any sort, especially around things like Hinkson Creek and farmland.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ben Ross.

I'm with Engineering Surveys and Services, and I'm the representative of the applicant, uh the org Gordon Arbuckle Trust.

Um the image on your left, the red is the property we're like to rezone to IG, which is really light industrial.

Um you see all the other light industrial adjacent to it across the street, up and down Route B.

The purpose of light industrial is to allow manufacturing, warehousing, office activities, while protecting surrounding areas from any adverse impact.

Um we support the staff report, which recommends approval, and we agree with the planning zoning commission, which recommends approval.

When many people think about industrial, they think about something like this smokestacks and pollution.

That is not what we do in Columbia.

Columbia IG looks like this.

This is a building less than a mile away.

It was built a few years ago.

It's a light industrial building that uh serves jobs in our community.

The R Buckle family has owned this property a long time.

The yellow shading is what they used to own.

This picture is from 1962.

Um put Route B through the property.

It was only a two-lane road back in 1965.

Um they came back, Modot came back in 1980 and took more of the farm to make Highway 63.

Uh Route B got widened to five lanes.

It's five lanes wide now, which causes a lot of runoff.

Um, and then the Hinkson Creek, which we talked about, we're trying to rezone the area outside the floodway of Hinkson Creek.

Um we think the Hinkson Creek forms a great buffer between the proposed IG zoning and the neighbor to the south, as well as the neighbors across the creek.

Um we think the floodplain and the 20 acres of ag land that will stay is a great buffer for them.

Let's think about the neighborhood in general.

Uh up in the north end, you've got Salventum, which was 3M and the Craft Heinz uh hot dog factory.

They're one of the major employers.

Um you got the uh Good Day Farm.

Uh Good Day Farm uses 3.2 megawatts of electricity.

I called Water and Light and asked them, and they sent me the information.

Uh Swift Prepared Foods uses 2.7 megawatts.

Remember these numbers, 3.2 and 2.7.

Run it to 3.

Uh Swift Prepared Foods was farmland not too long ago.

Uh Schneider Electric, they're doing a big addition right now.

Uh Mid-City Lumber, Quaker Oats on land that R Buckles used to own, and a MODA facility.

All these are industrial uses, all are they're all zoned IG.

Um available utilities, we have done a little bit of research on that.

There's a 16-inch diameter water main that runs up Route B right across the front edge of this property.

That's a large water main.

Uh the sanitary sewer is pretty new.

There's a 36-inch diameter sewer pipe the city built.

The sanitary sewer is the most robust infrastructure we've got out there.

Uh water and light only has seven to ten megawatts of electric that's available.

So seven to ten megawatts is more than the uh good day farm and the SWIP prepared foods combined.

So there's enough electricity for another major industry on Route B right now.

Is there enough for a gigantic electric user that has been talked about?

No.

That's where the city would have the development agreement to control the process if much more electricity is ever needed.

Um Boone Electric has got lines out there, but they don't have capacity either.

Um Clint mentioned that good access from Highway 63 and I-70.

Um Clint stole my thunder on this slide.

Um, but I do have some context.

Uh the question at PNZ was about how much noise will be at the property line, and there's an octave bands.

But to put that in context, electric vehicles are so quiet they had to be made noisier for safety.

And electric vehicles has to be between 43 and 64 decibels driving at 30 kilometers an hour, which is like 20 miles per hour.

So at the property line, the noise would be less than an electric vehicle driving 20 miles per hour.

So that's what's in the city code and what uh the city will enforce on whoever builds there.

Um all the gray and red zone property is already set up for a data center.

Um and Columbia has three data centers now.

Um I'm gonna skip this slide.

I'm sorry, the mayor asked me not to show it.

Um, and just go straight to questions.

If anyone was at the REDI um annual meeting, um, the topic of site development was a top priority.

They're looking for more IG zone land uh and to attract more jobs and more inf investment to our community.

Um proper zoning is the first step.

And just take a long look at that map on the right.

The red oval is this property that used to be a large farm, it's been cut up so many times by Modot, it's very small now.

Um up and down Route B is IG, south of Highway 63 is IG, uh across the street is IG.

Um the uniform development code is designed to protect adjacent property owners.

Um that's why we are trying to go to open zoning instead of plan district, which is such a burden on the staff.

The uniform development code already includes the protections that are needed.

Um I think the site is ideal for IG.

I support the staff report and I support planning zoning.

I'd be happy to answer any questions or come back up later if you have questions like that.

Come back up later.

We'll have other people to talk.

Thank you, Ben.

Would anybody else from the public wish to speak on Bill 28125, the rezoning of this property.

Hi, my name is Isaac Ellis.

I live at 2309 Melwood Drive.

Uh I currently um raise um cattle across Hinkson Creek from this property.

Um I have looked across the creek and so seen um Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle's property.

Um he obviously is not part of this community.

He lives um in Colorado, I believe.

Um he's paid these um these gentlemen and ladies to do this for him.

Uh my fear, uh my fear is about the abuse of the property so close to all of the zoned agricultural land.

Um we just lost the agricultural land to Swift Meets.

Um the the fear from me is the loss of the ability to raise and graze cattle without pollutants, without harmful things that are they're already there.

They're already damaging Hinkson Creek.

Um we've already seen much more trash in our fields due to Swift Meets, um, not to mention what we see from 3M and Schneider's and all of these other organizations.

That's gonna push, that's gonna push all of that IG even closer to 63, all of those neighborhoods, all of those homes that surround uh 63, Paris, and and Vandever.

Um I I don't understand in my conversations.

I've actually been able to talk to Gordon, he's been very open uh to phone conversations.

Um it sounds like he loves the farm.

It sounds like he wants the farm to remain a farm.

Uh, but in all of our conversations, he never once said I.

He never once said I want this.

He always spoke about we.

We are developing this thing.

We are moving this direction.

I don't know who we is.

I don't know who is financial backers are.

And for that purpose, this unclearness, this non-transparency feels threatening as a farmer, it feels threatening um to what I do on a day-to-day basis.

Um I think the value in agriculture is food, and I don't know what the value of what he plans to put there is.

There's a commodity that is being sold, bought, and eaten on that farm right now, and we have no clue what will come after if this does rezone.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Members of this council.

My name is Josh Patterson.

I live at 3411 Hinkson Creek Road.

Um I come before you.

If you were to orient the map properly north, um, south of the property, the entire south border is my home, is my yard.

It is residential.

It is not another commercial bit.

Um in the original application that I was able to see, they even have it had it mixed match that um IG was to the east and agricultural was to the west.

What do we really know about what's going in here?

Um there's so many questions about this.

I I feel it's almost a little dangerous to go forward with this and lose this farmland that can't be repaired.

And they've been kind of putting up the slides and stuff and showing how we have the corridor, but really that's our last bit of farmland kind of left for the city.

That is the last place where we can actually grow our own food, have our own farms in our population.

And to add on to um kind of bringing forth from the planning and zoning committee, they talked about the uh property not being used for its intended purpose.

There's cows out there right now.

This very minute there are cows out there.

There's a field of um, there's a planted field that they use to feed those cows.

That's what it's being used for.

I thank you for your time.

Esther Ellis, 2309 Nellwood Drive.

One of the considerations that you all have when approving or denying a zoning, rezoning request is the comprehensive use plan.

Um they have noted the economic piece of it, um, but I would like to remind you of some of the other pieces that are part of the comprehensive development plan.

Um, and the principles and goals, um, it lists transportation, which is fairly irrelevant to this conversation, the economic development piece, which was discussed and mentioned.

It also has farmland and rural character, preserve the agricultural and rural heritage of Boone County for future generations goals, maintain and protect the land best suited for agriculture, especially prime farmland farmland and farmland of state significance to remain agricultural, encourage small farmers, especially growers of locally grown produce and products that serve local outlets, evaluate visitor and tourism uses and activities in rural preservation and farm preservation land uses that provide property owners additional income and promote quality of life in the county while respecting rural character and neighboring property owners, help alleviate conflicts between agricultural property and non-agricultural neighboring properties, natural resources, conserve, protect, and restore Boone County's natural habitats and ecologically significant areas.

Goals preserve and protect Boone County's natural habitats and ecologically significant areas, restore ecological habitats, continue to improve water quality through watershed scale planning, reduce future flood-related risks.

It goes on to talk about utilities and infrastructure and housing as the other goals.

There are two that are related specifically to farming and natural resources in preserving that land and protecting it.

You are asked to consider this as a piece of your decision.

Based on what's listed in the code, the economics is only a piece of it.

Um as it is as it serves the community as a tangible resource, as it has been mentioned.

The what it's currently being used for, raising beef, uh fills bellies.

Um rezoning this does not have minimal time, but uh we do have a high rate, or we have about 15% of our uh Boone County population that is food insecure, um about 10% that is food insecure with hunger, which equates to about 10,000 people.

What it currently is doesn't solve the problem, but it can help contribute to filling those stomachs that are hungry.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Eugene Alkin 3406 Rangeline.

Until I was introduced to this tonight, I said, what?

Then I realized I come from the background of agriculture.

My dad, my grandfather ran a business over 40 years here in Boone County as well as the counties around us.

When somebody needs to save agricultural land, we need to all speak up.

The fact that this could be AI, high utility generation or drawing of utilities as well as high usage of water.

Columbia does not have reliable electricity.

I sit here over the years and watched discussions of needing new power lines here on the south end of Columbia.

Barbara was able to correct me in the fact that we do get a circle of utilities through here and return through the city of Fulton, where I thought we were supplying Fulton with utilities.

Every time there's a storm, we wonder will Columbia, Missouri have electricity.

Having worked for AB Chance Company, electric company.

Is that what Columbia needs to eliminate such power outages when something goes awry?

Recently we had the tornado.

I live in a rustic meadows trailer court.

At that point, the wind really did get up.

It's a very good possibility it started right there.

Eugene, can you make sure your comments are about the rezoning discussion?

Thank you.

Have you missed the subject?

Maybe.

Tonight we're talking about are you going to want to rezone a piece of property to turn it into an electrical drainer of utilities, water the people before me have already spoken?

And I'm saying what is right and what is wrong.

We need to discuss the matter in full detail.

It involves our very existence.

This is what they've been saying.

We need to get rid of any polluter that might be coming to the county.

I didn't say they were polluters.

I said heavy usage.

If somebody's going to use heavy usage, that means people may be going without power.

They may be going without water pressure.

You are going to get the city's attention.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Mayor.

Mayor and members of the council.

My name is Paul Land, and I own a business, play as a commercial royalty located at 2501 Bernadette.

Mr.

Gordon Arbuckle, whose family was on this property for over a hundred years, or very near a hundred years, approached me because he decided after a visit back to his hometown that the area had decidedly changed.

That the area was no longer a farmland.

The area was not even appropriate for farmland.

That he saw this as an industrial corridor, which is the same way I see this area.

I think he has a property that is properly positioned both by the state high both by state highways.

It's properly positioned with utilities, properly positioned with access.

And he's owner an owner who is environmentally conscious, willing to dedicate 15 acres of land that will never be developed because it's in he's going to leave it in the agricultural zoning.

So I think you got a pretty cooperative person here.

Anything greater than that requires a requires a cooperative agreement with the utility company.

You're going to be in control of that.

Somebody who's come with a development agreement that's going to use more than what's available, you're going to have privy to, you're going to have privy to a plant.

98 and a half percent of all of our industrial facilities are occupied now.

There's very little opportunity to recruit new business here.

I think it will be a missed opportunity if you don't support this tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Paul.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

Briefly, um I'm Jamie Blair.

I'm with Missouri Rural Crisis Center.

I'm not speaking on behalf of the organization tonight.

However, I would like to speak on behalf of the residents in the area who have spoken so eloquently tonight on their own behalf.

I just wanted to say that I've been organizing for six years.

I've never seen a community come together so quickly and on their own as this community has.

So I think it's really impressive, and I think it speaks to how threatened they feel by this project.

And I think that as a council, um, you definitely have a responsibility to the growth of the city and all of those things.

But I think that we also have to protect and defend what we already have.

And in this case, that's this farmland, and it's these people's way of life.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anybody else from the public wish to speak?

See none.

We'll come to council comments.

Yeah, done.

Not so much a comment.

I'm sorry, this is a question that occurred to me during the comments.

If we rezone this to IG.

Does that preclude someone from purchasing this and leaving it as a farm?

No.

No.

It can be sold and continue to use uh be used as it is right now if it's being used as a farm.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, Vera.

Sorry, never mind.

Okay.

Valerie.

I was going to defer to other council members first.

Um this has opened up a lot of questions for me.

Um I came absolutely expecting to favor IJ zoning.

I do know that we're short on IG zoning.

Um I do see surrounding IG uses as well as surrounding ag uses.

Um what's troublesome to me is the definition of data center as part of light industrial.

Um I don't disagree that it belongs there.

Um I do disagree that we need to make it fit somewhere at this juncture without more scrutiny.

Um that's for a later discussion, granted.

Um having this already defined as permitted under light industrial and having gray area as to how what we will consider a data center and what's going to be part of that use makes it very hard to approve IG zoning because you approve zoning based on the allowable uses within that zoning criteria and their compatibility with surrounding uses.

Um I don't know what I'm approving right now, and that makes it very challenging to approve anything.

Um I think that's very unfortunate.

Um I am of the perspective that we should pull data centers out of as a permitted use and define it as its own permitted use granted under IG.

Um but I think it needs some conditional use and specific criteria to evaluate as a condition, as a conditional use.

Um we haven't done that yet.

So I don't know what I'm approving.

Um that's not a comfortable place for me to be.

Yeah, sorry, I needed to kind of wrap my brain around it.

Um I think uh member of the public, James Gordon really, really pinned a nail on it when um he said it was it was odd to hear that this land is incongruent when it is using its historical purpose that has not changed.

Um also when we can see other active agricultural and residential land surrounding it.

Um maybe not land that is actively addressed on Paris Road, but land that does touch this plot and touch this farmland.

Um it also concerns me how much we had to uh dig to discover the current usage of this land as active agricultural land.

And it is always going to give me pause when we are taking active productive land and potentially permitting more impermeable surfaces, allowing more industrial uses, when we don't know what toll that is going to take on the environment when we don't know what use there will be, so we can't evaluate what potential pollutants will be into the very nearby floodplain and Hinkson Creek.

And I think there are so many factors here that kind of fall into this decision for me that I am having a hard time considering this particular plot for industrial.

Other council comments yet, Donald Trump.

Oh, Nick.

Sorry, other Don.

Well, I I think we often consider rezoning without knowing exactly what's going to happen in that space.

There are there are that's what the UDC does.

It provides guidance as to what is able to be put there.

Is that not correct?

Correct.

Yeah.

I'd say most rezoning, I mean, in its core is is speculative to some nature because no one is held to a specific use unless you're talking about maybe a planned district.

And I know that a data center is inextricably interwoven with this, and I think that we have an opportunity to speak to that separately and to place conditions on that kind of that kind of use.

So the criteria for uh that we talked about earlier are really whether or not the the proposed rezoning is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and uses because it's like we said, it's about the category of uses, not about a specific use when it comes to rezoning a piece of property.

Um so let everyone else have a chance first.

Um I think one of the things that that I I noticed on this and is looking at the comprehensive plan, the land use map, in which the staff report also shows as well.

You know, it shows that the Paris Road is this industrial corridor is the idea.

My question is why except for this one piece?

Because if you see it, it's in the neighborhood district, which I don't imagine I know neighborhood district can mean a lot of things, but why this one piece was left off?

And I know you don't believe you were with planning in 2012 when this when this would have come up, but I'm just wondering if if if staff had done a review of this.

Uh yeah, and I I can speak to that.

And I kind of glossed over probably too quickly, but I would say our our our land use map, our future land use use map, it is not a true future land use map.

We didn't they didn't do a partial by parcel evaluation of what they expected the that land use to be in 10 years.

Really, it was coded for whatever that use was at the time.

And so if it was it had a house on it, if the county declared it to be uh you know residential use, that's what the future land use map illustrated.

So it it it wasn't as future-looking as some you might see in other comprehensive plans.

Uh so that's the reasons it's agriculture.

So I we we don't tend to look at that as the as the decision-making process for what we need to rezone in the future.

It's more about the broader goals.

And then back to what Nancy had said, what the context of the surrounding area and the land use is and what trends we see in that area.

So when staff is making those recommendations then in the staff report to PNZ and they reference the comprehensive plan, they're more referencing the guidelines and goals of the plan rather than the land use map that is this cited.

Typically, yes.

Yeah.

And we'll talk a little bit about like this is a neighborhood district, and sometimes if it is a neighborhood district, we'll talk about the uses that are allowed in that neighborhood district to talk about like you know, kind of nodes of commercial, but in general, uh everything on there was was identified as what that use was, you know, in 2012.

Okay.

And I'll just say, you know, I kind of concur to as we're looking at these, the developments of this on Paris Road.

Uh it seems to me that the applicant is attempting to split the difference.

Like do industrial on the industrial corridor side and agriculture on the more ad agriculture adjacent side.

Am I reading that proposed map correctly?

Uh yeah, I'd say that's accurate.

Okay.

Okay.

Sally, did you have follow-up?

Yes, I do.

It's very important that we understand what's our purview related to rezoning requests.

Yes.

Rezonings are often somewhat speculative.

No, they don't have to declare a use.

I they often don't, and I don't think we should require them to.

However, we always have a list of permissible uses under each zoning category that are defined and we're clear about.

And at this juncture, when there's a zoning request, what we are being asked to do is to decide whether the permissible uses for a zoning category are compatible with surrounding uses.

When there is gray area about what the permissible uses are, it's very challenging to determine whether or not they're compatible.

As something that may be pursued.

And we don't know whether this We don't know how we're defining it because it's not part of our code right now.

This is a problem for me.

It's too undefined.

Any other comments?

All right.

Sheila, will you please call roll on bill 28125?

Council 28125, Ms.

Ample?

No.

Mr.

Foster?

Yes.

Mr.

Waterman?

Yes.

Ms.

Buffalo?

Yes.

Ms.

Carroll?

No.

Ms.

Elwood?

No.

It fails 33.

Yep.

All right.

Moving on.

Sheila, will you please read Bill 2825?

Yes.

Council Bill 2825 is an ordinance granting the issuance of a conditional use permit to PAR5 properties LLC to allow the operation of a short-term rental on property located at 1306 St.

Michael Drive, providing a severability clause and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective.

Second reading.

Yes, thank you.

So again, so we're uh reviewing a conditional use for a potential short-term rental at 1306 St.

Michael Drive.

Uh a little bit of details on this about approximately quarter-acre site.

Uh you can say south side of St.

Michael Drive.

St.

Michael Drive is uh a terminal street.

It does not go through from its access on the east.

Uh the request is for 210 nights uh with eight transient guests.

Again, public hearing uh was published and uh notice was sent to surrounding property owners.

A little bit more broad overview of the site and see that the street does kind of terminate as it goes to the west down St.

Michael Drive.

A picture of the front of the property.

As you can see, uh it is a kind of a one-lane driveway with access to a one-car garage.

Um currently there are two cars parked in there, but uh per staff's analysis that we would consider it to have two parking spaces total, one in the garage uh and one in the driveway.

Um property is zoned R1, uh does have four bedrooms, so the max occupancy could be up to eight.

Um to the 16 parcels around there are uh open for rental purposes, um, but no additional short-term rentals were within that 300-foot boundary.

Uh this site did have nine code violations on on file.

Um, one for the illegal SDR, uh, but also eight were regarding solid waste violations.

And so generally that would be for uh roll carts being left out too long or trash, I think overflowing from uh a uh roll cart or uh other violations that stem from solid waste infractions.

Um the uh the applicant did indicate uh that there is a designated agent.

Um in Columbia, 10 miles away.

Staff did receive eight letters in opposition.

Uh they did cite uh several different concerns regarding uh parking, uh potential pardoning on the site, property maintenance safety, and noise.

Uh and again, we discussed uh the access to the site and the potential parking on that site.

So again, I would note uh it does have two parking spaces on the site, which would be enough for four currently.

The request was for eight.

Uh and that led to a recommendation uh that included a condition uh that they would be allowed to have four transient guests.

Uh but with the addition of uh two additional parking spaces on site would be allowed up to that eight, which was uh part of that request.

Um zoning did evaluate this request.

Uh they did have uh some concerns with uh some of the feedback from the neighbors.

In general, uh they did uh indicate uh that they had concerns really with the kind of context of the neighborhood being on a dead-end street, um, the number of violations uh that were uh regarding or that were on the site, and there was also an additional uh violation, uh shouldn't say violation, but there was a there's a uh police call that was uh related to this site.

It was for uh a tenant misidentified the property and went to the wrong property.

Uh so the police were called um in response to that incident.

Uh there were some concerns with the parking on the request for eight guests with only four spots being available or two spots with four guests being available and and the and the and the likelihood they would be able to include additional two parking spots on that site.

Uh there was concern with, I think the communication with the neighborhood.

Um also that the applicant indicated that they weren't aware of the short-term rental requirement.

So um following some additional conversation by the Plan Zoning Commission, uh a motion to approve the short-term rental failed zero to nine.

So it was denied by Planning and Zoning Commission.

Uh I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Any questions for staff?

Seeing none, does anybody from the public wish to speak on bill two eighty-two twenty-five?

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and staff.

I am Mary Kay Doyle, the owner of 1308 St.

Michael Drive, which is right next door to this property.

I'm a peer, I'm appearing here tonight to give you some information that was included in my letter and then some additional information uh for the application for the uh St.

Michael Drive.

The current owner did not make any contact with me about the new use of this house when he purchased it and try and started using it as an STR.

I usually look for the best of people and for the situation I am presented with.

I believe that property owners should determine the use of their property unless it adversely impacts the neighbors.

However, this request for STR license for 1306 St.

Michael is not coming out that way.

I am concerned about the quiet peacefulness of the neighborhood.

It will and it can become very loud and a difficult place for my tenants and neighbors who live on the dead end of 26-foot block of St.

Michael Drive that has no sidewalk.

Despite the statement that the neighborhood is predominantly rental, there is no excuse to inflict an STR of up to eight unrelated guests on a home.

There's about 1,400 square feet, including the basement.

The application notes that the usual party for the residents is four, and it can go to eight.

During the last four months, there have been more than four, and most likely eight to twelve guests based on the number of cars, trucks parked on the street using this facility.

This number of guests make a lot of noise when they party outside late in the evening.

This is disruptive to the usually quiet family neighborhood.

The requirement for four additional parking spaces on this property will destroy the single family residence ambiance.

That place will look like a parking pad for an apartment.

And it will cause great runoff to all the other properties related to that on that street because of the way that the uh street is organized.

The applicant points out that prior violations are not a prediction.

I'm sorry, the application points out that prior violations are not a prediction of future events.

I disagree with that.

When you have up to eight or more people staying in a 1400 square foot home on a quiet street, the partying will be the same level of noisiness as has occurred in the past.

Also, you when you have to contact the police about an entry to 1308 instead of 1306.

When it takes two letters from the city and three months for the agents to respond to a code violation, according to the application, I am doubtful that the neighborhood continuing to be a quiet refuge for the inhabitants of St.

Michael Drive.

Very good.

You're at time.

I'm at time.

Yeah, do you want to hand us your public comment?

We'll make sure we have it.

I'm sorry.

Do you want to hand us what you wrote out and we'll make sure to have it?

Or you can help.

I'll take.

Thank you.

Please vote no on this application.

Thank you.

I'm available for questions if you wish.

That's where she left.

That's it.

Okay.

Thank you.

My name is Edward Doyle, and I am the daughter, uh I'm excuse-I'm the son of uh Mary Keel who just spoke.

I live at 1308 St.

Michael Drive.

Uh I wasn't I I sort of knew it was a short-term rental, but I wasn't quite sure.

Uh it has been very clear to me it is.

Uh I lived and I had a conflict, and couldn't I be at finding Zoe Ming on October 9th?

Um together.

My brother and I submit a letter, which isn't the correspondence, it's two pages.

Um we uh didn't and I went back and I looked at my photos that we filed a police report on, and we filed uh the guy filed the police report, and there's between on the 9th and 10th uh and 11th, there's about 68 cars uh in front uh in the driveway, two in the driveway, and five on out on the road on both sides.

I had I go to work, and I usually leave at 7 o'clock in the morning or 7.15.

I had to very carefully throw my way through cars since they're on both sides of the street.

And at one point I almost pulled out of the driveway after they moved some of the cars around and back into one of the cars because it's so close.

Um I think my brother said, well, I think the play playing is only got right when they voted 9-0 to reject this.

I urge you to um listen to what they had to say.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Would anybody else wish to speak on Bill 282 25?

Hello, I'm Marilyn Brown, and I live I don't live on St.

Michael Street, but I live on the street over next to it, St.

Andrew Street.

Um I have concerns in addition to what has been said about the safety, safety in the neighborhood.

There are a lot of families there with smaller children or with middle-aged, school-aged children, et cetera.

And they we have no sidewalks in that neighborhood at all.

Um and these children play in the street, you know.

Um, they ride their bicycles.

Uh the little ones have their little uh battery operated cars or things, you know, and uh a lot of older people, and well, all people walk uh along the street, and then people walk their dogs.

Um so we all have to use the street, even the pedestrians.

Um there is where St.

Michael comes, there is kind of a strange kind of four-way stop, you know, but it's it's kind of hidden with in places it's not it's not an exact uh parallel kind of thing.

It's kind of catty-cornered, and it um it's sometimes blinding, you know, you don't see as quickly as you would if it was just uh parallel the the streets were per, you know, just like this.

In fact, it's just more like this.

So um I have a uh real concern about that.

And then um the backyards to the house of my neighbors across the street, and that are I mean, you can just see in the windows even.

They're so close together.

So thank you.

That's all I have.

Thank you.

Would anybody else from the public wish to speak on Bill 2825?

I'm Colton.

Um I am the person right behind that property or backyards butt up to each other.

Um sit out there on the front porch, watch the kids go by.

There are a lot of a lot of foot traffic, kind of concerned with as Marilyn was saying with the youngsters pulling their wagons and the bicycles and no sidewalks up and down there.

Everybody's walking on the streets.

St.

Michael's is a dead end road.

You start getting a bunch of cars in there and back out to that odd intersection and get turnaround and go around in circles.

But we're definitely against it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak on bill two eighty-two twenty-five?

Seeing none, we'll go to council comments.

Any comments from council?

Don.

Again, a question that occurred to me, and I apologize.

It mentions the eight violations for solid waste in the council memo says during during the time that it was operated as an STR.

Are we talking two years, three years?

Do we have any ideas to what kind of time frame we're talking about for those eight violations?

But I can I can double check that if we have a moment.

And if you can't find it quickly, don't worry about it.

Thanks.

Well, this is in my ward, and I've heard from the residents for a while about this, and I've been following it.

It's an easy vote for me to deny.

That's the recommendation we have from planning and zoning and uh upon the staff upon that vote, staff's recommendation also is denial.

Uh so that's the way I'll be voting.

I don't know if you found that data that Don.

Yeah, so the report didn't mention that it's been operated as a short-term rental since uh 2022.

July of 2022.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm gonna go along.

I'm normally a very supportive of STRs, but this one, given the given the history here, yeah, this one is gonna be hard.

No.

Yeah, and I'll just make one note.

Um, you know, I think this this example is one of the good ones for as we're talking about changes to the STRs.

Um we want to make sure that we're being clear and consistent.

If some of these things go to be administrative, because in the original staff report, it does suggest approval, but probably because you hadn't heard from all the community members yet.

So I think when we think about that, that's a part that we should be considering um for the next steps.

And then the other other one I would say is that um I'm usually um and in and in this case as well, against paving people's front yards to create more parking.

So um I was surprised to see that they then were also trying to do the eight that would require the additional parking.

I feel like that would have been the limitation that you're restricted to four.

So just putting that out there.

All right.

Oh, yeah, Val.

Yeah, thank you.

Um I was gonna comment on that off-street parking too.

Um, as we're considering changes to this.

I would like there to be a way to waive that requirement under some kind of con some kind of consideration.

Because this is at least the second, possibly third time it's come up.

Oh, yeah.

Sorry.

Super super brief.

Um I just also want to say in hearing the public comment and then also reading through the letters.

Um, I am even more excited to be moving forward with our eventual 24-7 helpline for STRs, as I saw repeatedly that the neighbors have been having complaints and issues with this property for as long as it has been an STR and have not known who or how to reach out for assistance on that until the one instance it escalated to the level of police involvement.

They couldn't find the owner, they couldn't track down anyone to complain to.

Um, and this is really their first opportunity to tell us what has been plaguing their neighborhood for a few years now.

Um so I am excited that we will be able to prevent the a similar ish issue from recurring in other neighborhoods with that service.

Chi Louie, please call roll on bill two eighty-two twenty-five.

Council two eighty-two twenty-five, Ms.

Sample?

No.

Mr.

Foster.

No.

Mr.

Waterman.

No.

Ms.

Buffalo, no.

Ms.

Carroll?

No.

Ms.

Sellwood?

No.

Defeated.

All right.

Moving on.

Sheila, will you please read Bill 29425?

Council Bill 29425 is an ordinance amending chapter two of the city code to establish a collegiate advisory council and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective.

I think I'm the staff report on this one.

This is so this uh staff created or drafted this uh as a proposal upon my request to council about forming a collegiate advisory council.

Um this was as a result of um conversations that I had had with student leadership across uh the campuses in Columbia about concerns over uh their voice not being heard as we talk about um issues related to safety, uh transportation, uh housing, uh, and how important it was to have their voices part of this.

Uh it's views at viewed as an advisory council that would meet during the academic year.

Um basically it's taking our youth advisory council and moving it up to the next the next age bracket, if you will.

Um so eligibility is for student membership from the University of Missouri, Columbia College, Stevens College, and Mobile Area Community College, uh, the Columbia campus, since they're all involved with um uh our our city, our city involvement and in working with us.

Um the plan is for appointments to follow, similar to our other boards and commissions where we'll have the online application.

Um but we will be encouraging it to be pushed out via this the the traditional communication strategies for the universities as well as through if there's a student body government for having them suggest appointees, and then it will come to council um for appointments.

Um the hope is is that maybe we'll be able to have our first meeting in January if this passes and if the applications we get enough in uh so that we could potentially meet uh once the winter or spring semester starts again.

Are there any council questions?

Yeah, Vera.

I was wondering and I'd want you know council input.

I was wondering if if we would be open to potentially creating like a uh uh position that would be open to a student from any campus, whether that is a satellite campus for a university other than the ones named here in town, or I know we have a high population of students from uh universities in neighboring towns that live in Columbia because we have available housing, as ironic as that sounds to some of us in this room.

Um or students who may be studying online distance but living in Columbia, um, who would still be affected by many of these policies but might not go to one of those four institutions.

I think for me, I might want to start with just the four to start it.

You know, just figure this out.

Because I also when you mentioned to me, like some of the other satellite campuses.

I was like, I didn't even realize that you know, so I I worry about if it's too broad, then how do we make sure that we're trying to target who we're advertising to to go out?

That would just be my my initial thinking.

And I also think about the uh institutions that normally we are working with.

Um that said, I think for some of these issues, I think advertising other boards and commissions that we also have uh to a broader public that maybe is not necessarily paying attention to board and commission opportunities.