OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

City Council Meeting Summary - February 4, 2026

Video Archive — Wednesday, February 4, 2026
BodyColumbia, Missouri
SessionVideo Archive
DateWednesday, February 4, 2026
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 5:31:01

Transcript — Verbatim
2:00

I'm just giving everybody a note that the live stream appears to not be working.

2:04

We are broadcasting, but the live stream, so in case any of your friends at home are texting you, they're trying to get it fixed, and we will put up the full video afterwards.

2:12

So with that.

2:13

Might take a couple days, but it'll get there.

2:16

Yes.

2:16

All right.

2:16

Well, I'm gonna go ahead and call the Monday, February 2nd, 2026, uh regular city council meeting to order.

2:23

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

2:30

I pledge allegiance to the fly.

2:38

One issue under God with liberty regime justice for all.

2:46

I finally stopped.

2:47

All right, Sheila, will you please call roll?

2:49

Miss Carroll.

2:50

Here.

2:51

Miss Elwood.

2:52

Here, Miss Sample.

2:54

Here.

2:54

Mr.

2:54

Foster.

2:55

Mr.

2:56

Waterman.

2:57

Here.

2:57

Miss Peters.

2:58

Here.

2:58

Miss Buffalo.

3:00

Here.

3:01

All right.

3:01

Well, good evening.

3:03

Um, so I I like to I've started doing a little overview of our agenda just to explain for if this is your first meeting, as well as talking about opportunities for public comment at city council meetings.

3:12

So up first, if you're looking at the agenda in front of you, items listed under the consent agenda do not normally have a staff presentation on them, and we don't normally have public comment on it.

3:23

Um then for items listed under introduction and first reading, if they have an asterisk, that means they would go on the consent agenda at the next meeting.

3:30

Um items under intro that do not have an asterisk would be on old business at our next council meeting, and they would have the opportunity for public comment.

3:38

I say that to also say anyone can request something to come off of the consent agenda and put it on to the old or new business.

3:44

Um then you would have public comment.

3:46

Uh and then the public have multiple opportunities uh to speak at our council meetings under public hearing, old business and new business portions of the agenda.

3:54

I do remind people to give keep their remarks to the legislation that we are discussing.

3:59

At the end of the meeting, you can talk about whatever you want to talk about for three minutes, but usually when we're talking about legislation, please keep the comments to the legislation we're discussing.

4:07

Uh individuals are allotted three minutes.

4:09

Representatives of organizations that are affected by the legislation being discussed may request an additional two minutes.

4:16

I ask that you let me acknowledge that so that our timekeepers can also do that for us as well.

4:21

I also be mindful over things that have a lot of public comment to be mindful.

4:24

You don't have to take your full three minutes if you don't want to, or your full five if you don't want to as well.

4:29

But I do ask people that they respect the time limits so that it's fair and everyone has an opportunity to speak.

4:34

We want to give every single person who wants to talk at our Columbia Council meeting an opportunity to speak.

4:38

Um I do ask that we not try to be here until Tuesday, but if you want to keep your comments from I appreciate that.

4:45

I also ask that we don't do any sort of demonstrations that intimidate a neighbor from speaking.

4:49

We want to hear from every voice.

4:51

We also want to make sure that we are addressing issues, not individuals, and please refrain from personal attacks on one another, and that includes city staff.

5:00

So disruptions would be addressed with a warning and if necessary removal and recess, which we have not had to do yet, so thank you.

5:05

All right, moving on to the regular part of our agenda.

5:08

Um our minutes.

5:09

We have uh no minutes to approve because they're not complete yet, and we're okay with that, Sheila.

5:15

All right, moving on to the agenda.

5:17

Um do we have any adjustments to the agenda?

5:20

Okay, I'll make a motion to approve uh the agenda as posted.

5:25

Do I have a second?

5:26

Second.

5:27

Second by Don Waterman.

5:28

All those in favor say aye.

5:30

Aye.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Public Safety████████████████████████████████32%
Transportation Safety███████████████15%
Homelessness███████████████15%
Public Engagement██████████10%
Procedural█████████9%
Disability Rights███3%
Community Engagement███3%
Public Works██2%
Capital Improvement Planning██2%
Summary of Proceedings

City Council Meeting Summary - February 4, 2026

The City Council of Columbia met on February 4, 2026, to discuss, amend, and vote on pedestrian safety legislation and receive reports on homelessness, police reviews, and historic preservation. The meeting featured extensive amendments to Bill 26525, aimed at restricting standing on medians, following a contentious public comment period where positions ranged from strong support for safety to concerns over impacts on homelessness, disability rights, and free speech. The council also voted to authorize a new strategic planning process for homelessness services.

Consent Calendar

  • Routine approvals and unanimous actions, with minor exceptions: Council approved a bundle of bills (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 of 2026) and resolutions (16-26 of 2026), with Council Members Carroll and Elwood voting 'no' on Bill 26-26 (Resolution 26-26) and Bill 26-26 (Resolution 26-27) respectively.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Position: Full Support for Ordinance

    • Timmy (Chamber of Commerce Rep): Expressed full support for the ordinance and amendments, arguing it protects public safety without restricting legitimate activity and is vital for the local economy.
    • Bruce Summers: Shared personal anecdotes of near-tragedies involving people in medians, expressing support for the ordinance as a necessary safety measure.
    • Tom Traby (Realtors Board): Supported the ordinance as a balanced, evidence-based tool for Vision Zero, though criticized Amendment 4 for watering down the original draft.
    • Jim Meyer: Supported the ordinance, citing the safety risks of unconscious individuals in medians and the viability of alternative protest locations.
    • Ken Rice (Disability Commission): Expressed support, viewing the ordinance as an interim safety measure that protects disabled residents from being blocked by panhandlers, while acknowledging infrastructure needs.
    • Tanya Heath: Supported the ordinance while suggesting an accompanying advertising campaign to help the unhoused population.
    • Ted Farnon: Expressed full support, dismissing opposition as political noise and arguing that the ordinance is constitutionally sound and necessary for common sense safety.
    • Carrie Gartner (Business Loop CID): Supported the ordinance, citing near-misses and student safety, noting that medians are currently unsafe due to panhandlers.
    • John Shin: Supported the ordinance, stating medians are designed for temporary refuge, not long-term residence or panhandling.

  • Position: Opposition to Ordinance

    • Doug Hunt (Citizens Police Review Board): Expressed opposition to the restrictions placed on the CPRB (a separate item), urging the council to reverse September 2024 limitations to restore robust civilian oversight of police.
    • Sarah Reid: Expressed strong opposition to the 2016 pause on the transmission line, urging the council to approve the line immediately to restore grid reliability and save millions in sunk costs.
    • Alphonso (Citizens Police Review Board Rep): Urged the council to reverse restrictions on the CPRB to restore its ability to comment on police policies and training.
    • Alison Calkins & Ashton Buckridge (VidWest/Film Club): Expressed gratitude for VidWest support for students; no direct policy position, but highlighted the need for community resources.
    • Alejandro Gallardo: Expressed strong opposition to the pedestrian ordinance, arguing it shifts blame to disabled and vulnerable pedestrians rather than fixing infrastructure.
    • Julie Shoop: Expressed opposition to the pedestrian ordinance, stating that allowing panhandling in medians is a short-term fix that endangers the homeless, but the ordinance still fails to address root causes.
    • Catherine Armbrist (Coma Mobile Aid): Expressed opposition, stating the ordinance is "ugly," targets the homeless, and fails to address infrastructure; urged the council to value people over property.
    • Derek Fogel: Expressed opposition, concerned the ordinance would force protesters and homeless individuals to cross intersections more frequently, increasing danger.
    • Kristen (Ward 5): Expressed opposition to the pedestrian ordinance, arguing it fails to commit to infrastructure improvements and still punishes users for inadequate infrastructure.
    • Ida Fogle: Expressed opposition, citing driver inattention as the primary danger and noting conflicts with the ordinance regarding litter cleanup.
    • Bill: Expressed opposition, arguing the ordinance criminalizes the act of survival for the homeless and fails to address root accident factors.
    • Anthony Wellroth: Expressed opposition, arguing the bill takes a "directionally backwards" approach by focusing on enforcement rather than infrastructure or driver liability.
    • Shane Lowe: Expressed opposition, suggesting exceptions for snow/debris clearing to avoid criminalizing community members helping neighbors.
    • Elizabeth Bridges: Expressed opposition, describing the ordinance as "bullying disguised as public safety."
    • Simon Macman: Expressed opposition, arguing the ordinance targets the homeless and will prolong homelessness by criminalizing survival.
    • Drew Amaday (Missouri Jobs with Justice): Expressed opposition, stating the ordinance targets marginalized communities and contradicts the city's diversity values.
    • Ada Growhering: Expressed opposition, characterizing the ordinance as culturally genocidal against the homeless community.
    • Matthew Schacht: Expressed opposition (initially), urging the council to communicate better with the community to bridge the divide.
    • Mike Burden (Local Motion): Expressed opposition, arguing the ordinance punishes vulnerable road users rather than fixing the car-centric infrastructure design.
    • Pat Fowler: Expressed opposition, arguing the ordinance denies the human right to self-preservation while long-term housing solutions are unavailable.
    • Matthew Struck: Expressed opposition, stating the data does not support the ordinance and it places an unfair enforcement burden on police.
    • Catherine Armbrist: Expressed opposition, warning of liability and stating the ordinance is about power and control.
    • Alex Bohan: Expressed opposition, citing lack of support from key commissions and the failure of the data to support enforcement of motorists.
    • Keith Clayton: Expressed opposition and disgust, stating the ordinance finds people who are "undesirable" and does not address heat stroke or medical issues.
    • Justin Sills: Expressed opposition, stating the bill fails on both facts and compassion.

  • Position: Mixed/Contextual

    • Renee Carter (Race Matters): Expressed opposition to the bill but support for the ordinance's amendments; corrected data regarding median accidents, clarifying they occurred near medians during crossing, not on them.
    • Rebecca Rosslet (Health Dept): Supported the strategic planning process but did not explicitly endorse the ordinance itself in her testimony.

Discussion Items

  • Bill 26525 (Pedestrian Safety Ordinance):
    • Staff Presentation: Director Shane Creech and Chief Jill Saluti presented the ordinance, citing study data (29.2% of crashes involved pedestrians at medians) and the need to address unsafe behaviors like remaining in medians.
    • Amendments Passed:
      • Amendment 1: Added a requirement for the Director of Public Works to post a schedule of enforced medians on the city website.
      • Amendment 2: Modified the definition of inaccessible crosswalks to include conditions rendering them unsafe, removing the specific phrase "with a disability" to broaden applicability to any impassable condition.
      • Amendment 3: Clarified enforcement standards, defining "legal crossing" to include two consecutive opportunities to cross and adding specific exceptions for disabilities, mobility limitations, and safety considerations. The conjunction "and" was replaced with "or" to broaden the scope of prohibited locations (major corridor OR median < 6ft).
      • Amendment 4: Modified the prohibition of pedestrians on roadways to explicitly allow crossing when sidewalks are inaccessible or unsafe due to obstruction or disrepair.
      • Amendment 5: Removed the "distribution conduct" definition to separate pedestrian safety from motorist distribution issues, renumbering sections A and B to 6 and 7.
      • Amendment 6 (Added): Added an exception for cyclists lawfully operating under Article 7.
      • Amendment 7 (Added): Delayed the effective date of the ordinance from passage to July 1, 2026.
    • Public Debate: Council members and staff debated the enforceability of "immediate traffic hazards," the impact on First Amendment protests, the rights of cyclists, and the relationship between the ordinance and infrastructure improvements (specifically regarding MODOT roads).
  • Homelessness Strategic Plan:
    • Report: Public Health Director Rebecca Rosslet presented a report on the 10-year outlook for homelessness and the city's investment in services.
    • Discussion: Council debated the need for a new strategic plan to identify gaps in the continuum of care, with Council Member Betsy Elwood expressing frustration that the city is constantly reacting rather than planning proactively.
  • Citizens Police Review Board (CPRB) Annual Report:
    • Report: Presented by Stephanie Brown. The board reviewed 6 appeals in 2025, a decrease from 15 in 2024.
    • Discussion: Council Members Vera Sample and Don Foster expressed interest in revisiting the CPRB powers in light of Doug Hunt's testimony, noting that other Missouri cities (Ferguson, Kansas City) have broader powers.
  • Risk Management Move:
    • Discussion: Council Member Valerie requested a report on why risk management moved from Finance to the Law Department. City Manager DeKarlin explained the shift was to align legal liability and worker's comp oversight with legal expertise, noting Columbia's unique self-insured status.
  • Transmission Line:
    • Mention: Council noted that the next work session (Feb 9, 2026) will cover the transmission line issue raised by Sarah Reid.

Key Outcomes

  • Bill 26525 Passed: The pedestrian safety ordinance, as amended, passed with the following vote tally: 4 Yes (Carroll, Elwood, Foster, Peters, Waterman, Buffalo), 2 No (Carroll, Elwood). Correction: Based on roll call, Carroll and Elwood voted No on specific bills but the final vote on 26525 saw 6 Yes and 1 No (Foster). Clarification from transcript: The roll call for Bill 26525 showed: Carroll (No), Elwood (No), Sample (Yes), Foster (Yes), Waterman (Yes), Peters (Yes), Buffalo (Yes). Result: 6 Yes, 2 No. The ordinance passed and is effective July 1, 2026.
  • Homelessness Strategy Authorized: Council voted unanimously (6 Yes, 0 No) to authorize staff to proceed with a five-year homelessness strategic planning process, potentially including an RFP for a third-party facilitator.
  • CPRB Review Flagged: Council agreed to revisit the CPRB powers, potentially requesting a report or waiting for state legislative changes to inform future actions.
  • Risk Management Report Denied: Council voted 4 No to 3 Yes to decline a formal report comparing Columbia's risk management structure to peer cities, accepting the City Manager's explanation.
  • Consent Items: Approved with noted exceptions (No votes from Carroll and Elwood on two specific items in the consent bundle).

Meeting Transcript

I'm just giving everybody a note that the live stream appears to not be working. We are broadcasting, but the live stream, so in case any of your friends at home are texting you, they're trying to get it fixed, and we will put up the full video afterwards. So with that. Might take a couple days, but it'll get there. Yes. All right. Well, I'm gonna go ahead and call the Monday, February 2nd, 2026, uh regular city council meeting to order. And by all those who are able to please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the fly. One issue under God with liberty regime justice for all. I finally stopped. All right, Sheila, will you please call roll? Miss Carroll. Here. Miss Elwood. Here, Miss Sample. Here. Mr. Foster. Mr. Waterman. Here. Miss Peters. Here. Miss Buffalo. Here. All right. Well, good evening. Um, so I I like to I've started doing a little overview of our agenda just to explain for if this is your first meeting, as well as talking about opportunities for public comment at city council meetings. So up first, if you're looking at the agenda in front of you, items listed under the consent agenda do not normally have a staff presentation on them, and we don't normally have public comment on it. Um then for items listed under introduction and first reading, if they have an asterisk, that means they would go on the consent agenda at the next meeting. Um items under intro that do not have an asterisk would be on old business at our next council meeting, and they would have the opportunity for public comment. I say that to also say anyone can request something to come off of the consent agenda and put it on to the old or new business. Um then you would have public comment. Uh and then the public have multiple opportunities uh to speak at our council meetings under public hearing, old business and new business portions of the agenda. I do remind people to give keep their remarks to the legislation that we are discussing. At the end of the meeting, you can talk about whatever you want to talk about for three minutes, but usually when we're talking about legislation, please keep the comments to the legislation we're discussing. Uh individuals are allotted three minutes. Representatives of organizations that are affected by the legislation being discussed may request an additional two minutes. I ask that you let me acknowledge that so that our timekeepers can also do that for us as well. I also be mindful over things that have a lot of public comment to be mindful. You don't have to take your full three minutes if you don't want to, or your full five if you don't want to as well. But I do ask people that they respect the time limits so that it's fair and everyone has an opportunity to speak. We want to give every single person who wants to talk at our Columbia Council meeting an opportunity to speak. Um I do ask that we not try to be here until Tuesday, but if you want to keep your comments from I appreciate that. I also ask that we don't do any sort of demonstrations that intimidate a neighbor from speaking. We want to hear from every voice. We also want to make sure that we are addressing issues, not individuals, and please refrain from personal attacks on one another, and that includes city staff. So disruptions would be addressed with a warning and if necessary removal and recess, which we have not had to do yet, so thank you. All right, moving on to the regular part of our agenda.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com