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.

Um our minutes.

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

All right, moving on to the agenda.

Um do we have any adjustments to the agenda?

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

Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Don Waterman.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

All right.

Well, up first, our first item of business is a special item, and that is a resolution of appreciation for Carol Rhodes, who is retiring from work from the City of Columbia.

So, Carol, if you would join me at the podium.

Remind me to turn it back around.

Okay.

Well, hi, let's go here.

All right, so we have a resolution of appreciation uh honoring the long-term service of Carol Rhodes, who is our assistant to the city, our assistant city manager.

Whereas Carol Rhodes began her employment as secretary to the city manager on August 8th, 1994, and was promoted to the assistant to the city manager on March 4th, 1996, which has later classified to assistant city manager on February 1st, 2012.

And whereas Carol Rhodes will retire from employment with the City of Columbia on February 13th, 2026, after over 31 years of dedicated and honorable service to the benefit of all of Columbia citizens.

And whereas Carol Rhodes has maintained the highest standards of professionalism and personal conduct, and whereas it is the desire of the mayor and council to recognize and thank Carol Rhodes for her service and assistance to this and former city councils.

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the city council extends its heartfelt thanks to Carol Rhodes for her dedicated public service and her commitment to keeping Columbia a viable city.

We wish her much joy, happiness, and good health in this retirement.

Congratulations.

Just kidding.

I want to thank you, Mayor, Council members, for this um recognition tonight, DeKarlin, department heads.

I see you all standing in the back.

You're not hiding, um, who are here tonight.

I am extremely proud of the accomplishments that we've made for during the past um 31 years.

And these accomplishments didn't did not happen in a silo.

It required collaboration and teamwork.

And I want to thank all of you for your support.

I stand here tonight filled with profound gratitude for the opportunity to serve this community for over 30 years.

What an honor and a privilege it has been.

This evening, I would like to give thanks to a few very special individuals.

For if not for them, I would not be standing here tonight.

While my parents could not be here tonight, they are watching or will be watching from my hometown of Kelso, Missouri.

My mom and dad planted and nurtured the seeds that built a strong foundation for their four children.

And by working together, they built our lives on values such as honesty, integrity, and a strong work ethic.

Together they made a lot of sacrifices for our family, and I firmly believe, without a doubt, that the sacrifices they made throughout their lives allowed me to flourish in ways I never dreamed possible.

Mom and dad, you are one of the greatest blessings in my life, and I love you.

Former city manager Ray Beck.

Mr.

Beck, for those of you that don't know, Mr.

Beck.

You trusted your instincts, and you invited a small town girl from Kelsa from Southeast Missouri to join the city manager's office.

I had no idea at the time what I was walking into, and it's probably a good damn thing.

For 12 years, we worked side by side, assembling council agenda packets, attending all council meetings, off Monday work sessions, council retreats, staff meetings, and the list goes on.

It was through your actions that you taught me the essential qualities of effective leadership.

I am incredibly grateful for your patience and your willingness to take a chance on me.

The time I've spent at the city has been extremely rewarding, and I cannot thank you enough for hiring me in 1994.

Thank you for being here.

When I doubted myself, you encouraged me to be strong and pushed forward to become the best version of myself.

You reminded me that we are all capable of greatness, and I believe that to be true.

Your gentle push and encouragement gave me the confidence I needed to take that leap, which led me to where I am today.

You are my rock.

You have kept me grounded when I needed it most.

Thank you, John, for loving me, supporting me, and walking along alongside me.

I love you.

And lastly, while I may be retiring from the City of Columbia, my journey certainly does not end here.

I look forward to starting a beautiful new chapter, whatever that might be, and wherever it might lead me.

Thank you all.

Peace out.

Well, peace out, Carol.

Thank you for that.

All right.

Up next on our agenda, we have uh scheduled public comment.

So members of the public can contact the city and manager's office by noon on.

Well, it's just changed, but at this one, it was noon by the Wednesday before the council meeting to schedule public comment.

They cannot be on items uh that are on the same night's agenda except for in the report section.

So of note it has been the typical practice of city council to ask for additional follow-up of questions asked tonight of staff at the end of the meeting if it's Warrington.

So tonight we have three scheduled public comments, so I'd like to first ask Doug Hunt to come forward to speak.

Good evening.

I'm Doug Hunt from Fourth Ward, and I'm here this evening as a representative of the Citizens Police Review Board, so I think that's a five-minute.

After much discussion and a unanimous vote, the Citizens Police Review Board is asking the City Council to reverse an action taken during its September 3rd, 2024 meeting.

At that meeting, council limited the powers and duties of the CPRB in a number of ways.

It narrowed the range of complaints that the board could act on.

It eliminated, for instance, the board's ability to hear citizens' appeals about racially biased policing and appeals about inappropriate searches and seizures.

It eliminated the board's authority to comment on police department policies or the training of officers.

And it prohibited the board from hosting public meetings to discuss such matters.

With its powers restricted this way, the board has struggled to provide a level of civilian oversight consistent with its purpose of increasing police accountability to the community and community trust in the police.

And I need hardly say that we live in a time when increasing police accountability to the community and community trust in the police is terribly important.

Changes to the board's duties and powers were made on the advice of the city's legal department, whose opinion was that they were required by changes in state law, in particular section 590.653 of the revised statutes of Missouri.

Now we have received information indicating that other cities in Missouri responded very differently to those changes.

They continue to host public information sessions on law enforcement matters.

They continue to make findings on allegations of misconduct that lie outside the four categories specified in the new state law.

It seems unlikely that the Ferguson and Kansas City oversight bodies continuing to have such broad powers is the result of bad legal advice, particularly since the executive director in Kansas City is himself a lawyer well-versed in such matters.

In light of the difficulties in providing robust oversight under the restrictions imposed on September 3rd, 2024, and in light of the fact that other Missouri cities have not perceived such restrictions as necessary, we urge the City Council to lift these restrictions.

Thank you, Doug.

I now like to ask Sarah Reid to please come forward to speak.

Hi, Sarah Reid, 3802 Bedford Drive.

I hope most of you will agree with me that one of the essential functions of government is to provide for the safety, health, and welfare of its people.

Unfortunately, the council failed in this duty 10 years ago when it paused the construction of the transmission line along the Naiphong Voder School Road.

Council paused that line despite the fact that it had been extensively studied, approved by council and voters, was on time, on budget, and was needed to ensure the long-term reliability of our electric service.

That's the service that heats and cools our homes, powers our electronics, and is relied on by us in many other ways.

It's directly tied to our health, safety, and welfare.

Council paused the line for political reasons.

No engineering study, no cost-benefit study, and no other evidence supported the pause.

Council did this because one neighborhood-packed meeting.

Council paused the line without adequate notice to the thousands of voters who approved it, without full disclosure to the customers whose rates had already been increased by 3% to pay for the line, and without adequate notice to its staff that it was considering such a drastic action.

Since the pause, the city has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on reviews by consultants, all of whom failed to identify a better alternative, and all of whom, in one way or another, confirmed the need and the route.

Council in the next few weeks and months has the opportunity to put that construction back on track.

I am not exaggerating when I say that the pause has been costly for the public.

In addition to the consulting costs, we lost millions in sunk costs.

We paid millions more in interest on the bonds that were issued to build the line without getting the promised return.

We incurred significant costs associated with various workarounds to strengthen various points in the system, such as creating greater reserves for downtown, none of which would have been necessary if the line had been built.

And in the interim, the costs of construction have also increased.

We're talking millions and millions of dollars.

The PAWs also raised our risk, and he wrote it the reliability of our system.

Due to the pause, we have silently shifted from a standard of ensuring reliability through the planning and building of reliable infrastructure to a standard of using rolling blackouts as needed to protect the overall grid.

I think most of us would agree that planning for rolling blackouts is not planning for safe and reliable service.

This shift in standard and decline in reliability has been documented in the annual transmission assessments that water and light is required to prepare and provide to the Northern Electric Reliability Council in December of each year.

I began requesting copies of these reports in 2016.

Well, 2016, the plan was we're building a transmission line.

By 2017, uh, well, that transmission line appears to have been canceled.

By 2018, there started to be redactions in the confidential information that documented risks to the system.

By 2023, redactions were throughout this report.

For example, assessment of conclusions, a page of redactions, another page of reaction, another half page of redactions at the end.

Loads could be shed if needed in any extreme events category case.

I could show you later in the report four pages of redactions with contingencies.

When I recently requested a copy, I was told the document was closed in its entirety.

Apparently, I couldn't even get the cover page in the table of contents.

I can only conclude that the denial of even a redacted version of this report is further evidence that the failure to build the transmission line is significantly eroded the reliability of our electric system.

That information should not be hidden from the public.

We need a transmission line.

They're not built overnight.

The work is overdue.

Ongoing delay is costly and harmful.

You have a chance to get it back on track.

Kicking the can down the road will only continue to raise risk, and it's costly.

So we're asking you to approve the line and move forward.

Thank you, Sarah.

And now I'd like to ask Ash Ashton Buckridge and Alison Calkins to come forward to speak.

Good evening.

My name is Alison Calkins.

I'm Ashton Buckridge.

And today we are here to talk to you about how Vidwest has impacted the members of Hickman High School's Film Club.

To introduce ourselves, I'm currently a freshman at Mowbray Area Community College.

I previously attended Hickman High School, where I was a founding member of Hickman's Film Club.

I've been a Vidwest member since June 2024, as well as becoming a registered apprentice this past year.

I volunteered to work on local live streams and sets through Vidwest, allowing me to learn practical filmmaking skills.

And I'm currently a senior at Hickman High School.

I'm the current president of Hickman's Film Club, and I've personally worked on six projects through Vidwest, including short films, comedy sketches, and concert live streams.

Now that you know who we are, let's talk about uh how Hickman Film Club, what Hickman Film Club is.

Hickman Film Club is an extracurricular which focuses on storytelling.

It was started in October of 2024, giving students a free space to learn, create films, and tell their stories.

This club allows students to find what aspect of filmmaking they are most passionate about and deepen their experience in it.

We currently have 15 members and have made a total of two short films, and we're currently working on our third.

Some of these short films have been submitted to film festivals throughout Missouri.

But the most important thing you need to know is that none of this would be possible without BidWest.

Both years of film club have been dependent on the equipment rentals that Vidwest provides.

Whether it was lighting, cameras, or audio equipment, Vidwest has always provided us with the tools we needed.

One third of all film club members use VidWest for their own personal projects as well.

VidWest has helped so many high school students find a creative outlet that is desperately needed.

VidWest has also affected both of us very personally in a lot of different ways.

In my senior year of high school, I was really inspired to create a space where students could learn about filmmaking, connect with others, and share their creativity.

But filmmaking was fresh to me.

I didn't know what equipment to use, let alone how to work it.

Because of VidWest, I was not only able to rent equipment that I otherwise couldn't afford, but also got educated in how to use it.

Through my time working with VidWest, I've gotten to pursue many exciting opportunities, such as working on sets and live streams, making incredible connections with student crew and teachers.

I'm so thankful for what VidWest provides, and truly I do not know where I would be without them.

Outside of film club, VidWest has helped me in a lot of ways academically.

I've used equipment rented from VidWest for college application films, and I've used experience from VidWest on my college resumes.

I know personally that neither of us would be here without Vidwest.

But it's not just about the two of us standing up here, it's about Film Club.

Over the last year, I've seen Film Club develop into an amazing community of young filmmakers.

Before I joined Film Club, I would eat lunch alone in my cars, and it truly has been one of the biggest reasons I've made the friends I've made.

And it's helped me and so many others socially.

It gives high school students an expressive and most importantly, safe thing to do during their weekends and after school.

A large part of what makes Vid Film Club so special comes from the equipment and training that Vidwest provides.

We hope that you take our experiences with VidWest into consideration.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right, moving on.

We have no public hearings this evening, so we'll get to old business.

Um 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 corridor, roadways, and major corridor intersections, and fixing the time when this ordinance shall become effective.

Third reading.

All right.

Yeah, um, it'll be it'll be brief.

Um good evening, uh Shane Creech, uh Director of Public Works.

With me is Jill Saluti, she's the chief of police.

Um just a quick um timeline on the pedestrian safety ordinance.

Um in on December 16th, 2024, a report was presented to council which provided some information regarding pedestrians and medians.

Um March 17th of 2025, City Council approved a contract with CBB to conduct a street intersection pedestrian safety study.

And in on June 16th, the pre-council work session was held to share the preliminary preliminary results of the study.

On November 17th, 2025, a draft ordinance was presented and discussed.

Um following public discussion, council requested staff post the draft ordinance to be heard and request input from uh four different boards and commissions.

Um January 12th of 2026, a work session was held where the boards and commissions feedback was discussed.

Previous council questions were answered, and council feedback was provided.

Um so since the work session, an interactive map was developed by the IT partment, IT department with a link added to the supplemental council memo.

This map shows the locations impacted by the draft ordinance is currently written.

And a link to Chapter 14, Article X of the city's code of ordinances was added to the supplemental memo.

These ordinances summarize the ordinances already in place regarding pedestrians.

Um a map of accidents involving pedestrians from 2018 to January 27th, 2020, along with X accident reports was added, and the finalized B heard summary report dated January 23rd, 2026 was added.

Um a total of five amendment sheets were developed by the law department and added for discussion tonight.

And then my next slides are just each of the um amendments so we could have something in front of us when you all discuss.

We'll get to those.

If you want to maybe go back one or bring up that now it's time for our council kind of questions or things that have come up since so questions from council of staff.

Go down.

Okay, Valerie.

Thanks.

Um sorry, I'm going through this one by one.

Um I had a question for staff about the use of AND or on Prohibition 2, um, and whether or not it would be clearer to use only AND or only or and I got a response that was a bit confusing to me.

It sounds like um so the response that I got was deletion of the word and would help eliminate confusion as to um which intersections would be enforceable.

Um and the response that I got from police, um I'll just read it.

It says deletion of the word and would make this section of the ordinance clear as to the required conditions for enforcement, recommend the use of or um I'm wondering if you could elaborate um on that recommendation.

Um so I understand um what the ask is.

Sure.

So I was basically agreeing that I I think and should be deleted and or is more clarifying.

And and/slash or means a whole lot of other things, and trying to deconstruct that when it when we're trying to do enforcement, it's much clearer to say it's or and then what is or mean?

Well, or um relates to all these different conditions if that makes sense.

Do you have a preference for using only and or using only or because my reading of that is that it would very significantly change the map we have of enforceable intersections?

So with only or it would have any one of the three, but not but both.

And with and all would have to be in place to be enforceable.

With and it would have to be a major corridor intersection, which means it's has one of those three things, and it's been designated as a major corridor intersection, and it would have to be less than six feet for that prohibition to apply.

If it's or it would either need to be a major corridor intersection or be less than six feet for the prohibition to apply.

So now I think I have two questions.

The map that we have right now, is that an AND map, or is it an OR map?

And secondly, for enforcement, would CPD prefer or which would be enforcing more intersections, or AND, which would be enforcing fewer specific intersections.

So my position is standing in the middle of the road is not safe.

So I prefer OR because I think whether it's the traffic count volume that that Shane references, or if it's the width of the median, either one of those things, in my view, whether it's six foot or the what is it, 15,000 uh vehicles per day, I think either one of those things makes sense to me that we would want to have a safety regulation in place.

So or would be my preference.

It makes more sense to me.

And as far as the map is concerned, there's there's three separate layers.

So there's there's a volume that shows all those roads, there's one that shows um all the roads with that speed, and one that shows ones with all the medians that are six feet or less.

So the map doesn't necessarily change.

It has to do with what that definition is.

So the map is just showing where each one of those things occur.

And if you turn on all three layers, it shows where all three of those things occur.

So the map shows where all three of those things occurred.

Yes.

Together.

So I mean, in three individual layers.

So one showing all the median, you could just show that.

If you turn them all on, there's places where all three of those things are true, and there's things where only two of those three things are true.

So if this the ordinance read or there, your map would be true.

If the ordinance read and there, your map would have potentially some intersections that didn't meet the AND condition.

The map would be the same.

The actual locations where it applies could be different.

Gotcha.

Um I think it going forward.

Assuming this passes, I think it would be help helpful to the public to have have a map of which intersections can be enforced.

And honestly, I'm going to need that, right?

So that's important to me too.

Um and and I'd like to know that that's maintained and updated after we have street projects.

Um I think we'll get into this later, saying nothing about support for the ordinance.

Um I would support changing this for clarity to only the word or.

Do we need an amendment or a vote on that?

And I have a note to potentially do that when we get to amendments too.

And you're from D2, is that correct?

The eliminate the or from D2.

No, eliminate the AND and keep the or sorry, yes, sorry.

No, that's what I wrote down.

Just not what I said.

Yes.

Thanks.

Okay, I have got that.

All right, Vera, you had a question.

Yeah.

Um, so I had um a few questions that I've brought up in previous meetings.

I just wanted to make sure um we had in this meeting as well.

Um, and the first was that clarification that we talked about in the work session about um the accidents cited in the chart in the original report that came out, um, versus how many of those accidents actually involved a pedestrian standing at a median.

Because I believe in the original report there was a total, I'm gonna get the number wrong.

It was like maybe 260 something.

No, I but the can you clarify how many of those um cited accidents involved a pedestrian standing on a median at an intersection?

So the the study that was done cited that 29.2% of crashes involved a pedestrian at an intersection that had medians.

However, they would take a thorough investigation of each crash report to produce um an answer, and that wasn't done in the study.

And I'll let her probably expand on that.

Yeah, and to complicate that just a little, sorry.

So on a on the state required accident form, you guys got some copies of some of those.

I think I provided nine that we actually could pull, and that was purely based on our records department searching reports where the officer marked the median box.

So the problem with that is that is not a required field.

So you can leave that completely blank.

It's not a yes or no question.

So you can leave that blank, and that doesn't mean it did or did not happen, if that makes sense.

So because it's not required, we would have to literally go through every single one to try to determine where the person exactly was, but those were ones that we could pull that the officer affirmatively marked the person was on the median, if that that clarifies it a little bit.

Um then how many of the corridors affected by this ordinance do not have traffic signals.

Okay.

So there are 115 115 total segments, and 58 of them do not have signals.

And then some of the information we provided earlier kind of broke down where there's roundabouts and there's places where there's a little bit of both.

But I think that I think that answers your question if if I'm correct.

Yeah.

Uh I've got two more if I can go ahead.

Um so in the ordinance, it talks about um someone crossing in a in one or two cycles.

Um how would a cycle be determined at one of those 58 corridors where there is not a traffic signal?

So I will and so this one um without a traffic signal, a pedestrian would be prohibited from remaining in the roadway except when crossing the roadway.

But I think that question is probably more towards the police department because there's no signal there, so there's nothing that public works is really doing in that case.

So I'll probably let her kind of expand on how they would handle that.

So it would be an observation, right?

Is the person continuing to try to get across the road?

What did the officer observe?

When we write a citation, many times the prosecutor's office is going to want a probable cause statement on the back, so we would probably work through them.

If we ever got to the point where he had to actually issue citations, they're gonna give us some guidance about what exactly they need to see in writing on the back as far as here's what the officer observed.

And so we would coordinate with them to try to figure out how they would want that worded, but the officer's gonna have to watch and just see is the person where did they first observe them?

Were they starting to cross the street and then stopped in the middle for some reason?

Did they attempt to continue?

If not, was there a reason?

Is there tons of traffic, something else going on?

Um, but the officer's gonna have to observe what's happening at the time.

Um and then the last one, and this is also one um that I asked during the work session.

Um, and that is how should someone safely cross an intersection if they cannot make it across the whole length of the road in one or two traffic signals.

Sure.

Um nationally, signals are designed to allow adequate crossing time for pedestrians and an adequate clearance interval based on a maximum walking speed of three and a half feet per second.

This can be adjusted, and there are locations where this is done.

And an example that I I would provide is a location where the time is adjusted to say three feet per second, where there's a heavy concentration of elderly or children, like near school, possibly.

Um pedestrian crossing time must be balanced with the effective movement of traffic, especially in areas with higher traffic volume.

That said, there will always be individual situations where a pedestrian can't cross a roadway within the allotted time.

If a pedestrian is unable to cross the roadway in one cycle, it'd be recommended that they remain in the safest location available to them, which is most likely the middle of the roadway.

In some locations along Modots Roadway, the signal is specifically time to allow pedestrians to cross to the middle in one cycle where there's a pedestrian refuge island.

Thank you.

Jackie?

I'm just gonna my apologies.

I'm gonna go back to the and or discussion.

Um using the word or are we saying is that saying that it can be any median, it doesn't have to be a major corridor?

If it's less than six feet.

So any median less than six feet in the city does not have to be a major corridor if we adopt the terminology or.

Correct.

I just wanted to clarify that.

Um I was wondering if you could talk through one of and I don't I have so many windows open right now.

Um the prohibitions for permitted special events.

If we could kind of talk through, um that was an exception listed to this.

Um if we could talk through First Amendment, protests, this that and how this particular ordinance would impact those activities.

So your question is regarding the analysis of this ordinance under the First Amendment.

Specifically how and or if protests will be impacted.

Like because I I don't have it open in front of you, but I believe some of the link like some of the the amendments one of a couple of the amendments that were offered were specific to impeding traffic.

Um so but in the exception for permitted events for charity organizations or for protests, it includes the ability to impede traffic.

And so I'm just wondering about that conflict there, that contradiction.

The I guess I'm not understanding what the what you're saying the contradiction is the contradiction of be authorizing these activities when it's a permitted event.

Talking about exception six.

Yes.

So I think um so Jackie's pulled up except so E six, where it talks about any person occupying the roadway or distributing anything to accept and blah blah blah during a permitted special event.

That piece of Right.

So I I mean I think the rationale here is if there is a permitted event, certain aspects of this ordinance would not be applicable, right?

And so I g I guess I'm not understanding your question completely.

I'm trying to figure out the words to use.

I'm I'm just wondering um I guess the key phrase here then would be it has to be a permitted event.

But even a permitted event can impede traffic.

Correct.

And we'll I mean, if it was a permitted event, typically we would we'll shut down roadways for where that event's going to occur.

And so you know you ideally would not be impeding traffic during that event, right?

But um we'll take precautions for permanent events such that traffic won't be flowing through that area.

I think that that's a fairly typical process.

Street closures.

So like if we have a parade, those there's opportunities for us to make sure that we block the roads to make sure that people can move safely.

Uh when you look at protests, no, with those processes, a lot of times they will talk to the police department and say, hey, we have a planned event.

Uh because it's a planned event, then we can take precautions to make sure it's done safely.

And so that's that's what we're looking at.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to do that.

And can you clarify on the precautions so it can happen safely?

So would it be possible to get a permit for a protest that is meant to be on a median but not stopping traffic?

Would there be the ability for that to be done safely?

Or would this say you can only protest on a median if we shut down the road, like a parade?

I think those would be you know considered on a case-by-case basis.

Um as far as what would be permitted events.

Um I you know, I I don't want to hypothesize as to what would be authorized and what wouldn't be authorized.

Ideally we look at what's the safest way to to provide the that that action.

And so we would take a look at the roadway and make sure that it's done safe and that safe process.

And so in other cities where you have those planned protests, you kind of set the location of where the protest can be stood.

And so those standards are already put in place ahead of time.

And usually you work with the group that is actually performing that protest so they understand exactly what those rules are.

Um all right.

And then next topic.

So I did I appreciate uh Chief Shaludy, you sending the reports you were able to find.

I did review all them.

If I counted them correctly, we get we got eight if I counted them correctly.

Um and the little quick little data I did on it, um, six of the eight accidents that were included in those reports were occurred on MODOT, either MODOT intersections or actual MODOT roads.

Um three of eight of them were the result of driver error.

One was a pure accident result, it was a resulting of a car hydroplaning, and four of the eight was a pedestrian error where the pedestrian walked into the lane of traffic.

Um when we're looking at pedestrian safety, um, you know, infrastructure is just so incredibly important.

And if six of the eight of the police reports that came to us were on MODOT roads, can you um summarize how the city can effectively or more effectively, and this is more for Hugh Shane, work with MODOT on that pedestrian infrastructure to improve pedestrian state safety at those places.

Sure.

Um so city staff meets with MODOT frequently to discuss shared infrastructure goals.

Um a big driver of MODOT's process is their unfunded needs list.

And so um that unfunded needs list lists projects that typically come out of some of those conversations that become in you know, for for in our particular case, the central district um things in Boone County that we're interested in doing.

We're the biggest driver of that because we have the most population.

And so those conversations happen.

Um, but it takes time for those things to go from an un an unfunded project to a funded project.

And I think if someone from Modot was here tonight, a lot of their focus is on the improve I-70 project, that's where a lot of their funding is going right now.

But when we get through that, I think they kind of go right back to that unfunded needs list.

And so if there's something that the city wanted to move along quicker, obviously if we were do uh uh in the in a position to provide a cost share or do something like that, that tends to help them move things along quicker because they're no different than us.

If you're gonna offer me a piece of that, and I want to move that along because I can do that for cheaper and spend money on some other project that we that we want done.

So that's usually how they come to pass.

Um is is with some kind of conversation that leads to a cost share, something that's in both of our interests.

Um like I said, that that usually takes a lot of time.

So just so we're clear that if we are recognizing that there could be potentially pedestrian infrastructure that's needed at on these MODOT roads, the city cannot move forward on making that improvement without MODOT.

Or on a MODOT maintained roadway, yes.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um that kind of goes along then with my next question or next yeah, I question.

There have been, well, there are lots of not lots.

There's some intersections where these accidents are occurring where lighting is a concern.

And again, we're talking about MODOT roads.

So does the city maintain those lights and are the city able to increase the lumens, or is that a MODOT decision?

Again, is that a cost share?

What does that look like?

It in general it's the same answer as the one I just gave.

It it's more than likely a cost share.

Um most of MODOT's intersections have lighting that's MODOT lighting.

Um there are locations, obviously, that the um the city has some lighting linear along the roadway itself, but most of the intersections are lit by by MODOT.

If we wanted to do something different, that would be a conversation with Modot.

And more than likely, depending on what their standards are for lighting and intersection, if it meets that, if we want to do something in addition, I don't know that there'd be pretty too much pushback, but we would probably be looking at some kind of cost share or something like that.

Okay.

I think that's it.

Thank you.

Nick, questions.

I'm tempted not to ask anything.

That's I'm fine with that.

Yeah, I know.

Um I want to use a real world example and see how this plays out.

There are people who protest regularly at the corner at the uh intersection of Broadway and uh Providence.

And uh they've expressed concerns about this very thing about what would be accessible to them under this ordinance as written, uh what would be available to them to carry out that protest.

Or any other group for that matter.

Well, I'll I will start.

Um that intersection in particular, there is uh there's obviously crossings in each direction with um ADA compliant way to cross.

So through the middle of those medians, there's a place for folks to cross.

The the raised median itself, there's some plantings in there, number one, so that I don't think they typically stand right there on the on the flowers.

So they if they stand in those locations, they'd stand on the outside of that.

And based on this ordinance, that wouldn't be a location where they could be.

They could be on any of the sidewalks in any of the four corners.

Um in theory, at times they could be in the pedestrian refuge island, the a place where they're intended to cross.

But if there were too many folks there, it'd be difficult to cross the road if you were just a pedestrian trying to go from one side to the other.

But there wouldn't be anything in the ordinance that would prohibit anyone from being on any of the sidewalks in that location to do the exact same thing they do today.

Anything to add to that?

Or legal.

Well, at the risk of being the wet blanket.

Um it's concerning, depending on how many people to me are out there.

Um I'm look I pulled up a map of exactly what Shane was talking about, and the actual space where people can stand is not large.

So what number of people were talking about?

You know, we also have a very lengthy ordinance that covers where you can display signs.

And the reason if you read the the whole preamble to that ordinance of why it was created, was to part of it was driver and pedestrian safety.

We wanted to regulate where signs could be in the right-of-way, on uh medians, things of that nature, and all kinds of other things.

And so you have a lot of people that have flags and signs and a lot of different things going on, and so encouraging drivers to honk and react.

And so to me, from just a pure safety perspective only, I'm not the attorney, it's a distraction.

It does worry me if there's multiple people on that island with a lot of different things going on.

It's just standing in the middle of the road is is just unsafe.

Um that's you know, whatever comes out of this as far as that goes, we'll of course manage it, but I do have some concerns about how many people would be standing in on the I think some I think it was referred to a as a pork chop.

I had never heard that term, so I learned something.

Um I think I think that's one of the things that that uh is at play here.

Yes, yes, and and to the point about um permanent special events, you know, when we go through that process, the police department has a seat at that table, we have a lieutenant that's over that process.

We work very closely to try to come up with uh the safest way to uh work with event organizers to promote whatever event they they're trying to put on.

Um having been here many years through many different types of protests, I think we've been very successful at that.

And sometimes people ask for street closures and we just can't we just can't support that because the volume of traffic and some of the roads that they want to shut down the amount of staff it would take.

But I think we've almost always been able to find an alternative.

So I think using that special events process is kind of baked into that as far as the the safety part of special event permitting.

Any other questions?

Any other questions, Don?

I do not at this time.

Matthew, you have it.

Um I just have a comment about the um the lighting at the intersections, although I agree um that we need to make sure we have adequate lighting.

The other side of that coin is that if we have too much lighting, it's even harder to see pedestrians, and then the the black sky people are dark sky people that are concerned about the amount of light that we send off and how it affects birds.

Um I get to hear from them pretty frequently.

So I'm just passing that on.

Okay.

No that no questions, though.

Yeah.

Thank you for the all of the information.

I guess I should thank you for all the information you guys have given us and and the parsing out from all the questions that people have had.

Can I ask a question?

And Becky, this is probably more for you.

So, you know, we've talked a lot about what the intent was, right?

A pedestrian safety, the idea of a safe on the streets.

Is it possible to add at the beginning what it's not?

And be I ask this because you know there's lots of people that are like, oh, this is at this ordinance, and like at first I was like, no, I don't want that ordinance.

Then I was like, oh, but I do want safety.

So is it possible to start off being like the intention of this is to reduce risk of injury or fatality at major corridor?

You're about you're trying to interrupt me to tell me I can't say what I want to say.

We tend to and we try to write our legislation in the affirmative, right?

Because it's really difficult to write all the things that we're trying not to do with with legislation.

We can't really encompass all of those, and so we really try to keep it as affirmatively what the intent is.

So I can't add a sentence that says no intention of this is to infringe upon constitutional rights, status of housing, any of those things.

I can't put that in the first section.

I think the better practice is to keep the intent on on the affirmative and what that is.

Okay.

Any other questions before we get into the amendments?

Yeah, Valerie.

Yeah.

I stopped after my first question.

No.

Um yeah, so another question that I had for staff was about prohibition four, um, and whether or not that should be inclusive of cyclists.

Um, no person other than the occupant of a vehicle or a bicycle.

Um staff's suggestion for this was to add an exception for cyclists.

Um, so this would be adding exception E under that subsection.

Um I don't know if we're getting to motions now, but I would move to add that exception because cyclists are um generally advised to take the lane.

Um, and given the um ability to take the lane when there is not a bicycle lane provided, or when that is impassable for any reason.

You clarify again what section you are under that it would be E of Yeah, hold on.

Let me flip windows.

I also have many open.

Um so this would be.

Oh, it would be under section E, and it would be number eight.

Um I'll add it to my list of potential amendments.

So that would be um I've got that on the list.

And this is in your questions, correct?

Okay, because we'll do a motion of each one when we get to the amendments.

So additional questions.

Do we have any I want to say specific aims to address the width of medians on Columbia controlled streets that are highlighted under this ordinance?

It hits me that this map that we're providing is a map of substandard infrastructure.

And where we highlight these items, we ought to be pointedly pursuing improving them.

So obviously we just started in a new um capital improvement sales tax that started generating revenue on January 1st of this year with a ballot project list.

So any of those ballot projects that we've got listed, that's that that's that those are exactly the kind of things that we would look for in those improvements.

But as far as to say that the things that show up on the map here that we've got some comprehensive plan or some way to address those separately, that there's a funding source to do that and all that, that would be that'd be incorrect as I as I sit here right now.

Do any of the currently ballotted um ballot list items under the CIP do those address streets that are highlighted on this map, will we have an opportunity to work on those medians or crossings?

Sure.

Any any project that we've that we would be working on as part of the capital improvement sales tax will have to follow the full public engagement process.

So all those things will come forward to you.

I can tell you that one of the first ones in the new the new one is um is state farm parkway and where it intersects old NIFON.

I don't think there's a median there, but I mean that's for instance, if that was one of the locations, that would be something that we were looking at.

Um and that would carry out through all the projects on the in that sales tax.

I think my question is which CIP items correspond to streets that we're looking at correspond to major corridor intersections.

The the ballot project list is readily available.

I did not cross-reference that with the things that are in this ordinance.

Okay.

How can we for the next ballot list begin to identify these needs and pursue them directly?

We can talk about the next ballot, you know, we're 10, we're about 10 years away.

Um we can have those conversations at any time.

Um but um like I said, we're just beginning the the current ballot project list.

So Nick has a follow-up too, but Valerie, are you done?

Okay, yeah.

And so related to that, Valerie, the there's a public input process for um the CIP and what projects are going to be done.

I I mean I know we just did it, but um so it would be similar in that case.

The public has an opportunity to identif to uh provide input for the identifications of those projects that they want to see addressed in the in the new CIP.

Uh correct.

There'd be there'd be an interesting parties meeting.

Um typically that information is gathered and some preliminary design is done before it would come forward to council in some kind of public hearing.

And it'd be that stage where council would would vote to to keep moving with that project.

And so the projects you'll see us bring forward though are the ones that were on that project ballot list.

That's that's kind of our marching orders, and we'll start to bring those forward as there's funding and we have the resources to start to move those forward.

So the determination of our priorities is uh it's an effort among the public staff and the council in the I want to pause this because now we're kind of getting a little bit off of the legislation we're discussing, but to that point and to Valerie's point, I think there's probably improvements as to what sort of direction we say before the list comes to council that council will be interested in that participation.

Yeah.

I I wanna I want to ask is there ever an interval in which when we find needed improvements between CIP intervals, we have the ability to provide those improvements.

Um is this it?

There has to be a scenario even more urgent than this where you need to go in and improve something.

Uh how do you address that?

It's actually looking at our financial priorities.

And so one of the things you look at is if there is a need, you try to figure out how do you pay for that.

And so there are opportunities where we apply for federal grants.

And I think one of the things that we talk about is when we look at uh major road intersection that we're trying to improve on, if we look at the business loop, and so we know the cost to make that improvement is several million dollars.

I think it's I think the last time we looked at it was around 22, 24 million.

And so the first thing we did is we worked with the state to go out and go for the build grant through the federal government.

And if we can get that grant, that'll allow us to make that improvement.

What was we what we received was a build planning grant.

But that planning grant gives us the opportunity to go for the larger construction grant, because now we have this process in place.

And so when we find opportunities to try to find the revenue to make those improvements, that's the process that we look at.

And so there are opportunities where I think even with our capital improvement plan or our transportation plan, there is money set aside to do some of those projects that they as they come up.

Sometimes it's if we can do a cost share with the state, or if there's opportunities for us to find that funding as needed.

And so we do work through those processes.

Um I can say that that particular grant that you're naming right now is something that stood out to me in reading this ordinance as at least beginning to address several of the problem intersections that we're noting.

Yeah.

Um this pass.

I hope that we will make a pointed effort to apply for those grants and to bring our needs to MODOT and ask for cost shares.

So I had uh one more question before amendment or or anybody, you know.

I have one more.

Um in the attachments for supplemental attachments, there was the um the supplemental memo that came to us in November from the police department about the sort of like phasing in of if this passes on an education, a warning phase, that sort of thing.

And I think my question might be to to Becky.

You know, I obviously we would want to have I at least the feeling from the work session was that we would want to have sort of a phase in of this similar to, you know, we did the short-term rental ordinance.

We passed it in like February.

It wasn't effective till June, but we didn't start really enforcing till June.

You know, we had that written in.

So could we add something to this that that would to say, you know, that the rather than this is effective as of as soon as it's passage that says like July or something like that.

I mean, you could.

Right now, the the way it's drafted is that it'll be effective immediately.

If there's nothing in there, it becomes effective after 20 days.

But if you want to put some other date in there, like we did with the short-term rental ordinance, you can do that as well.

Because it seems to me that we would want to have some sort of date months in advance so that you have an opportunity.

We have an opportunity to do education as well as police to give warnings before.

And to me, it makes sense to be more of like in July, like July 1st or something.

Yeah, I might make that proposal, but I'll do I just wanted to kind of clarify how we would make sure that those recommendations from police on education was in the ordinance and and followed.

Okay, so I have a list of or amendments.

Yeah.

Yeah, sorry, on your list of amendments.

Um my question is are we going to have discussion on each amendment before voting on it, or do we plan to go through the sheets and take a vote?

Um my intent was to go for each one to do motion second, see if there's discussion on the amendment, if not voice vote.

My and my thought was is I would go through the five that were posted, and I know you have slides for those five.

There have been a few others that have been kind of like the and uh the date.

There's a few like kind of uh clarifying questions, like for instance, Becky pointed out to me earlier that under amendment five, there is nothing under six except for A and B.

And so I think the recommendation was that we make six or A, B six, and then B B seven.

So that's under um Amendment Five's corrections.

Um I think that's the only one that I have from the post of one besides the one speaking.

So we have those five amendment sheets posted, a correction to amendment five, um, the potential of the section two adding a date, the potential of amendment for eliminating the and and I will go through these in more detail.

I'm just quickly for right now.

And in the attention of add A to E about uh a bicycle or a cycle.

You have another one.

Okay.

Okay.

I didn't know if you changed.

No, well, I sent some earlier, but I didn't know if we wanted to do the ones that were posted first and then I went to the ones where posted first, and then yeah, we can get into the others if that works for council.

Because I know slides of okay.

And this is the plan then to go through all the amendments and vote them up or down so that when we open the public hearing, they know what we're talking about.

They know what we're talking about, and we are speaking about the ordinance we're either gonna pass or fail.

Correct, as amended.

Okay, yeah, right.

Yeah.

All right, Shane, do you have a slide for the first amendment?

Okay, so our first amendment is adding a sentence.

And hold on, I'm gonna pull out your real sheet.

I'm gonna pull out your real sheet.

So this first one is for our section C under Good Lord, I have so many papers.

I'm turning into Amendment one is for under section C to add a sentence to the end.

Adding with such a schedule shall also be posted on the city website by the director of public works.

Um I believe was this one I think was this one of the ones you is this your motion?

So do you want to make the motion?

I don't think it was mine, but okay.

I think we talked about it during the work session.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

So this is um the end, so yeah.

I'll make a motion to add such a schedule shall also be posted on the city website by the director of public works.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Valerie.

Any discussion on this one?

I think part of the thing was just to be clear and that the public work you can update it, especially if we have new road infrastructure.

I made the motion.

Valerie made the second.

Thank you.

Yeah, so the intent of this is so that it is clear where this is applicable and where it's not in the public works will post it.

Any other discussion on it?

Okay.

All those in favor of amendment one say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Amendment one is changed.

All right.

Amendment two.

I believe this was yours, so do you want to make the motion?

I actually have an amendment to the motion.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Um looking at the second addition removal of the phrase with a disability.

So that way it's just um it would read nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a pedestrian from crossing at a location other than a crosswalk when existing curb ramps, etc.

etc.

Okay, so we have an amendment to the amendment.

Um would you repeat what you want it to say, please, Jackie?

Sure.

That's so that second part would read nothing in this subsection shall be construed to prohibit a pedestrian from crossing at a location other than a crosswalk when existing curb ramps, intersection geometry, signalization, or sidewalk conditions render the crosswalk inaccessible or unsafe.

I would second that.

Okay, so we've got a motion.

Um Becky, this is a question for you.

Since these are amendments, but they haven't been.

Is it okay for us to edit an amendment on the on the fly?

It is.

I think these are clear enough that they can be they can be amended.

Okay.

So she can make a motion for the amendment as she just described it.

Correct.

Okay, and we have a second.

Is there any additional discussion on this one?

All right.

All those in favor of amendment two say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Question.

Are we voting on the amendment to the amendment or the amendment as a whole?

The amendment as a whole.

I was doing as amendment as a whole.

Okay.

But I can be clear on the next any other ones that we amend the amendment on.

Okay.

Okay.

So everybody said yes on that.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay.

So for amendment three, before I is there any changes to the proposed amendment three?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, I don't think we need the first sentence because I think the first sentence of the amendment mirrors or repeats what the existing first sentence says.

So it's either getting rid of the first sentence that's existing or getting rid of the first sentence of the well, yeah, of the amendment.

Let's get rid of the first sentence.

Does that make sense, Becky?

Are we losing anything with losing that first sentence?

Read that without the first sentence in there.

Oh, yes.

So the what it would read would be no person shall remain in a median within a major corridor intersection when such median is less than six feet in width, and when a pedestrian signal cycle permitting safe crossing is actively displayed, except as provided below.

This subsection shall not apply to any person whose disability mobility limitation, use of assistive device, accompaniment of a child or service animal or safety considerations make compliance impractical.

Impracticable.

So would that be sorry, and I'd hate to do this on the fly, but when when I read that um I think it would limit the prohibition only to those intersections where there's a pedestrian signal cycle.

And so we should just being aware of that that it would further limit where this prohibition would be applicable if we completely remove that first sentence.

Because then it would be that no person shall remain in a median within a major court or intersection when such median is less than six feet in width, and when a pedestrian's signal cycle permitting safe crossing is actively displayed.

And so there would be what no way to meet that second part of that and unless it was a intersection with a pedestrian cycle.

So your recommendation, Becky, would be to leave both of them in.

To leave that first sentence and then just add the underlined Well, I I guess my question is what's the goal with the additional one?

If it's it's a if it like before the sentence that's being struck up there, it was to provide one situation when a presumption would exist that that prohibition had been violated, right?

Like that's what the the second sentence there that's been eliminated that's been struck through it provoked provided one such example where there'd be prima facie evidence that a violation of that prohibition.

And if that's what this next sentence is intended to do, the new sentence number two, I think there's a way we could draft it to be that way.

Um if we were to do that, you keep the first sentence, and then the second sentence could be something along the lines of failure of a person to leave the median when a pedestrian signal cycle permitting safe crossing is actively displayed, shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.

Would we then add in that last sentence about shall not apply?

This that that would, yeah.

I think that's kind of a separate than when that prohibition does not apply.

Can I can I ask Jackie?

Is the intent of this one less about that statement of prima facie evidence and more about the exception?

So that last sentence, um the situations for which it shall not apply.

And so maybe we don't need the sentence that mentions the pedestrian signal.

We may not need the portion of pedestrian signal.

Yeah.

Yes.

Because the kind of the important part was that last sentence, right?

Well, the first part though, too, because we need um direction on enforcement.

This would be my understanding.

Well, I meant uh in terms of the change in terms of the amendment.

Because that direction on enforcement would be true in the first original sentence.

So what are you suggesting?

I'm losing track.

Get rid of this sentence.

The first sentence and then in the minute.

In the new part, yeah.

So and keep the scratched out one.

So it would be so it would read no person shall be located upon a median in a major corridor intersection and or on a median that is less than six feet in width, unless in the process of legally crossing a roadway, this subsection shall not apply to any person whose disability mobility limitation, et cetera.

Does that get to the intent behind your amendment?

Uh I think so.

I'm I think my question was because the original wording was very specific for an enforcement, because if I'm looking remembering the two consecutive opportunities.

And so I had kind of focused in on that for enforcement instead of two consecutive opportunities of they need to be crossing when a safe crossing signal is displayed.

So my suggestion would not have gotten that piece fixed.

Correct.

It doesn't include I think we can ask maybe also for feedback from enforcers.

Go ahead and I'll chime in.

Well, I mean, I think the value of the second sentence or the next sentence as it's written is to provide some example of what's being in the process of legally crossing the roadway, right?

And that the first one would say you're you're not in that process if you're there for to use the exact word, um, for more than two consecutive opportunities to have crossed that roadway, then you're not in the process of crossing the roadway.

I think you the the new example would be it's prima facie evidence that you're in prohibition of this and not in the process of legally crossing the roadway.

If you're there while there is a cycle that is permitting for the crossing, right?

And so you're providing for enforcement purposes, what is going to be a case when there's going to be a pro an a violation of this prohibition.

And there may be other things that amount to that, but this happening is prima facie evidence of that.

Is there a problem with just leaving all of that in there then?

Does that contradict itself?

Or I mean it looks to me like it's oak would be okay to leave all of it in there, as all this was looked at you know before this meeting tonight.

As all of this was looked at, you know, before this meeting tonight.

I don't know the answer to that question.

It gets a little convoluted from the enforcement perspective when you're narrowing down the piece about the sp specificity of a pedestrian signal cycle is actively displayed.

Because when I read the the crop as I read it, the section that was strike through, fear of a person to leave the meeting after two consecutive opportunities to cross the roadway in a lawful manner is prima facie evidence of a violation of the subsection, unless such person's mobility is restricted to a degree, which makes such person unable to safely cross the roadway during two consecutive opportunities.

It makes it more easy to understand for the person doing the enforcement.

And then it also sets kind of a okay, two opportunities at that point, what's happening, right?

But if if the issue, the reason the crossing is not occurring is because of a mobility issue as listed here, that trumps the rest of it.

Does that make sense from the enforcement perspective?

Basically, what's your intent?

Is your intent to continue to cross the road?

Are you trying to get across the road or is your intent?

We talk about a lot of intent all the time we talk about the law.

Is your intent to stand in the middle of the roadway?

That's your destination you were looking for.

I'm open to discussion on this.

Well, I I guess I'm gonna go back to where it might kind of stand by here, but what are we looking to accomplish with this amendment and with the amendment to the amendment?

What are we wanting to do here?

Well, I thought I was clarifying enforcement, but obviously I was not.

Okay.

Okay.

So Don and then I've got over here too.

Um in the council questions that were submitted, and maybe we've kind of talked around this already.

But in the council questions, um for this amendment amendments three, four, and five.

Um original language was vetted, but three, four, and five are written broadly and could impair enforceability.

So I just kind of wanted to amplify that a little bit.

And so I'll have the same question for the next two.

Um, so if you want to address that when we get to them.

But so yeah, what what were your con what were your concerns about enforceability with the amendment as it is?

I think I don't I don't know what if the intention was or not, but three reads to me as amended that this would just relate to where there's a pedestrian cycle signal, and that's then kind of this other carve out that makes it hard, is if that makes sense.

Okay.

So I think the covering all the things, whether it has a stoplight or whatever whatever variety we're talking about that's a major corridor roadway.

Um I think that makes it a little bit simpler to understand.

Hold on, I'm just reading really quick before I trying to see if we have another section in here.

Okay.

Okay.

This is the point where I need to point out that the and or phrase that we were going to change is in this amendment, and the recommendation was to change it when we addressed this amendment.

Yes, I do have down eliminate and from D2.

That was like my amendment.

What happens with the rest of this?

I still recommend changing and/or.

And you know, I appreciate that because that's just one word, and that's the easiest part of this entire amendment.

Right.

I do want to say that I want to make sure that we're leaving room for persons with disabilities.

Um I appreciate the spirit of the amendment.

I don't know how we fix it from the dais right now.

I wish that we had the opportunity to address this sometime in the past year that we were working on this ordinance.

Jackie, you had a potential fixed.

Well, I was looking at adding unless in the process of legally crossing from the first sentence into I'm hearing the point, and I didn't, and I'm appreciate you pointing that out about how this is limiting itself to just the pedestrians, uh the intersections that have the signal cycle.

So I'm wondering if we somehow change that wording.

Um meeting is less than six feet in width.

I thought I had a solution.

I don't know if I do now.

Can I ask whether or not um of your the original scratch through line if it you would be amenable to keeping the first half of the sentence until it gets to the subsection and then adding your second sentence of the addition onto that.

And so it does talk about two consecutive opportunities in the first part, which is giving direction to the police department, and then adding in the part about the subsection should not apply to any person whose disability mobility, like all of that, adding that on into that piece.

You're just saying go back and in the the struck out section.

And then giving more details into the second part of that rather than a such person's mobility is restricted or or leave it.

I'm open to.

But I think you were giving specific the subsection.

You were you wanted to get more specific on that?

Yes.

Um I don't know whether we need to get that specific though.

I mean, to some extent, it is the discretion of our officers or anybody else who says, are you having trouble getting across the street?

Can I help you?

I mean s I mean sometimes I think we over we we overcont this where we really have to sort of rely upon a good judgment.

I'm not doubting the judgment of our police officers.

I'm just making sure we have um wording that would protect persons with disabilities because it's often left out, and I think it's important that we consider that.

So I feel pretty strongly about that in language being included.

Um I so I think to your suggestion, Barbara.

So if I could read what that would then say would be no person shall be located upon a median in a major corridor intersection, and or in a meeting that is less than six feet.

Or, but yes.

Sorry.

Taking out and I'm sorry.

Or on a meeting that is less than six feet in width and less in the process of legally crossing a roadway.

Failure of a person to leave the median after two consecutive opportunities to cross the roadway in a lawful manner is prime how do you say that word?

I see.

Okay, whatever.

Evidence of a violation of this subsection.

And then go to your this subsection shall not apply to any person whose disability mobility limitation, use of assistive device accompaniment of a child or service animal, or safety considerations make compliance impractical, impracticable.

Is that a word?

Or is it just impractical?

A lawyer wrote it.

So it could go either way.

Does that make sense, Becky and Jill?

Yeah, I think that makes sense.

Okay.

And that's good for CPD.

I think that makes sense to me.

You're just putting more details into the last part, which you know, we're gonna train on this and talk about hey, this happens, what should you look for?

What are the things that are exceptions?

Okay.

So um we have a proposed amendment to the amendment.

So I'll I will follow Don so we we are clear on this.

Um so we have a motion for the amendment to the amendment.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Vera.

All those a discussion on that.

Okay, so it is hear it red one more time in its final form.

You want to read it?

Sure.

No person shall be located upon a median in a major corridor intersection or on a median that is less than six feet in width and less in the process of legally crossing the roadway.

Failure of a person to leave the median after two consecutive opportunities to cross the roadway in a lawful manner is prima that word, whatever it is, evidence of a violation of this subsection.

This subsection shall not apply to any person whose disability mobility limitation, use of assistive device, accompaniment of a child or service animal or safety considerations make compliance impractical impracticable.

And can I just do we have a we had a motion in a second?

Did you read it without the and okay?

So then that's already taking care of that amended of the amendment, just throwing that out there.

Any other discussion on the amendment to amendment three?

All right, all those in favor of the amendment of amendment three say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right.

Um I'll make a motion to approve amendment three as amended.

Is there any or second from Betsy?

Any discussion on amendment three as amended.

All right.

That that's with no and with Jackie's.

Okay.

I thought we covered it because she read it.

She did.

I I said we did.

Uh all right.

All those in favor of the amended uh amended amendment three say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

All right.

Moving on to amendment four.

All right.

In amendment four.

Um, this is what do you want to make this as one of your motions for another prohibitions under four?

Yes.

So I move that amendment four.

Um no person other than an occupant of a vehicle.

Actually, I have an amendment to this.

I just realized.

Oh.

Okay.

It was the bicycle.

It was adding the bicycle.

I know Valerie had commented on making it that a separate section, but I was wondering about adding bicyclist to this section.

Yeah, I have our last potential amendment, maybe, um, is to add eight to exceptions, which is to any person lawfully operating a cycle as set forth in Article 7 of this chapter.

Is there a preference?

That sounds cleaner.

That's fine.

I'm okay with that.

All right.

Backing up.

No person other than an occupant of a vehicle shall be upon a major corridor roadway when a continuous accessible pedestrian route is available and usable except to lawfully cross such roadway.

A continuous accessible pedestrian route means the sidewalk or path of travel that complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including accessible curb ramps, service condition condition with grade, and freedom from obstruction due to construction, weather, or disrepair.

So we have a motion on amendment four.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Second by Betsy.

Discussion on amendment four.

Oh done.

Well, again, do what makes this amendment difficult to enforce.

I was a little perplexed by this one, so it would be helpful to me to understand the intent, because I think there's something here that I'm probably missing.

So we we have an ordinance that says that prohibits walking in the street where a sidewalk is provided.

Um so I I think maybe we're going extra steps, so it would be helpful if I kind of had some context.

Sure.

So yes, we do have that ordinance, but this was repeated to uh brought to us in this ordinance that was basically repeating that you can't a pedestrian shouldn't be in the roadway.

Um it was worded as no person other than the occupant of a vehicle, which would then be a pedestrian, right?

So um, but would we have comments and conversations with pedestrians constantly about um developers closing sidewalks, um snow not getting cleared from sidewalks, curb ramps being degraded and takes a while to get repaired.

And so again, when something is not accessible for somebody to be a safe pedestrian, and if we are potentially giving them a ticket or a warning for being in the roadway when they can't safely access a sidewalk, that's an issue.

So it's just again protecting that group.

Again, I'm not questioning CPD's ability to determine that.

It's just um I feel again really important to have that word, those words written.

Does that help?

I think it does.

I'm trying to think of exam examples in my head of the.

I can give you an example.

Sure.

So a couple of years ago, there was some development happening on Providence, and a developer um jackhammered up part of the sidewalk on the east side of Providence.

And there was a gentleman who used a power wheelchair, and the developer put down big chunky gravel.

Um, and that's not conducive to safe wheelchair motion.

You can't do the big chunky concrete gravel.

And so I actually received a phone call before I was on council.

I was on the disabilities commission and I received a very panicked phone call because this gentleman was literally driving on Providence in his power chair in the in the lane of travel because the sidewalk was not accessible.

Not that I would recommend that, but that's what happened.

So in that instance, he could have been ticketed for uh using his power chair in a lane of travel, but the sidewalk was not accessible to him.

Does that help?

It does, and I'll leave it up to Becky to help me work through the last part.

I get where you're going.

I'm trying to think about how an officer would assess those things, but I really don't think I'm trying to think of a situation where we would be so inclined to write a ticket if we were having to wonder about the second part if that makes sense.

So I think Valerie and then Vera.

Yeah, you know, my initial question was if we have this amendment if we have item four elsewhere in our code, why do we need it in this part of our code?

Um, but my secondary um observation is I agree that we do need this amendment to this.

So if we do have it elsewhere in our code, may we apply this to that section of code?

Um, or would this supersede that um given that we have two codes that two sections of code that are now covering the same action?

That might be a lookup thing.

Vera, you want to ask your question while we look yeah Vera?

It's not a question, but uh a comment on this amendment.

Yes.

Um and also clarifying intent somewhat, because I think as I've as I've been thinking about this as a whole, but particularly with this type of amendment, one of the things I think about is that this document is not just something that CPD will look at when they determine how to enforce this.

It is also something that in our in our hopes and dreams, residents of Columbia are looking at our ordinances, whether or not that is realistic, and determining their lawful actions.

And if this people who know me know that I am a tried and true rule follower, you give me a rule, I'm gonna follow it.

And if this rule told me that I'm not allowed to be on the road, anyone who has walked with me on days that I am using my rollator knows that I will stubbornly push through that gravel just to make a point and show you how difficult and painful it is.

And so I will stand there and I will impede traffic if that means the people behind me can't pass on the sidewalk because they'll get a taste of what it's like to walk through that.

And because the rule tells me I have to go, I have to stay off of the road.

Um and so if we can define it not just for cops, but for our residents to understand what is expected of them, then we should be offering those definitions in it.

So we have an amendment to we have an amendment, amendment four.

Um we've had motion in a second, additional discussion before we go on.

We've got a few more.

Any other discussion on amendment four?

All right, all those in a favor of amendment four say aye.

I any opposed?

Okay.

Um amendment five.

Um got amendment five up.

I will point out for this one, uh, I would like to suggest that rather than calling it B, we call it six, um, so that it is following in numerical order as we do.

Uh, and that change so change A.

Wait, what is oh, first off, it is uh removing of the distribution conduct.

Okay, will you go to the next slide?

Okay, yep, sure.

Sorry.

Uh and this is the one where because we lose everything from six.

Can you go to then the next slide?

That A would become six and B would become seven.

I'm just that's just a quick clarification.

Okay, so do you want to make your motion on this one?

Sure.

Uh first motion.

Well, this is all together, um, is to delete the definition of distribution conduct.

I need to read it.

No.

Okay.

And um the next part is to delete the previous sixth section that was relating to distribution conduct.

And then the new number six.

Six and seven.

Would be the one new number six would be no person stop.

No person shall intentionally cause or require a vehicle to stop stand or maneuver in a travel lane of a major corridor roadway in a manner that impedes traffic flow or creates an immediate traffic hazard, except where such stopping is otherwise required by traffic control devices or congestion.

And then number seven would be no occupant of a vehicle shall stop or stand a vehicle in a travel lane of a major corridor roadway in a manner that creates an immediate traffic hazard except as required by traffic control devices or emergencies.

So we have a motion.

Do we have a second for amendment five?

Again, before we move on.

Well, hold on.

Do uh I need a second for amendment five.

Do you have a second for amendment five?

I'll do a second for amendment five so we can have this discussion.

I'm interested.

What your question is.

Well, again, what part about this one makes it difficult to enforce.

I I don't know that it's the enforcement difficulty in my reading, and I'm gonna defer to Becky again because I am not a lawyer.

Uh is it's almost seems like some of it's changing the onus from the way it's written, it sounds sounds like we're we're able to cite a driver, right?

Um, and this moves it almost, I think almost all to the pedestrian.

I got a lot of windows open too, sorry.

So I'm trying to keep up.

Um I think this, I think the amended part where B, no occupant of vehicle shall stop or stand a vehicle in a travel lane.

I think that's the intent of that is to cover that.

So it might help me if I had some context.

Jackie, you put the amendment.

So the initial language, because I asked this question too when we first got this ordinance, because the initial language in number six talked about the uh traffic behaviors, if you will, of the motor vehicle operator.

And that confused me as well, um, because we have a separate section in our code that it is regarding motor vehicle operation.

So the original wording in number six is related to a motor vehicle operator and not a pedestrian.

So the amendments, the first one is pedestrian related.

I'm completely fine with what would the new number seven would be for that to go under motor vehicle operator code.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

I think as I read it.

So just to clarify on that really quick before Valerie's got a question.

So your your question is whether or not seven would then or B as it's listed, but seven if it were to be re would actually not be in this amendment and would go under vehicle operator parts of the code, which I'm assuming one of you over there knows.

Uh Becky.

I mean, I'm not sure.

It would have to come back to come back to you, yes, as a separate amendment that's a separate resolution or um ordinance.

Correct, correct change.

Okay, right.

Um, this changes a lot of my understanding of this.

Um of the things that has bothered me about this ordinance as a whole is that the safety of pedestrians is a shared responsibility between drivers and pedestrians.

Um this places the um onus of compliance onto the road user that has the least choices of how to comply.

Um this was the only part of the ordinance that identified that there is a vehicle involved in this as well.

Um and I think it's worth acknowledging that we need compliance from vehicles and motorists.

Um I I mean I agree with your um observation that it doesn't make sense in this section.

Um and if this amendment were to simply locate this into some other section of our code, I would be happy to approve it.

Um I don't know that I would support it if we completely delete it.

If we completely delete the whole uh first part of that.

Um the slide's gone, so now I can't say the distribution conduct.

Not the do you mean not the definition, but the part the original six?

Yes, the original six.

Because we're deleting the section that we're deleting the section that has um conduct of drivers.

And granted, it doesn't seem to fit in this code.

Um, but it is the only part that addresses the shared responsibility for both drivers and pedestrians.

Yeah.

Yeah, Nick, to this point.

Well, I did ask this question previous to the meeting about uh this concern uh which I share and asked whether or not we have other ordinances which address the responsibilities of drivers in exactly this way.

The answer I think was pretty simple.

Yes.

And so, you know, this one, this one is about pedestrians.

I assume we have other ordinances that are going to address the responsibilities of the driver.

So I'm not sure why we would have it here necessarily if it's covered in other parts of the ordinance of our code of ordinances.

Um did you not here, but in the in the questions I sent previously, yeah.

And we're and we're sent back to council.

I think I'm I think what we're trying to do some information readily.

Well, it the the question is are we going to put responsibilities on motor vehicle operators to be aware of and responsive to pedestrians, right?

Yeah.

I you know, to me, this is a pedestrian safety ordinance.

It's not only a pedestrian an ordinance for um I forget how we worded it.

It's not only an ordinance for um pedestrian responsibilities, but an ordinance to keep pedestrians safe.

Sure.

And if that's the intent of the ordinance, I don't see a problem with having responsibilities of both pedestrians and motorists within this ordinance.

Yeah, I understand that.

I'm just saying if uh uh if it is covered in other parts of our code, then you know we're being repetitive.

And if we want to be repetitive, I suppose we can be, but that's that's just my question.

We just did that for section four.

Right.

Don and then Jackie.

Unless you didn't even check it.

Okay, Jackie.

If I may.

Um in the room.

Distribution conduct.

That's what I have a problem with is that wording in the ordinance.

So I agree absolutely that motorists have um just as much, if not more, probably more because they're driving a very big weapon responsibility to help keep pedestrians stay safe.

We do have in our code, um, I know there's one that says a motorist must yield to pedestrian.

Um so we do already have that in our code.

My issue with this portion was specifically the discussion of the motor vehicle operator's behavior of distribution conduct.

That's what I did not want to see in the ordinance.

I think I have to bring up another elephant.

We can remove the words distribution conduct.

We can remove the driver responsibility to distribution condom.

We can state that this is about safety.

The end result of this is that it eliminates distribution in the context that this is referring to.

Um the elephant remains.

Um I'm I'm not sure we solve that problem.

We remove the words.

The elephant is still here.

So we have a motion and a second, and we're in discussion on amendment five.

Did you want to change any of your um proposed amendment based on the conversation about whether or not to leave in B slash seven, whatever we're calling it?

Okay.

So we've got, yeah, done.

I'm sorry, I do have a question.

As has been referenced that there's probably or there already is something else in our code referencing detailing the operation and the operator of a motor vehicle or a vehicle.

Um is it similar to this?

Is this redundant or is if we leave this in going to cause a conflict between the two ordinances?

So Shane and I pulled up some parts of chapter 14.

So there's one that says duty of drivers to exercise care.

That's a very general statement about every driver of vehicle should exercise the highest degree of care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian upon any roadway, and she'll give warning by sounding the horn when necessary, and she'll exercise proper precaution upon observing any child or confused or incapacitated person upon a roadway.

That was definitely written in 1964.

Um section 14-586 is solicitation of contributions or business on roadways.

This one's really a sentence.

No person shall stand in a roadway for the purpose of soliciting contributions or business from the occupant in a vehicle.

And I think to the meat of the conversation, this doesn't this is just talking about the person, the pedestrian.

Whereas I think the the way it was written is more addressing also the driver's conduct.

So am I pulling up to hand somebody something to somebody and I'm kind of tempting them into an unsafe position in the road, or is this um we recently got calls about um someone was selling flowers, right?

So you have this exchange going on.

So I think this applies to a lot of different scenarios, but I think the intent was to hold both the driver and the pedestrian responsible for this activity was the way I read it, the enforcement piece.

With the amendment.

As amended.

Becky, but I have a I'm a little concerned about trying to determine what an immediate traffic hazard is.

Um I think that could be problematic.

What the definition of is is.

You know, we get into those weird conversations when we do these types of things.

So for enforcement purposes, I think the way it was written is super clear to me as far as what's allowed and what's not allowed.

And so A was so no occupant of a vehicle being operated on a major corridor roadway shall engage in distribution conduct with a pedestrian standing in or entering upon a major corridor roadway.

And then I go back up and read the definition of distribution conduct, an exchange which requires an acceptance or rejection of the item being distributed between a person located in a major corridor roadway and an occupant of a vehicle operating on a major corridor roadway.

And then it goes on to say nothing contained here and is intended to prohibit distributing anything to or accepting anything from occupants of a lawfully parked vehicle.

So we took that off the table.

And then distributing anything to or accepting anything from occupants of a vehicle adjacent to a sidewalk, if the person accepting or distributing remains at all times on the adjacent sidewalk.

So they're out of traffic.

But the vehicle may not obstruct or impede moving traffic in order to engage in the distribution conduct.

So again, they can't block traffic.

I I can't say it's word for word, but I think the Springfield ordinance is very, very similar to that as far as how it defines distribution conduct.

I believe it's cut and paste from Springfield.

Yeah, Ballery.

And that we talk about elephants directly.

If a person is panhandling on the sidewalk, if they're holding a sign asking for money, and a car gives them money located on the sidewalk.

If this amendment is passed, would that be legal?

If this amendment is not passed, would that be legal?

How does this change that interaction if they are not located on the median?

And you mean not the new wording of the amendment, but striking current six It doesn't really matter if you answer one scenario.

I'll understand the other scenario as long as we're clear.

So I'll put it this way.

If this amendment passes two strike six, and someone is panhandling located on the sidewalk.

And can they receive that?

Will they be allowed to walk into the street to take that money?

Um just so I understand.

Your question is as it's as the amendment is proposed or as it was originally written?

As the amendment is proposed.

Um I guess after answering that I may check on originally written, because I need to understand what we're doing to the ordinance and how it affects people using the street.

And so we we didn't write this language, and I think it would come down to an interpretation as to whether or not that interaction created an immediate traffic hazard.

Okay.

That makes sense, actually.

Yeah, I think if there's no traffic hazard, I wouldn't know what the enforcement purpose would be.

What's the lawful objective?

Don, you had your hand up.

So just to clarify, it makes reference to sidewalk and not median.

So I'm a bit of a nuance.

Is that correct?

Sorry, in which section?

Are we talking about the original wording or the proposed?

Original wording in section six.

Distributing any uh six B.

Distributing anything or accepting occupants adjacent to a sidewalk if the person accepting or distributing remains at all times on the sidewalk, provided the vehicle may not obstruct or impede traffic, et cetera, et cetera.

So on the sidewalk would be, like you said, permissible unless they're creating a hazard of some kind in that.

Um that would be on the driver, I think is the way we're correct.

Responsibility of the driver.

Okay.

So that's on the original.

But not in the amendment that we're discussing right now for this part of it.

Any other discussions on the amendment?

Did you have any changes to the proposed amendment for this one?

Except for just the re-lettering of six.

All right.

Any other discussion on amendment five?

All right.

Those in favor of amendment five say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed to amendment five?

Say nay.

Okay.

So amendment five passed it.

I don't say no.

Okay.

Well, you then you have to say it when I asked the question.

So only foster was no.

Everybody else, yes.

Okay.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

And then we had a couple of just kind of clarifications.

Um was um I'll make a motion to edit um section two, which is the the final word of the ordinance that says when it goes into effect.

Does that mean we did I have not gotten to oh I guess eight would be four if I'm going numerical.

Okay, sorry.

I just wrote this what I wrote down.

Um, so um Valerie, do you want to make your motion for adding eight to E?

Yes, I do.

Hold on one second, I'm sorry.

You're good.

Sorry, I meant on on this slide.

Did we do both new six and seven?

I thought we were only talking about it.

I she did not eliminate seven in her, she did not edit her amendment.

Okay, I thought we were doing it piece by piece separately.

Did it as amendment facts?

Okay.

I had not understood.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Because they talked about being in another section, but then no one removed it.

Okay.

All right, Valerie.

Under section E for exceptions, item eight, any person lawfully operating a cycle as set forth in Article 7 of this chapter.

I will second.

Any discussion on that?

Yes.

Betsy.

I said cycle.

That was the law department's input.

I suspect that cycle is how we're saying it in Article 7.

It's it's how it's defined in that chapter.

I can say we frequently have tricycles on the road.

Okay.

Sometimes unicycles too.

And motorcycles.

Yeah, we have a motion and a second.

Any other discussion on adding eight to E, say it?

All right.

All those in favor of um the the amendment, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

All right.

And then the next one I have is um for uh I propose to add to edit or to edit section two to replace its passage with July 1st, 2026.

So this would read this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after July 1st, 2026.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Segment from Jackie.

Discussion on this one.

Is that enough time?

Right.

Uh is that enough time, I think, to for education and awareness and okay.

All right.

Yes.

All those in favor of the amendment say aye.

I aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Are there any other amendments that I missed?

There's a lot to this.

And appreciate, even with a work session, we still had a lot discussion.

I'm sorry, on your proposed amendment, did you give a date in July or just say July?

I said July 1st, 2026.

I have no idea what day of the week that is.

I apologize.

That's fine as long as you said July 1st, not just July.

I'm I missed that.

I apologize.

All right.

Any other amendments to this?

Everyone was okay with that, right?

Yes, they all said yes.

That's the clarification was being asked and wanted to make sure I appreciate that.

Well, appreciate that and for the long chain.

Uh any other questions for staff from council before we open up for public comment.

All right.

Would anyone from the public wish to speak on the proposed and amended bill 26525?

You can stand up, you can come up, you have plenty of time.

Um please say your name and you can say your address or your word.

Uh and we'll have the timer going.

Thank you.

Um, uh my name is Aljandro Gallardo.

I am a uh resident of the sixth ward.

Um my thoughts to this um proposed ordinance is that it is fundamentally um the wrong, it's based on a fundamentally wrong premise.

Um this city and this state um have failed to build a a roadway system that is safe and uh accessible for pedestrians.

Anyone who has ever walked the streets of the city knows the truth of that, and if you disagree, I challenge you to go out and walk the streets of the city.

Um the consequences of that have been accidents, have been um crashes, collisions, um and now that the uh now that we are seeing the consequences of those um choices that have been made over years and decades, instead of you know uh proposing a um fix to these problems of building better streets, of uh renovating our streets.

Um we are instead trying to restrict and police the activity of pedestrians.

This I think is uh extremely wrong-headed.

Um I think um it places the blame for a lot of the failures of the city um on pedestrians.

Um it abrogates the responsibility of the city to protect um pedestrians, many of whom you know are our most vulnerable um members of the community, um, people who are disabled, um, who are uh are are uh poorer, um lower class members of the community.

Um I would strongly urge the members of this council to reject this um ill-conceived ordinance and instead um go back to the drawing board and find solutions to many of these long-standing issues with this uh with our um road network with our city infrastructure.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Uh your name and address are award your preference.

Uh Julie Shoop, 50 5811 Waterfront Drive South.

Um, since returning from the chambers trip to South Carolina last fall, where homelessness was discussed at length, I've been focused on one thing.

How do we make sure zero people are sleeping on the streets in Colombia?

Did you know that in the past four years, over 60 people experiencing homelessness in Colombia have died outside.

I didn't know that.

And when I heard that, I'm like, that is not acceptable.

To understand the problem, I've spent months researching and listening to service providers, business owners, policymakers, community leaders, and most importantly, to the people who are experiencing homelessness.

One conclusion is clear.

The temporary solutions we rely on, both here and across the country, they simply aren't working.

That is one reason why the median safety ordinance we're discussing tonight matters.

Allowing people to stand in medians to panhandle is one of the easy short-term solutions some here have advocated for.

The last time this was discussed at a council meeting, much of the conversation focused on technical definitions, infrastructure, enforcement hypotheticals, and civil rights arguments, while largely avoiding the very safety risks this ordinance is meant to address.

Some people say this ordinance isn't really about safety at all, that it's an attack on the homeless, and are therefore opposed regardless of its language or intent.

And the city's website explicitly even warns that giving money in the medians creates hazardous conditions, increases crashes, sudden stops in swerving.

Claims that this ordinance criminalizes poverty, misses the truth.

Allowing people to panhandle in medience is not compassion.

It is enabling and puts vulnerable people in directly in harm's way.

As the saying goes, give a person a fish and they eat for a day, teach them to fish and they are set for life.

Enforcing safety here also helps preserve the dignity of those looking for help.

I support the passing of this ordinance to protect drivers and pedestrians while personally committing to the harder work of giving a hand up to those living on our streets with physical or mental disabilities, those escaping domestic violence, aging out of foster care, or struggling with addiction.

Leaving people in harm's way under the guise of caring is not humane.

If anyone here, council members, staff, service providers, or community members want to help build long-term solutions that give people a path to restore their purpose and help them rejoin our community, I'd welcome the help.

In conclusion, and back to the issue at hand for the safety of our community, and as a necessary step toward real solutions, I urge the council to vote in favor of this ordinance and all the infrastructure they've been talking about down the road.

Thank you.

These laws were um attacking people who are loitering, people who were panhandling, and people with disabilities.

It's actually one of the main reasons why you don't see very many photographs of people with disabilities.

Because they were fined if they were seen out in public to the equivalent of 30 to 50 dollars in today's currency.

The reason why these laws were uplifted is because the disability community fought for our rights, fought for our ADA rights.

And right now, even though the language isn't there, it is an ugly ordinance because it was spearheaded by somebody who took inhumane photos of people not panhandling, passed out on the mediation.

That's when people started paying attention, and all of a sudden everybody was worried about panhandling and things on the medium.

It starts with this ordinance, and then it's gonna start with we want to ban panhandling and ordering, period.

And then we're going to hurt more people with disabilities.

People like me, even though I have an able body, I am greatly affected.

While more and more bus stops and bus stations disappear, and people have to walk on the street because there's ice or gravel or rubble on the sidewalk.

And we're treated like inhumane people.

It starts with this kind of ordinance.

I don't care what kind of language you use, I don't care how much clarification you have, this should not pass because we need to start valuing people over property.

People over profit.

Because it does actually bring profit.

And let me remind you, every single one of you will not drive one day.

Every single one of you.

And don't you deserve to grow old in a world where you have autonomy over your bodies?

Don't you deserve to grow old and be able to have safety and dignity?

That's what I want right now.

But no, I have to sit on cold concrete at bus stops.

No, I have to walk around into traffic because somebody had to park on the crosswalk.

And so I have to be on a median for several cycles because they kept repeating that behavior.

There are cars and trucks are allowed to ignore order and ordinances because they're in a vehicle.

I can't.

I can't just walk around into traffic.

But sometimes I might have to because there's no other options.

Stop passing these ugly ordinances, stop wasting money.

Go to where the most accidents happen and build the infrastructure there, and then go on out.

Stop arguing about the width of sidewalks, bring back our shelters, and stop doing these kind of ugly laws.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Derek Fogel.

I live at 409 West Broadway.

Uh, you might know me as the hacky sack man.

Um, I'm here to speak against this ordinance tonight.

Uh, one of my primary concerns is about come a little closer to the microphone, please.

Um, one of my primary concerns is about um protesting.

I am a frequent protester downtown myself, and I do protest out there at those intersections on those medians, and I understand that this that this ordinance would not allow me to stand in the little pork chop islands during the protests, which is a very common thing that's done.

Um I appreciate Jackie's uh questions uh regarding these the protests.

Um I'm also one of the town's uh actual non-motorized transportation people.

I ride my bicycle everywhere.

And so I really appreciate the fact that we've clarified that somebody on a bicycle is a vehicle according to the thing.

Um at times I read this ordinance and I'm I'm thinking, am I gonna get targeted for this?

Because I go out in public and I do I do this hacky sack thing that could be uh potentially viewed as disruptive or distracting.

Am I gonna be targeted by this ordinance?

If so, I I'm really against that.

Um, but one of the really things that I want everybody to think about how much time have you all spent thinking about if I were a homeless peep person and I was confronted with this ordinance, what would I do to get around it?

And the answer is really simple.

I'd have to keep crossing the the the intersections over and over and over again that would put more people in the intersections, more people crossing intersections more often.

It would actually increase the probability of a car pedestrian interaction because what you're doing is playing whack-a-mole.

You have to chase people off this island.

They just go to the next peep island.

They've got to chase them off that island, they just go to the next island.

What you're gonna end up doing, you're not gonna get these people to go away.

You're going to change their behavior.

One of the things that everybody has to understand is that being mean to people, being cruel to people, depriving people of things, does not create the behavior modification that you want to create.

You're trying to get rid of homeless people.

You're trying to get rid of home, make homeless people going away.

That's not gonna happen.

What you're gonna do is they're you're just going to change their behavior, and it's a very good chance that the way their behavior is going to change is going to make everything even more dangerous.

I want everybody to think about how easy it's going to be to game this ordinance.

Now, if I'm out there protesting on that corner, you know what I'm gonna do?

That's exactly what I'm gonna do to make sure that I'm not vulating the ordinance.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Before my time starts, are we allowed to ask for clarification on some of these amendments?

So when you're asking your questions, uh ask of clarification, and then what public comment is done, council will ask for clarification of staff if it's us or ourselves.

So we'll write down your question.

Okay, so my first question is um under section C.

Can you please say your name and your address or ward?

Uh Kristen ward five.

Um the part where it says director of public works is authorized to designate the roadways and medians.

Is that literally just one person getting to decide what constitutes the median is a major corridor and the roadway and stuff?

Or is it a couple people, a team, a committee?

And then under prohibitions number one, where it goes on for nothing in this subcheck subsection to me construed, and it continues.

But if you look at prohibitions number two, it goes into more detail for those with disability, mobility limitation, use of assisted device, accompaniment of a child or service the animal, safety can or safety considerations make it unpractical, impracticable.

Um I'm just wondering why one and two don't have the same verbiage for disability or mobility impairment, device, assisted devices, accompaniment, all that kind of stuff.

Like why are they different?

Um and then the last one is on the one where you crossed out distribution and whatnot.

And it seems to me like it's saying distribution is okay now, but there's still number five on the original ordinance that still says no distribution.

So I don't know.

I might just be confused on that one.

That was it.

Okay.

Go ahead and start now.

Okay.

My name is Kristen.

I'm Columbia resident, and here tonight to oppose Bill 26525.

Let me start by saying safe uh pedestrian safety, driver safety, and traffic flow are all legitimate concerns.

But this ordinant ordinance, even as amended, does not actually solve the safety problems it claims to address.

Instead, it still shifts responsibility onto pedestrians and individuals using existing public infrastructure while offering no concrete plan to fix said infrastructure.

Nothing in this ordinance commits the city to widening unsafe medians, improving crosswalk visibility, adding pedestrian signals, repairing broken sidewalks, or redesigning high-speed corridors that are known danger zones.

The amendments talk about accessibility and ADA and compliance, but they still do not require the city to actually bring routes up to standard.

They simply punish people for being in the roadway or on a median when the surrounding infrastructure may already be inadequate, inaccessible, or unsafe.

Second, this ordinance still fails to explicitly protect first and your questions part were part of your time.

I'm sorry, I didn't have part.

I'm sorry, thank you.

Okay.

I've emailed you guys now.

Yeah, thank you.

Hi, my name's Ida Fogle.

I live in the first ward.

Um I've lived in Columbia for 31 years, and I walk a lot.

Uh I bicycle some, I drive some, and I would I would urge the council to vote against this ordinance.

Um, in my experience in all of those situations, on foot, on my bicycle, in a car, the biggest danger I have encountered is inattentive or ignorant drivers.

In fact, I was almost hit crossing the intersection coming to this hearing because I assume the person didn't realize they had the drive right of way as a pedestrian and they just went with their left turn.

So I think that driver education and you know drivers need to be held accountable.

Um and I say that as somebody who obviously drives.

However, many times drivers don't realize they're supposed to stop.

So you're stuck on that median until the first driver in the line realizes it.

Um the lights flashing and everything.

Sometimes on my way home, I stop in that median because it collects trash and I pick up litter.

So I guess I would be violating the ordinance.

Um I participate with groups that do pick up litter, and a lot of the medians tend to collect litter, and we're standing on the median quite a while picking up litter.

I don't know if that would be illegal under this.

I just see 1,000 problems with trying to penalize pedestrians rather than building better infrastructure and educating drivers.

And thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Um I'm here to speak on the impacts of this ordinance on the homeless community.

The homeless people within our community are in survival mode.

Many have no source of income and cannot access resources due to their behavioral issues, whether that's from upbringing, mental health issues, substance abuse, or traumas sustained in their life.

These are our people who depend on panhandling for their survival, their food, their shelter, their survival.

So what will happen to these people folks when the right to survive is taken away.

They will do whatever it takes for self-preservation, pushing people to extremes.

We've become a society of me, myself, and I.

U.S.

Supreme Court costs around a million dollars.

All because homeless people make you feel uncomfortable.

Again, deal with it.

And finally, the two factors associated with pedestrian accidents are high speed, high volume intersections, and pedestrians crossing the road.

And your amendment does absolutely nothing to address those factors, such as reducing the speed limits, reducing traffic volumes, or widening mediums.

Instead, you choose to put the burdens on pedestrians exercising their First Amendment rights.

Your ordinance will do nothing to reduce accidents because you have done nothing to address the the underlying factors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bill.

My name is Anthony Wellroth.

I'm Boone County resident and Columbia pedestrian.

Um I just want to say that like mostly everybody has made great points so far.

I don't want to try to repeat too much of what they said.

But one point is very important and has been repeated a lot and needs to be repeated a lot more tonight.

And that's that this bill as proposed, or really just the whole idea of this bill is directionally backwards.

If we have identified a need to improve pedestrian safety, which I think we all agree exists, you do that by improving pedestrian infrastructure by looking at our other forms of infrastructure for motorists.

So if you're only looking at this through terms of enforcement, um that's all you're going to arrive at similarly tonight.

Most of your questions were directed at the chief of police because she was going to be the one enforcing it or directing enforcement on it.

But again, if your only questions and concerns are about an enforce about enforcement and going to the enforcer, you're not going to get a very clear picture of, you know, it's not a robust picture of the issue at that point.

Adequately looking at the multiple options before you.

Sorry, let me collect my thoughts here.

I know I've got a minute left.

Um I've got a number of points I wanted to get to, so I want to bring up the most important ones.

Okay, so I'll tell you what I think is going to be the net result of this, though.

Uh, when you go and ask somebody who's desperate for money, and you ask them to move off of the road, uh, what's not going to happen is them politely saying, Yes, I'm gonna move off the road.

Uh it's going to create more points of conflict with law enforcement, uh, not just for homeless people, but for people who are simply trying to walk to work uh or stop and admire some birds or protest.

This is going to create more points of conflict with law enforcement, and it's not going to start and it's not going to stop with here is a citation potentially for occupying the median.

Uh we can see very frequently that it ends in uh resisting arrest, any number of other situations as well and up including up to violence.

Um, Dr.

Sample, you pointed out that you don't want to uh not trust the judgment of our police department.

Uh, but I think that you know, not to doubt them, but when you're making good laws, you should always assume the worst uh so that we can get the best.

Hello, Shane Lowe, Ward 4.

Uh, one of the points I wanted to make is should this ordinance go forward?

Um, I think a couple of other commenters have already brought this up about concerns as far as like taking care of our community by maintaining the mediums and such, is these are traveled paths uh that a lot of times are neglected or aren't the first priority for road crews to clear.

Uh for example, where I live next to the forum shopping center, um, that's crosswalk across stadium is pretty major pedestrian thoroughfare.

Um, but Modot doesn't clear uh the median or the port chops um quickly.

And so what winds up happening is that you get the plows building up huge uh snowbanks and things like that.

And so uh the other day I was like, well, how would I address this, you know, with this ordinance?

Can I go out and shovel for my neighbor to be able to clear?

Uh, or would I be in violation of the ordinance?

I know again, you know, um, that's not necessarily the intent, but just thinking in terms of the law, I don't want someone reading this ordinance should it go forward and going, oh man, man, I really would like to shovel for my you know neighbors so they can get across the uh stadium here or so forth, but I can't do it because of this ordinance.

Uh so I think should this ordinance go forward, I would just love to see an amendment um allowing for the clearing of debris, snows, pedestrian um obstructions and hazards uh to be an exception for um an exception that's offered.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Elizabeth Bridges at 4005 citation drive.

I'm incredibly nervous to be up here.

So doing please bear with me.

Long time listener, first time caller.

See, you've already won the audience.

Go ahead.

Um I'm urged to speak up about the pedestrian safety ordinance.

Um, because this ordinance is bullying disguised as public safety or pedestrian safety.

And I represent the bridges household at 4005 citation drive.

And I am a mother of two, and I would not be doing right by myself or my or by my children if I didn't speak up on this matter.

My eight-year-old child put it perfectly when I asked him what I should say at City Council, and when I spoke, and he said, I think you should say don't.

So here I am to say don't.

Don't pass this pedestrian safety ordinance.

Don't.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Simon Macman.

Uh, I live in Ward 5, and I'm opposed to prolonging people's homelessness, which this bill would do by giving them uh citations for the crime of asking for money on the median of a road.

The language of this bill is so that only people standing on the median with no intention to cross are subject to the citation.

The only group of people I can think of that does that is uh homeless people asking for money.

If you issue citations to homeless people, what are they to do?

Many of them are already working jobs, already struggling to pay for their own survival.

You're only giving them more reason to ask for money or to turn to crime.

Uh I can only conclude that the people who wrote this bill seek to just fill their jails with more homeless people and don't care if they end up dead on the street because they've been pushed away.

Uh it's been proven that citations prolong homelessness, and this bill only makes Columbia less safe for homeless people.

Thank you.

Jim Meyer 104C Eagle Drive.

I want to speak to you in support of this bill tonight.

I think, you know, I've witnessed a number of very unsafe conditions over the years with the medians.

Uh the one that sticks most in mind was a gentleman who was unconscious, lying on a very narrow median at stadium in West Broadway.

He was lying right against the edge of the curb of the median.

So if he had moved his hand or his leg in his sleep or his unconscious state, even an inch or two, he would have been severely injured.

If he had rolled over his entire body would have been in the lane of traffic.

Um so I think that we need to do something to address those situations that some of them are extremely unsafe.

I think you've addressed adequately the concerns about First Amendment rights.

You know, a person can still demonstrate it's at Broadway and Providence.

They just need to move five or ten yards over to the sidewalk and and have the entire effect that they want anyway.

So I think you've gone through a very open and transparent process here.

I applaud you for amending the ordinance on the fly tonight in in the public meeting.

Uh that's very transparent, difficult to do, and I think the ordinance has been perfected as well as it can be, and it's I urge you to pass it this evening.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Drew Amaday.

I live in the fourth ward.

Um, I am the regional organizer for Missouri Jazz with Justice, which I mentioned because last week uh we were, you know, uh uh we were given the Columbia Fighters Diversity Award, which I appreciate because of our commitment to building a Columbia that is welcome to all.

Um so I just want to speak uh and urge you to vote no on this ordinance.

Uh you know, that award was given to us for um exemplifying the life and teachings of Dr.

Martin Luther King Jr.

I think it's pretty easy to see where he would stand on this ordinance.

Uh it uh targets already marginalized members of our community.

It will not make Columbia safer.

Um it will make Columbia less safe for those marginalized people.

Um I think it would be pretty ridiculous for the city to last week give us that award and then turn around this week and pass an ordinance that targets marginalized people.

Um and so I'm urging you please to vote no on this ordinance.

Um thank you.

God, this is nerve-wracking.

Hi, my name's Ada Growhering.

You don't get to know where I live.

Um, so I uh I wanted to bring my perspective as someone who is a pedestrian and uh has been homeless.

Um I did not panhandle, don't have that perspective.

Um, but so I wanted to comment on just the homeless community because I've noticed a fundamental condescension towards them from both people who are well-meaning and don't want to demonize panhandlers, and from those who aren't.

So, panhandling.

First of all, it is a valid job.

They are asking for almost nothing, and in exchange, you get to give up a little change and feel like you've made a difference because you have for again almost nothing.

That's the same service that any pastor or charity provides, that absolution.

So looking down on these people as as if they're parasites is fundamentally inaccurate.

They're providing a very cheap service.

Second of all, I wanted to establish.

So this is one aspect that I don't think a lot of people recognize.

The the homeless or unhoused, whatever you want to call them, bums, tramps, hobos, whatever, they are a distinct culture within the American fabric, right?

There was a comment from someone earlier, which I didn't much like about them rejoining society.

That is nonsense.

They are you're talking about people who live and survive off of community connections, and they take care of each other.

You're talking about people who will literally give the shirt off their back to someone else because they might be warm.

They might have a few dollars and someone else has none, whatever.

I have had people beg me for money, and when I told them, no, I'm I'm also incredibly broke, they took pity on me and offered me food.

Like you're it's anyway.

The reason that I bring up that they're distinct culture with their own language, practices, behaviors, is that this ordinance, by stopping panhandling, a means by which they make money to survive.

It is both um, it is as the UN dec defines it, genocide, both in a cultural sense and that you're ending the cultural practice of a culture, and in the literal sense, that you're depriving them of the means to make money to survive, whether they're going to spend it on, you know.

Some people say, oh, they'll just spend it on on boozer drugs.

What were you gonna spend it on, man?

The thing is, it's long story short, do not pass this amendment, not just for the desperate people on the streets, but so that you are not complicit in what is there's no such thing as an attempted genocide, just a genocidal action.

Thank you.

Ken Rice, 209, Reed Sport Ridge.

I want to start off by saying that I'm encouraged.

I saw tonight actual legislation, actual debate, actual attempt to do move something forward that I haven't seen out of council in a while, and especially about something that's important.

I was encouraged that um, you know, I saw some disdivision.

I saw that uh there's a lot of homework being done, and I saw that you took um advice.

That was encouraging.

I sit on the disabilities commission.

When I first saw the ordinance, I was encouraged.

I thought it was a good ordinance at first, and then as I sat and I listened to my fellow uh people on the disabilities commission, I saw the problems that were uh that were part of that, just in disabilities.

And the thought of the uh pedestrian um ordinance is good.

The actual ordinance itself had many problems with it.

I think that you've addressed most, if not all, the problems that it had.

Now, we heard tonight a litany that this uh this ordinance is to hate on the unhoused or the homeless.

It's not.

This lit this is for against the disabled.

Well, I think that uh you all have done a great job of making sure that they are protected, the ADA is taken care of.

That's wonderful.

I do agree the big problem is infrastructure, but the problem is you can't fix that right away.

This is an interim action that can help.

This is an interim action that can help.

And then it's not just about the people that are, you know, we I heard somebody say, well, there's people sleeping that are problematic.

Well, that is problematic also, you know, if I'm disabled and I'm having a wheelchair and someone happens to be sleeping in the middle of the way, that's problematic for uh disabled people.

But let's talk about.

I also see that people selling flowers, people that are doing charity good works, but you know, you're in a charity run running in and out of cars.

Those are problems that helps address those problems.

So I think while this doesn't do everything to fix pedestrian safety, it goes a long way in getting us to where we need to be.

And I'm also very encouraged by the collaboration by the seven of you with differing philosophies, differing beliefs that you can work together to get something passed and move forward because we spend too much time doing nothing, and we're doing something.

So I urge you to pass this, work forward, make it better.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Tanya Heath from Fourth Ward.

And so I'd like to thank you all for your due diligence with all the details that you have provided tonight with all your amendments.

I think that's really good.

The thing that I remember the most from last year is the fire chief Brian Schaeffer talked about how when the rigs are turning, they can't always do the turns and know the safety of the back end of the rig.

And so I remember that specifically as something that happens all the time in emergencies where they are traveling at fast speeds to get to people in a very um immediate time.

So I just wanted to remind you of that.

And then also the fact that no one wants to accidentally have an accident with someone in the median.

And that's a lifelong tragedy that both people would carry with them.

And I think that there's a better way to uh help people that are in the mediums.

And also with people in the medians when it's cold, when it's raining, when it's desperately hot.

I think as a city, we can pass the ordinance tonight, but we can also create an advertising campaign where we have signs that tell people where to donate.

The opportunity campus is coming up.

People can volunteer their time to help people build resumes, connect with job opportunities, and serve humanity.

So I think that this can be a part one, but I think as a community with the heart, we can also develop long-term strategies for a better quality of life for all those involved.

Thank you.

Hi, Ted Farnon, Fifth Ward, avid pedestrian.

We now live in a world where things that once were considered true and non-controversial are now politicized.

Kids should get their measle shots.

Well, that's a source of controversy now.

Protesters shouldn't be roughed up or murdered by law enforcement.

That's something that in the past few days we've heard a lot about because it's become a source of controversy and it shouldn't be.

Now here in Colombia, we've taken another bit of common sense that people shouldn't hang out in the middle of streets and turned it into a political controversy.

We've heard a lot of rhetoric from people on both sides of this issue, online and in posts.

And I would ask you to tune out the rhetoric, both conservative and liberal.

I would urge the council to focus what's actually in the pedestrian safety ordinance being voted on tonight.

This ordinance is not an attack on the homeless, even if that claim has been made a million times.

There's no elephant there.

The ordinance states that no one needs to be on these busy street medians unless you're a pedestrian crossing the street.

That's it.

End of story, period.

Any other claim is just noise and a rationalization to try and defeat this ordinance.

The ordinance is not unconstitutional, it applies to all the people, and it's not impugning anybody's free speech.

This city spent a hundred thousand dollars studying this problem.

The consultant came up with a solution and this ordinance, and it's been amended, and I think very well by Councilman uh sample and and I love the uh phasing in of it.

But besides the aforementioned rhetoric, the rest of the opposition isn't about what's actually in the ordinance.

It's about what's not in the ordinance.

And some people say if the council can't redesign city intersections, improve public transportation, restrict motorists, then you shouldn't even consider this ordinance.

And I think that's foolish.

You can do one and then the other.

To claim, as some people have tonight, that intersections are unsafe, but then they want people to be standing around doing anything they want in the middle of them is madness.

In conclusion, I'd like to note that there have been several examples of council issues that were really controversial at one time, but now they're not.

Twenty years ago, the city passed on a four to three vote, the uh banned uh for indoor smoking.

Nobody wants that to come back.

How it was, where you when you went home from a bar or restaurant, you smelt like an ashtray, but it was controversial at the time.

But it was controversial at the time, roll carts.

You all, many of you have been dealing with that for years.

Nobody wants to go back to throwing bags of trash on their front yard.

So just like that, those issues.

If you pass this ordinance, I believe that no one will ever want to rightly go back to what we have now, and they'll wonder why was it ever allowed at all?

I urge the support of the ordinance.

Thank you.

So I'd appreciate that extra time.

Thank you so much.

Um my name is Jeff Stack of the South Side of Town.

I've been in Columbia for 40 years now.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Mid Missouri Fellowship of Reconciliation.

We're a peace and social justice group here in town.

And um to first uh first off, I really want to commend the city uh with county commission.

You folks have worked really hard the last few years.

Maybe not some of the newer ones, but I think you folks support these concepts too.

But for the uh funding and the purchase of the uh VFW Hall uh as a shelter for unhoused people and also for Lowe's and fishes.

I was there earlier tonight.

Uh councilmember Peters is a freaking frequent worker there.

Um does good disc job anyway, but among other talents.

But anyway, you know, and welcome all of you to come.

I think it's really important to to continue, and Nick, you've been there many times, I know, appreciate that.

But but and also appreciate the uh commitment to the possi the opportunity campus.

That's that shows compassion from this body.

You folks are showing great leadership.

But on this particular measure, I think you're kind of getting off base a bit.

I'd encourage you all to vote against this this ordinance.

Um, I think in our current society, we have we're so vehicular centrist, centric, that you know, it's kind of weird.

Some of the public gathering spaces for our community are these uh different um mediums and all, and people are in in such desperate spots.

Um I think the intention of this ordinance for many of you might indeed be to promote public safety.

None of us want to see people hit by cars.

Nobody wants to see any of that kind of thing happen.

But I I have to say it it also kind of feels to me like it's a bit of a PR effort, you know, to again, as folks have said before, to kind of get unhoused people out of our midst, out in front of us.

You know, and the reality is folks are here.

They don't have much choice a lot of times.

A lot of folks, you know, they've burnt bridges elsewhere and they need to get some money together, you know, for for a hotel because they can't maybe stay at the shelter.

They need money maybe for alcohol.

I mean, I'm not excited about that.

But we have in in our community what we could really put some money into is trying to get uh get drug and alcohol treatment on demand for people.

That might be a really constructive thing for us to put money in, rather than do more research to try to get people off this off of these uh mediums.

Also, as I guess I do want to point out as well, our group, the Fellowship of Reconciliation have been joining with many other groups uh using these spaces as uh as a protest zone, you know.

I the gentleman before me mentioned about uh about uh talking about in being in the streets.

Well, we want to be off the streets.

We're not trying to cause harm.

But people, the only way people oftentimes can come by or or uh get acquainted with some of these issues by seeing a sign as they drive by.

No more war, let's end the uh uh the Holocaust or the genocide against the Palestinian people.

Um, you know, ice out, those kind of things.

It's important to to reach people where we can.

Our commons are a little bit different these days, but that these areas, these intersections are common.

So, you know, I'd encourage us to to for you folks to allow people to continue to gather there.

Um and again, back to back to the unhoused folks.

You know, poke folks are again doing these things out of desperation.

I think it's really important for us to recognize that our economic times are getting more difficult, not easier.

So we are this is one way that people can get some assistance.

And it's uh it's a free will offering.

People I I give cash to people all the time when I drive by.

I'm not very wealthy.

A buck here or a buck there can really help make a difference for somebody.

And it's not the ideal situation, and we have more evolution to do, but but to shut off this as an opportunity for people, I think is doing a disservice to humanity.

Uh we we need to be kinder to one another, and it seems to me that that this is kind of moving us in a direction of being more mean-spirited towards one another.

We can do better than this, and I think that uh, you know, we uh we have an obligation to do so.

Um, you know, just I'll I'll share this real quick.

I mean, at the soup kitchen today, you know, we served over a hundred people.

Um these are human beings, you know, who have a right to exist.

I mean, their situation makes us all feel uncomfortable.

None of us, maybe a couple of people in the in the room here, won't have a place to go to tonight, but all of us do otherwise.

We take these things for granted so much.

And so when these folks who have severe mental illness, however, they get a couple, you know, get enough money for a hotel room, that pr that keeps them off the streets.

You know, we're we we have this way, unfortunately, of wanting people to disappear.

It's really uncomfortable because it could be that line between us and them, I hate to put it that way, but you know, many of us would be in a difficult spot if not for the kindness of others, our family or other folks.

So please uh vote against this ordinance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chad.

Hi there.

My name is Luke Finwald.

I live at 712 Glenstone Drive.

I've been a resident of Ward 3 collectively for about 10 years now.

I would like to speak out in opposition to this ordinance.

I think uh Mayor Buffalo, you had said that we need to uh expressly say what the intent of this ordinance is.

I think whenever you have to expressly say what the intent is, what you're worried about is the effect of it.

And whenever you read this ordinance, it says pedestrian safety ordinance.

But I want to say this very clearly.

Pedestrian safety is not caused by sighting pedestrians.

I'll say that again.

Pedestrian safety is not caused by sighting pedestrians.

Pedestrian safety comes whenever you have pedestrian infrastructure in place of car infrastructure.

And in this town, we have far more car infrastructure than we do pedestrian infrastructure.

If we want to uh affect pedestrian safety, we need pedestrian infrastructure.

Simple as that.

I also think that if we were to uh address pedestrian safety, we wouldn't have an entire section on this about the distribution of con of uh content.

Um as long as the bill has that you cannot approach a vehicle, that you cannot uh distribute things from your vehicle, it is about panhandling.

This is an anti-panhandling ordinance.

And I think that question of the intent shows that we're all thinking that.

Um the last thing that I want to say is that right now, since the 2024 Supreme Court case about it is legal to uh prosecute people for sleeping on the streets.

There has been a litany of these type of ordinances passed by cities the size of Columbia across the country.

The question I would have for this council is do we want the City of Columbia to be a city where the unhoused, where our most vulnerable citizens are put at risk.

Do we want that for the City of Columbia?

Thank you very much.

Thanks, Luke.

Bruce Summers, third ward.

Um I rise in support of this ordinance.

I hope you pass it.

I just wanted to account for or relay two personal stories that have happened to my family.

And it's just it's madness to allow people to hang out in the mediums.

And the first one, it almost happened to my happened to my wife, but it almost was a tragedy.

She had to swerve around somebody who was laying in the median with his head in the left turn lane.

And that would have been horrific if she would have actually run over somebody's head.

She would have killed somebody, and then it would have it would have just been a tragedy.

The second thing happened to me, uh, I work near Clark Lane, near the Clark Lane and 70 infrastructure.

And I debated whether I should call in, but I called in, I think it's 311.

It's the non-emergency number.

Because there was a young lady, she was out of her mind, dancing up and down, um, in and out of traffic.

And I thought to myself, if that was my daughter in another city, I would hope that somebody would have called in to get her help because she clearly was not in her mind.

And it was a very dangerous situation.

I didn't, you know, she didn't fortunately I didn't hit her, but I could have if I wasn't paying attention.

And so that's just the two personal accounts that have happened to my family that I wanted to pass on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Tom Traby with Trabu Engineering, 4750 North Booth Lane.

I'm speaking on behalf of the Columbia Board of Realtors, so could I have additional time?

That too.

Thank you.

The board emailed a letter to each of the council members um late last week outlining their support for their ordinance.

I hope you got that.

I hope you were able to review that.

Uh I'm not going to go through it in depth.

It was rather long, had a lot of information in it.

Um they did outline in their letter that the ordinance has a balanced approach.

It does not restrict legitimate pedestrian activity, but channels it to safe designated areas.

Our roads and highways are first and foremost designed for conveyance of vehicles.

The designs, as part of our complete streets, also accommodate and make provisions for pedestrian crossings at crosswalks in an orderly and predictable fashion.

Many of you know I'm a registered professional engineer and have designed many public roadways over the years.

The standards and design guides referenced by the traffic consultant represent the current best practices for comprehensive roadway design for vehicles and pedestrians.

The ordinance is drafted consistence with the science outlined in the design guides.

There has been some discussion about deficiencies in some of our older roadways with regard to pedestrian accessibility.

The design community, MODOT, and city staff, we all acknowledge and are aware of that, and we make efforts to address those deficiencies as new roadway improvements are considered.

The city has an active sidewalk improvement program, a capital improvements plan.

The city is currently evaluating an update to their street standards, which will no doubt involve pedestrian accessibility as well.

Correcting existing substandard streets and pedestrian access is an ongoing process.

As Shane Creach mentioned, it will take time and it will take money.

We appreciate the process that the city has taken on this ordinance in educating and gathering input from the community.

The work session on January 12th, I thought was awesome.

I thought it provided great value and a great opportunity for the Council.

We especially appreciate that the proposed amendments are drafted ahead of time and ahead of the meeting and not on the fly to provide the public an opportunity to react to them.

Along those lines, I'd like to state we're comfortable with most of the amendments.

I believe that the items added in amendment number four are problematic and create more confusion and unnecessarily waters down the ordinance.

The included definition basically says that if there is not a perfect sidewalk that I or anybody as an able-bodied person can walk down the roadway.

I don't think that's the intent.

I understand the need for accessibility, but I'm confident that our police department has similar discernment when enforcing this.

So we believe that the section, the amendment four, that that section is originally drafted as satisfactory, and appreciate your consideration of our thoughts about that, revisiting that item.

This ordinance will not solve all interactions with vehicles and pedestrians.

It does provide clearer boundaries and more predictability, recognizing that drivers and pedestrians do not always do the right thing.

This is one more tool to move Columbia toward vision zero goals.

It is a tool that the Police Department has said will help them enforce what many of us believe to be common sense items.

We believe that this is a responsible, evidence-based approach to increasing pedestrian safety in our community, and the Columbia Board of Realtors supports the ordinance.

Thank you for allowing us this opportunity for input.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Alice Turner.

I live at 1204 Field Crest.

I am a 45-year resident of Columbia, and because of that, I have a lot of historical memories of similar public hearings.

Gentleman talked about the smoke-free ordinance.

I worked on that for three years.

We took three years to work with this community to make sure people were comfortable with what we passed.

Although, and we also didn't have court cases that could overturn it.

So you have worked on this a year.

I thank you for that.

But perhaps this is too soon.

Secondly, I remember Darwin Hindeman one time at a hearing said, okay, this public hearing and the people in this room will really impact how I vote tonight.

So I want you to think of what the majority of testimony has been here tonight.

I emailed you earlier.

I am absolutely opposed to passing this at this time, until we can have some infrastructure improvements attached to it.

I am a protester, as all of you know.

I do not think this is the time to limit my civil liberties to be on the infrastructure off of our streets to express my horror of what's going on in this country in the state.

Possibly in the city.

So those are two remarks I wanted to say.

I had some testimony written out, concerned about the unhoused population, and I am, and I do think this does continue to target them.

People who are unhoused, they they take their life is unsafe.

But to take away this and to make it illegal is not something that I'm comfortable with.

I urge you to reflect on the people that have been here tonight.

Perhaps this is too soon to pass this.

You do not have great support in the community.

It is a very divided on this.

But of course, the people I know are out there on the streets trying to get their voices here.

You have not provided any route to infrastructure to improve what you consider unsafe.

And I think that needs to be part of this.

Secondly, and now I'm forgetting what secondly is.

What were the opinions of the four commissions that reviewed this?

Were they in support of it?

You did not mention it.

And I'm interested in hearing that.

Thank you for your time.

I do so respect all of you for your work.

Thank you.

Hey there, folks.

Uh, my name is Grace.

I am a member of the Fifth Ward.

Don, you are my representative.

Um, and I'm going to try and make this brief, because I really only got two points that I feel that I need to get across, because just about everybody has made every point that they could make about the impact this it could have on our disability disabled population, on our protesters, and most importantly, in my opinion, our homeless population.

I do believe all I agree.

I think it's it's going to have negative impacts on all of those people.

But I would also like to reiterate what Alice just said.

I am, I feel that I've been up here a couple times.

Okay.

You guys probably recognize me.

I dress the same way every time I wear a mask, I got the headscarf.

And I feel that a lot of y'all come in here and you already know how you're gonna vote.

And you might sit there and nod and pretend that you're listening to people, but some of you I don't think are really listening to what we have to say.

And I would truly I want to believe that my elected officials care about their constituents and care about their community and are here to listen.

I want to believe that you're not thinking about what you're gonna have for dinner when you get home.

Don't get me wrong, I get it.

But like I want to believe that you're here to do your job.

And for many of you, I fully believe that.

For many of you, I know that you are here to do what you know is right, to be part of this community as your job.

That's the first point I'd like to make.

And then, secondly, my mom always says that actions speak louder than words, and I think that applies to this ordinance as well.

Umtent needs to be clear with an ordinance, and for an ordinance like this, if you would have to put something at the beginning to be like, just so you know, this is not targeting this specific thing, you gotta rework the ordinance.

If it's not clear from the actual ordinance itself, you cannot pass that.

It's not ready to be passed.

I think you could show an eighth grader that, and they would recognize that.

And and hey, eighth graders are incredibly intelligent.

That's why I gave them as an example.

Um, but my point is I know that we can do better for our community.

I know that we can work together to create a safer ordinance that is about um infrastructure and isn't about banning people from public spaces because I don't think that that's what y'all want to be known for in any capacity.

Um, yeah.

I tried to make that shorter, but uh didn't really work out.

Um but thank you all for listening, and I truly hope that you have taken the words of every person here to heart and to mind.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, everybody.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, members of the council.

If I could have five minutes be speaking on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.

Uh my name is Matt Jenny.

I am one of the owners of Addison's and Sophia's restaurant.

I currently serve as a chair-elect of the board of directors of the Columbia Chamber of Commerce.

So, on behalf of our chamber, I'm here to voice our strong support for this ordinance with its proposed amendments.

You guys worked very hard on those amendments, and I'm I'm uh really pleased that you guys were able to make those uh uh part of the bill.

Columbia Chamber of Commerce represents nearly 1,000 member businesses and tens and thousands of employees across our community.

So when you look at me, hopefully you can imagine thousands of businesses and people standing with me as I speak.

This ordinance is fundamentally about safety, not only for pedestrians, but for motorists and the customers and employees who keep Colombia's economy moving.

It is about ensuring that our city's major corridors, which serve as our economic corridors, remain safe, efficient, and welcoming for everyone who travels them.

Columbia business community depends on safe, reliable access.

When people feel unsafe or distracted on our roads, whether they're commuting to work, shopping, or delivering goods, it affects the entire local economy.

The U.S.

Chamber of Commerce Foundation has conducted numerous studies that consistently show safe and efficient infrastructure as among the top three factors influencing where businesses choose to locate and expand.

Communities that prioritize well-designed secure transportation system see higher business retention.

They see increased property values and stronger consumer confidence.

This ordinance reflects that kind of proactive leadership.

It is designates high traffic, high speed areas as zones where pedestrians and vehicle interactions should be limited to lawful crossings and clearly marked intersections.

It's not about limiting activity.

It's about protecting people from unnecessary risk and ensuring the steady flow of traffic to vital to our commerce.

Locally, we know that many of our key commercial corridors, like Stadium Boulevard, Providence, Broadway, are not only heavily traveled, but also critical to our economy.

A lot of our businesses are closest to these intersections, so this ordinance affects businesses quite a lot.

Every day, thousands of vehicles move through these intersections to access restaurants, retail shops, healthcare services, offices.

Keeping these routes clear, safe, and orderly helps ensure that Columbia remains a place where businesses thrive and where residents feel secure, traveling to work to school, and to patronize those businesses.

I think Columbia is an amazing place to live.

I believe it is our responsibility as citizens to do what we can for the least amongst us.

And allowing people to stand in the middle of the road for hours at a time is not that.

So this ordinance gives our police tools necessary to be able to get these citizens somewhere safer and hopefully to a place where they can get the help they need to get back on their feet.

With the opening of the opportunity campus, Columbia will have that place.

Now, a number of people are here tonight to support this bill, and they're uh in order to make things go a little quicker.

I've asked that they just stand in support so that they don't have come up and repeat the same talking points that I'm repeating.

So if I could get those that are in support to stand, just so you can see that there's a number of people in the room that are also supporting.

Hey, hey.

No.

No.

No.

So I really want to thank you guys.

You guys have done an amazing job on this.

You've worked really hard on it.

Uh you are making Columbia safer, a strong, stronger place to live, work, and do business.

Thank you again for your time.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you.

Fourth word.

I'm going to try to keep this pretty short and sweet.

I wasn't originally planning on getting up and speaking tonight.

I'm not used to really public speaking a whole lot.

Honestly, it was one of the supporters of this bill that inspired me to get up and speak whenever they flip me the bird before they came up to give me their testimony.

So I just want to relay the thoughts of many of the other opponents of this bill.

They've laid out very clear, intelligent, concise reasons why you should oppose it from legal, moral, practical grounds.

And I'm still opposed to this even with the amendments.

Just to keep it real, I think the amendments are like uh putting lipstick on a pig.

So I just think you all should consider that.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rachel.

I live in Ward 6.

I have just a couple of points that I would like to make about this bill.

First of all, this markets itself is a pedestrian safety bill, and people like to say standing in the middle of the road is dangerous.

This bill is not about standing in the middle of the road.

That's already illegal.

It's about standing on medians.

Some medians are called pedestrian refuge islands.

People are standing on medians to be safe.

The alternative to standing on the median isn't disappearing into the ether.

It's trying to cross too soon and running out into traffic.

And the idea behind this bill is that if we create an additional danger to pedestrians that you might get sighted if you take too long to cross, then people won't stand in the median for so long.

But that's pressuring people to cross too soon, especially at crossings that don't have lights.

If people are concerned about getting sighted, perhaps if they see a police officer nearby or something, that pressures them to run out into traffic sooner than they otherwise might.

And it doesn't matter if the police officer wouldn't have cited them.

Just the fact that that's a possibility will change people's risk calculation and encourage them to engage in more dangerous behavior.

I am also very, very concerned that this bill will explicitly forbid people from the protests on the pork chops.

I think that's a real problem.

That's a serious First Amendment violation.

Banning peaceful protest under the guise of public safety is extremely problematic, and I don't think it matters what our intention is when we pass these kinds of laws.

If we pass tyrannical laws, we can't trust that we'll always be the ones enforcing them.

Please vote against this bill.

And please don't sway to social media campaigns or people coming in from out of town to try and tell folks that we need to turn against each other or against our most vulnerable members.

Columbia is better than that.

And we voted for all of you because we trust you to represent the voters of Columbia and to do what's right and to stand for our community.

Thank you.

Because what it clearly targets is panhandlers.

I read through the ordinance, I did read through all of the amendments, and what they really do is try to make illegal an interaction between someone standing on the median and someone in a car.

If you get right down to it, that's the crux of it, and that is frankly the legal definition of panhandling is when you have that exchange.

If you pass this ordinance, you can be guaranteed that it will be challenged in court.

There have been enough people standing up here tonight who have let you know that the activities that they perform, whether protesting or aiding people, are going to continue.

And that means that arrests will be made, citations will be issued, warnings, citations, however, we need to do it.

It's going to end up in court.

And the city can't prevail.

Even if you say it's not about panhandling, courts look at intention.

And if all of the amendments make the only thing that's illegal is the interaction between the person in the vehicle and the person on the median, then that's panhandling, and your ordinance is against panhandling.

And it doesn't matter whether you say that that's not the case.

People can't stand in the middle.

No, that doesn't stand as evidence.

This ordinance is bound to lose.

And if you know in advance it's bound to lose, and you know in advance that it will hurt the people that are trying to uh survive by panhandling, then you're just being mean.

Then you are being bullies.

If you vote for it, then shame on you.

And I would like to say to those from the Chamber of Commerce or the Realtor Board who are for this ordinance.

I say, shame on you.

You're just being mean.

And you should look around at the people who are here.

We're not gonna attack one another.

And see if you I have three seconds, two seconds, see if this is the kind of place that you want to live.

I'm Renee Carter, and I'm with Race Matters Friends, and I'd like five minutes, please.

Uh first of all, I'd like to say that we oppose this bill, and the reason for that is that this ordinance is a huge equity issue.

What I hear you saying is that you cannot prioritize fixing dangerous intersections, crosswalks, medians, bike paths, and sidewalks because we're on what I call the 50 year plan.

Also, MoDot is spending their money on highways, so they won't address the infrastructure safety either.

But you're, but you're going to ticket our most vulnerable community members because you think that will solve the problem.

What will really happen is those panhandlers will go to jail because you won't prioritize safety.

They will go to jail.

They'll go to jail because they can't afford a ticket.

That's what happens now to homeless people that get trespasses.

They don't pay tickets, they go to jail.

And what will happen due to your unwillingness to prioritize safety is what I consider neglect.

No matter what your excuses you use, if you won't fix your infrastructure, you're neglecting the pedestrians in this city.

Secondly, I'm horrified that you're willing to further terrorize those who depend on panhandling for money.

You're proposing to criminalize people who under the guise of safety with no proof that panhandlers were injured.

Your data doesn't show that, and you can't prove that it does.

That's in the way of sidewalks, it's in the way of the crosswalks.

Anyone using a wheelchair or any pedestrian trying to cross was already unsafe.

But you don't even enforce that ordinance.

Last, we're not buying your posturing that this isn't targeting panhandlers and the homeless.

Trying to figure out how to make your infrastructure safe, as you have been developing other ordinances to criminalize our most marginalized community members.

But after hearing a couple comments about you cannot be compassionate to all citizens in our community and support this ordinance, I realize the significance of that, and if I was in your position, the impact of that.

Three months a year.

Used to be at our church, and outs room at the end.

Every Sunday night or the first Sunday night of each month.

I'm part of a group that does serve dinner.

And I've been part of all of those outreach and with the Opportunity Center working behind the scenes on some of that.

I'm not building that, but I'm behind the scenes on that.

But I am in support of this ordinance with the amendments that you did, and I thank you for your thoughtful consideration of listening to the comments that we heard in November with all the different comments and taking those into account and coming up with amendments.

So I do support those.

It's clear that we need a balance between safety and accessibility, which why I believe passing the ordinance with the amendments is acceptable.

It removes some of the issues that were concerns that we hear about those individuals that are at most risk in our community.

Some of the intersections that are affected by this ordinance, and I counted from January 1st until yesterday, an average of 21 times a day because my office is on Bernadette and my home is on Bray.

So I see the individuals, I see the near misses, I see the instances.

And I think why do we need this ordinance?

I follow ordinances and rules for our buildings every single day.

That is because we know people are going to occupy them, so we make sure the electrical outfits, outlets are grounded, that the rails are high enough.

All those safety issues are built into the building because we know people are going to occupy them.

There's not safety built into the medians because we did not anticipate that individuals would occupy them.

And now we need an ordinance to deal with that right now.

So I believe this is a difficult vote for you, but I believe the ordinance with those amendments is the way to a is the correct way to proceed at the City of Columbia's citizens at this time.

It also highlights the needed work on infrastructure that but that is for future meetings.

So thank you for your careful consideration and the time you've put in on this ordinance.

Thank you.

Um hello.

But nonetheless, I think no matter the intent, what this ordinance does is punish the behavior of that is most typical of people who are homeless rather than the average pedestrian.

And I also think that it is known to everybody in this room that the most effective means of protecting pedestrian safety is providing or building pedestrian uh safety infrastructure.

And that the um best way of preventing accidents is to build accessible and safe uh infrastructure.

I um sorry, this is my first time ever doing something like this.

I just want to say that I oppose the uh passing of this ordinance.

I think no matter how much amending and work that goes into this, nonetheless, the effect will be prosecution of those who are homeless and not safety of people who are trying to walk around the city.

And walking around the city is really hard.

I do it very often.

Um thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

Carrie Gartner, executive director of the business loop CID 14 business loop east.

The board of the loop CID is in favor of this ordinance.

We see the near misses and the dangerous conditions on our street every day, and this needs to be part of our ongoing efforts to make sure our streets are safer for everyone.

We've seen drivers trying to help in compassionate but ultimately misguided ways, stopping their cars and moving traffic, rolling down their windows, and then essentially asking someone to dart out into moving traffic to collect a dollar bill.

This creates perfect conditions for a pedestrian-involved crash or a rear-end crash, and it goes without saying that we cannot have people running out into the street for this reason.

It's just not safe.

We recently worked with the city on a safety audit of the business loop.

We found that pedestrians were less willing to cross at a crosswalk if someone was standing in the median.

We saw numerous instances of Hickman High School students who would use the crosswalk at Providence, but then would not use the crosswalk at business loop.

They would, which is usually always occupied, they would walk past the crosswalk and then dart across five lanes of the business loop in order to get to McDonald's just to avoid a person standing in the median on that crosswalk.

We want students using the crosswalk.

We can't have them darting into the street.

Um medions should be a safe place for pedestrians to stop if the signal changes, particularly if they move a bit slower or have a disability.

But they can't do this if the median is already occupied.

Um everyone in this room tonight realizes that there are people in our city who need help, and we want to find the best way to offer that help.

We have nonprofits and government agencies working hard to provide assistance.

Many of these services are on the business loop from the food bank on the west end to the new opportunity campus on the east.

There are safe and reliable ways for people to receive the help they need.

And a final note to all my fellow infrastructure nerds.

Yes, that's the best way to make things safe for everybody involved.

The price tag to fix the infrastructure on the business loop is gonna be 20 to 30 million dollars.

So unless there is a secret infrastructure fund somewhere in the city that we can tap into, that is not the immediate uh solution.

It is a long-term solution that we're working on, but right now we need something to keep the students, the pedestrians, and the people on the business loop and the rest of our city safe.

So thank you for your time tonight, and I urge council to support this ordinance.

Thank you.

Eugene Alkin, second ward.

We've had lots and lots of opinions this evening.

I'm very proud of everyone that stood up and said they was absolutely opposed.

You all have worked yourselves very hard, and everyone appreciates the dedication.

But you did or did not hear, we need a grant to put in infrastructure.

Please, please, please let me represent the homeless and say, yes.

Let's try to get some infrastructure that is something a person can actually stand on, not fall off of.

What is right is right and what is wrong.

The ladies recently did a down opposition.

There is nothing wrong with democracy working.

Let it work on this situation.

If time is needed, step up and say time is needed by a word no.

You're not going to hurt anybody's feelings for doing what is right.

And the foundation is not there, then let's get it.

The subject of incarceration.

If you do not know this, born and raised Boone County in our jails are full.

We're constantly putting people in from other counties.

Whose problem is that?

I don't know.

But how about let's don't add to the role, putting homeless people in that position.

Recently, I'm starting to see more and more strangers hitting our town, but not necessarily staying.

Why would I bring this up?

I could be the traveling USA traveler, come to Columbia, Missouri.

There stands a homeless person.

I think I'll give him a dollar.

Oh, you gave him a dollar.

Now we'll find you for handing out the one dollar because they now have these new ordinances.

And before you know it, it don't take too much conversation on all the medium we have to pass the word on don't you dare give a dollar in Columbia.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'm Alec Martiro's first board.

I'll keep this brief because I realize you all probably have your mind made up already.

Um I just want to echo what everybody in opposition has said before me, which is this bill is clearly not about pedestrian safety.

This is about siding and writing up pedestrian more often, especially our disabled friends.

This is primarily also about criminalizing homelessness.

This is about putting the most vulnerable members of our community even more in harm's way.

I believe that this bill has originally written and now has amended is unacceptable.

And I asked that you vote against it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is Dave Griggs.

I live at 11 Lemon Drive, and I swore I would not talk to you this evening.

However, I want to come to the city's defense in a little bit.

What we need to have a real educational program in our community to say, what is a state road?

And what is a city street?

90% of the problems that we have, in my humble opinion, are on Missouri Roads, Missouri State Roads, Missouri Highway Department and Transportation Commission roads, where we can't do infrastructure changes.

We have to work with them to do those infrastructure changes.

And unfortunately, they don't have the money either.

So widening a median may be a great idea, but what happens to widening that right away to take care of the traffic?

People we just have a problem.

My take is you are responsible for the safety of the citizens of Columbia.

In situation you are not responsible for a whole lot of the infrastructure that's been discussed tonight.

I totally support this ordinance.

It will make the street safer for drivers as well as pedestrians as well as everybody else.

There are some things that you can control and have an impact on.

In its case, a lot of this you can't control and don't have an impact on.

I'm that's an unfortunate situation, but I personally urge you to pass this ordinance.

Thank you very much.

And I appreciate your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Matthew Schacht.

I live in the Benton Stevens neighborhood.

Um I spoke, I think back in February when this ordinance first came up, and I was opposed to it.

I was opposed to it because it seemed very quick.

There was a lot of problems with it, and I've seen you guys work through that today, and that's really heartening.

I know that it was really painful to go through that.

Uh, it's also not too pleasant to hear from all of us.

Some of us are repeating ourselves, but this whole process of talking it out, I guarantee you it's really important to get to acceptance for whatever you decide, whether you pass it or not, just giving everybody a chance to air this out.

And I would really encourage your communications department, after you make your decision, whether you pass it or you don't pass it, tell them some of what you heard today, because there's gonna be, you know, based on this room right here, like 50% was against, 50% is for, you're gonna have half the room here is gonna feel like you made the wrong decision.

And tell your communications department hey, follow up on that.

You know, if you end up passing this and you enforce this ordinance, tell them to do some ride-alongs.

Show us how it's being enforced so we can see that it's not the worst nightmare that some people think.

And if you don't pass it, then you have a whole side of the room here who's worried about public safety on these ordinances and I or on these medians, and I think you need to show what you're doing to address that.

If there's a person passed out and a motorist afraid of running over their head, like what is the police department gonna do for that?

Can you say, oh, if that happens, you know, you do a little YouTube video, do a little reel.

Hey, if you're in the neighborhood and you see somebody on your median and it looks dangerous, do this thing.

Give people some information so that uh I guess all this energy about like safety and concern, it doesn't all have to get focused at you all in this moment, and you have to feel like, oh, whatever decision I make, it's gonna be the wrong one because I'm gonna be letting people down.

I think there's a whole discussion here.

You're really getting like the raw energy of your community right now, and they all mean well.

And I sympathize with the business owners.

I have a small business downtown.

I sympathize with the pedestrians and the homeless advocates.

I am a pedestrian, I literally don't own a car and I bicycle everywhere.

So like nobody is wrong here, and everybody's feeling really strongly about it.

So please encourage your communications department.

It is their job to communicate on your behalf.

Say, make some content, answer these people who have real concerns, and then whatever you decide, hopefully you can start to build a bridge here between these two parts of the community because we're a lot stronger when we can do things together rather than feel like there has to be a winner and a loser.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt.

I'm Mike Burden with local motion, and uh I'll take five minutes uh speaking on behalf of the organization, but I will then be able to use five minutes, Mike Burdy.

I would like to request five minutes, yes, and then that way I can give them back when I don't use them all, which is my intention.

So, first of all, just really appreciate the nuanced discussion that happened here tonight, as everybody has as said.

Um there's a lot of digging in really deeply into the details, and and I appreciate the hard work that that took, not just tonight, but in the months leading up to this moment we're at now.

There's a lot of discussion because we're talking about complex, long-standing and societal issues that don't have easy solutions.

And that's not really my purview to speak on that.

So I'm gonna speak specifically on pedestrian safety because that's what I'm most concerned about.

And in pedestrian safety, that involves the safety of all road users, like most pedestrians, and I'm a daily cyclist.

I also have a car, and I also am a driver, and I'm also a bus rider.

And I encourage everybody here if you're only experiencing Columbia in one of those four modes of travel, experience the other ones, right?

And think about what that experience feels like.

The engineer that spoke earlier is absolutely right that we have prioritized cars and the movement of automobiles and not people, right?

It's clear in the guidelines, digging all the way back into the 30s.

And so in fact, many of them are like written by people in the industry.

Um they've been changed and adopted over time, but it was about it's about lay uh level of service, right, and and and conveyance of vehicles.

And we can change that.

We can prioritize people and movement of people.

And yes, it takes investment, and yes, it's not necessarily easy or can happen right away, but that's what a pedestrian safety ordinance would do uh if I were to craft one.

It would be really about prioritizing the rights of our most vulnerable road users, those who are seeing injuries and deaths increase in our state and in our nation, right?

And we have a directive to address that.

So there's one really key thing that I think a lot of us can agree upon that came to the forefront tonight, and that these islands are not large enough.

If they're not large enough for someone to be in that island for an extended period of time because it's unsafe, then are they large enough for me and my children to be crossing and be stuck there in a cycle?

Right?

If it's unsafe to be in the island for an extended period of time, is it then therefore unsafe to be in the island in any period of time?

So I think what we're saying is we have we and we have a mapped, right?

So we've got the tools to to address them.

And I really implore us to take a look at that map and think about the standards of pedestrian refuge islands, as well as many other great pieces of infrastructure, like you know, race pedestrian crosswalks and other traffic calming measures that we can do to truly make our city work for all of its people.

30% of Americans are non-drivers.

People who do not drive, they're too young, they're too old, they don't drive for other reasons.

They all deserve to get where they need to go.

And our community is stronger, our economy is stronger, our businesses are stronger when all of those people have safe, reliable options, right?

And they can do so with dignity.

So I ask you again to really think about what is the intent of this legislation.

What will it do?

As many folks have brought up, what actions will this enforcement of this legislation, if passed inspire and folks that may be panhandling in the intersections, right?

What will the results be?

And really think through what those results can be and ask if that's the intent that you really hope to get out of the ordinance.

So again, I thank you and I thank everyone for being passionate enough to come up and and speak.

And I hope that regardless of what the vote lies on this, this is the start of a continuing discussion of how to truly make our city work for everyone and how to and prioritize movement of people, not just vehicles, because we're all stronger for it, right?

What's on the cover of our visit Columbia magazine?

It's cyclists, right?

On the MKT trail right as it goes downtown, right?

What are we trying to sell to other people coming here?

That we are friendly to all modes of transportation, right?

And that we promote the health and well-being of our people by offering that.

So I urge you to vote no on this ordinance for those reasons.

Thank you so much for your time and your discussion tonight.

Good evening.

My name is Pat Fowler.

I live in North Central neighborhood in the first ward.

Um, I understand you have an uh report at the end of the meeting about the long-term commitment the city has made to homelessness, and I'm going to address some of the limits of that long-term commitment as they affect my neighbors who use Wilkes Boulevard Church as their address.

To access to laundry but once or twice a week, storage perhaps in a skinny locker for some of their possessions, overnight indoor space on a cot for less than a third of the number of unsheltered we know we have from our annual point in time count.

With the money our unsheltered collect in from the median, they can pay for a modest hotel room if there's a vacancy, use it to pay for their medications or durable medical equipment if they don't have Medicaid or have been terminated from the program.

Most of the restrooms they can access are at least a mile away or a mile a plus in between, assuming it's not a weekend or a holiday.

Our new shelter will double our current capacity and will open in March or April, and blessedly they'll no longer be pushed out from there every morning at 8 a.m.

as they are now.

It's true that Columbia has built a comprehensive continuum of care with years of government grants and funds that are now disappearing or are threatened to disappear, but we can only serve a portion of the need.

I call it hurry up and wait.

Get in line, secure a replacement ID, fill out all the forms, and then we'll tell you that we have to wait X number of weeks for an appointment for you to assess what we may might be able to coordinate for you in job placement, housing, mental health counseling, and medical care.

And while you wait, your backpack could be stolen.

Your camp could be cleared out by a subcontractor, paid thousands of dollars an hour for a five or ten person crew, all your stuff discarded only to have to return to an intersection to ask for money to replace your clothes, your tent, your propane heater, and your sleeping bag, and you still can only use a toilet in a city-owned building or the regional library during that building's regular hours.

I use my employment money to provide myself with running water, a flush toilet, a heated space, a place to shower, a place to do my laundry.

We are denying people the basic human right of being able to do their best to provide that for themselves while we're waiting for all of these other services to come into being.

What the hell is the matter with us?

Matthew Struck off, fourth ward.

As an on-again, off-again cyclist and an everyday pedestrian on Columbia streets, I'm usually encouraged when Columbia takes efforts to improve the safety of non-automobile users in our streets.

However, I am not encouraged by this ordinance.

First, the ordinance is unlikely to improve pedestrian safety.

While we strive toward the goals of vision zero of no accidents and injuries, the limited evidence of accidents where median occupancy was causative or even contributory suggests that this ordinance will have little or no positive effect on pedestrian safety.

The research commissioned by the city does not support the ordinance.

Second, the ordinances place the ordinance places an additional expectation of enforcement on CPD to police its citizenry rather than to provide services for those who may be needing and seeking it.

That expectation has become abundantly clear tonight as we went through the long discussion of enforcement.

Rather than discussing measures that will actually make street crossing safer.

As an earlier commentator stated, this generates opportunities for conflict rather than opportunities to solve community issues.

Third, whether intended or not, it is quite clear that one part of our citizenry will be adversely affected, the unhoused and specifically panhandlers.

Laws and regulations should be data-driven and directed to achieve their goals.

But the evidence does not support this ordinance that this ordinance will achieve those stated safety goals.

Given that and the likely adverse effects on some of our citizens, I urge the council to vote against this ordinance.

Thank you for your time.

Good evening, friends.

Catherine Armbrist, Ward Ward II, uh Ward II resident and the forever disappointed aunt at City Council.

Um, thank you for all your hard work on this.

But our nation finds itself steeped in a fascist administration, and we often fool ourselves into believing we live in a progressive town.

That notion is false as we read in the language of this ordinance and many other local issues.

As much as this town cries for progress, we seem to move forward with such tentative and fearful steps that I sometimes look around and wonder why we bother to fight.

If the people who hold power in this council are too timid to push past a community's unfounded fears that do not reflect the research involved, then why do we bother to speak up?

If those in power are only to be swayed in the end by those with dollars or those who can function successfully within a traditional capitalist structure, then why do we bother?

We bother because most of us want our city to be progressive.

We bother because we know what happens when you govern and build structure based on fear rather than facts.

We see that happening every day in our nation, and with the continuous local gaslighting rhetoric, denying that this is about homelessness and panhandling.

We bother because deep down most of us know the intent of ordinances like this are about power and control.

Around the nation, these ordinances are about keeping poverty out of sight and potentially about suppressing protesting.

By the way, those protesting unequitable existing structures should not need to ask those structures for permission to protest.

Homelessness will not be solved by an ordinance dressed up as safety.

Poverty and panhandling will not disappear because you wave a wand and wish it away with punitive words.

If someone is passed out on a median or dancing in traffic, those are emergencies and should be addressed on an individual basis.

But if someone is sitting or standing in a median, is that really a safety issue?

You may see the scarf I'm wearing around my neck.

It was given to me by my friend Louis Estrata before he died in December of 2022.

He was struck as a pedestrian at night while crossing Clark Lane.

After his death, the city was a flurry of concern for pedestrian safety and ideas about improving Clark Lane.

I have seen nothing done to improve safety there for a death that had nothing to do with medians and everything to do with being a pedestrian.

So please don't pretend this ordinance is a way to create safer spaces for pedestrians.

I urge you to vote no on this ordinance.

There is no real research based on those concerns, and there are no real facts given about the pedestrian and median accidents.

If this passes, I foresee the city being sued.

And if that's how you want our tax dollars to be spent, cheers.

But I hope that we will continue to bother to raise our voices so that we can actually live in a progressive community.

Thank you.

Hello.

Thank you guys so much for all of your attention, and especially as this goes into uh late evening.

We appreciate you, your service to our community.

Um I encourage the city council to vote no on this ordinance.

I support the other folks moving messages on social issues like protecting our homeless friends and having a more supportive community to those around us.

Um my first concern is the fact on this ordinance outside of those items is the fact from the City of Columbia's pre-meeting on Monday, January 12th.

The bicycle and pedestrian commission response, the disability commission response, and the commission on human rights, they all were either concerned with the passage of this ordinance or opposed the bicycle and pedestrian commission and the human rights condition commissions were both opposed to the passage of this ordinance.

So that's my first uh issue with passing this ordinance, even with its amendments.

The second issue I have with this is the proliferation of amendments at this stage in the game.

While it is encouraging to hear that you have uh thoughts about this to try and shift and listen to the community, uh I love the the transparency in the governing process, but it is also somewhat troubling too.

Why are we asking so many questions?

Many with still not great answers from city staff.

Why are we still looking at passing this ordinance tonight?

I appreciate the transparency of the process, but what's the rush on passing this at this point?

Especially since now, after the amendment is passed, it won't go into action until July.

We can't cite, oh well, there's a guy with his head in the the road whenever no one's gonna have an enforcement mechanism of the guy in his head in the road until July.

So that's the first thing.

Um, second, we need better pedestrian infrastructure.

Great, we've talked about that a ton, but we can't do that.

Like many of our people in uh support of the bill have said that's fine, we can understand that we can't wave a magic wand and get more money.

Cool.

But why are we not looking at motorist enforcement first?

If enforcing pedestrians and enforcing motorists costs about the same, and there's not money to throw at increased infrastructure with the same police force, why are we not throwing out going after the folks in the two-ton screeching hunks of metal that are speeding down business loop and that are being really dangerous and being distracted drivers, especially with a lot of kids from out of state that might not understand the local topography of the lay of the land and how what's the speed limit is and all of those things.

Again, to cite this, I know many people have said this before.

There's not any documented examples of people being in medians causing these accidents.

It's just the conflation of people standing in medians in an accident happening in that intersection.

That's not the same thing, and I know it takes more time, money, and study to figure that out for sure.

Um, if the action the city is looking to take action on this, a vote no is easy, but a motion to table this is also just as easy if you can't do a vote no right now.

So thank you so much for your time and have a great rest.

Can you say your name for the record, please?

Uh Alex Bohan and I live in Benton Stevens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi.

My name is Keith Clayton.

I grew up in Boone County.

I've lived here most of my life.

Frankly, I wasn't gonna come talk here.

But after sitting through this whole meeting, I'm just disgusted by this whole process.

You call this a safety ordinance.

What is where's the actual safety happening?

What is where's the the remedies for this?

You have people passing out of heat stroke, right?

In the in the median, and you're citing this as a reason to find them.

You're not helping people.

This isn't about safety.

It's about finding people that you find undesirable.

And that I can't believe you sleep at night.

Have a good night.

Anyone else from the public wish to speak?

My name's John Shin, I'm third ward.

Um I'm a retired licensed landscape architect.

I'm a retired licensed registered accessibility specialist.

I remember when the ADA was passed.

I'm old enough to have been in a wheelchair as part of my training before the ADA was passed.

The M UTCD, which is the manual of uniform traffic control devices, which many departments use.

Never intended the median to be a permanent refuge or a long-term refuge for folks to do whatever activity they want to do in the median.

It's meant to be a transfers place, a place of refuge temporarily.

I was at home earlier watching this, and I said, okay, I gotta come down and say something.

So approve the ordinance.

It's better than what you have now.

Because I I'm I'm guilty.

I hand out money to I I have compassion.

I've handed out money to guys on the bicycle trail.

I've handed out money from my car.

But I've watched folks park themselves in the median with a dog in a hundred degree heat and not be able to control the dog and worry about okay, is it all gonna get hit?

Are they gonna get hit trying to control the dog?

There's activities that are meant to be in the median.

That is waiting for the light to go across the street.

That's it.

Otherwise, the medians are designed for traffic control devices to be placed, i.e.

light, traffic light signal lights, if the the width encourages or requires it, or if in fact there's a handicap or an accessible walk.

We used to call it handicapped, it's not anymore.

Um that being said, this is a safety issue, again, as we deal with continually.

Doing nothing ensures that you're gonna continue to have the same problems that we've had that we're having.

It is not about homelessness, it's not about intentionally affecting homeless folks or panhandlers.

If they're asking for money, they can ask for money from the sidewalk.

If you really want to give money, you'll pull off and you'll go give them money.

You'll pull into a parking lot and do so.

I've done that over by the uh Walmart over by the uh interchange at I-70, okay, in 63.

I travel there, they're all over.

And I've walked up, I've up bought them hamburgers.

Ask them if they're hungry.

So this is a safety issue.

They don't need to be in the median, they just don't.

Vote against it, please.

Thank you.

I think you meant for it.

Vote for it.

My name is Justin Sills.

I live in student housing, the grindstone area.

And I'd like to say that I believe uh law should be based on two things.

First and foremost, a solid foundation of a facts of which the methodology that's used to support this ordinance is severely flawed.

And secondly, is compassion.

Um, I believe this bill feels fails on both accounts.

That's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Would anyone else from the public wish to speak?

All right, we'll go to council comments.

Uh or also follow-up questions.

I know I imagine staff might come back in for some of the questions that we did receive early on.

So Dekar that I might ask if uh Shane is available to come back in and Jill.

Coming back.

Okay.

Um so questions I got just so the clarity, actually, one might be more for you, Jackie.

There was the clarity about um the amendments two and three.

You know, in one we kind of got rid of the disability, and in the other, we have more of a definition.

I don't know if you wanted to expand upon the fact.

Um I've got them in front of me if you wanted to.

Uh yeah, so uh amendments two and three, but it was um like the prohibitions one and two.

You know, we got rid of with the disability in one, but then we had uh additional definitions in two.

So I just if you'd wanted to pardon clarity with why we might have done that one second.

Very good.

I don't know that there's like a like I'm looking at both of them, and I don't know that there's a specific reason necessarily, just that the language, like in amendment two, amendment sheet two was about being in the roadway.

And so we wanted to make sure excuse me, I speak for myself, wanted to make sure that there were there was language in there to discuss roadway.

And the amendment three was just more adding clarity to the definition of disability or or who we're starting to do.

There was an amendment four.

Right there.

I was two in three that had the disability clarifications.

I think my understanding of it was that um, and Valerie had proposed originally that kind of removing a disability from the first part of the amendment because it you covered it in the next one.

My assumption is we probably did that just for consistency.

If you want to respond to that.

Yeah, actually, um man, I lost track of what the question was in this case.

I wrote it down, thankfully.

Yeah, I proposed to remove the word disability from that section because it discussed um conditions in which the sidewalk is impassable or unsafe.

Um, if it's impassable and or unsafe for a person with or because of their disability, then they should they shouldn't use it and they should be allowed to use the roadway instead.

If it's impassable or unsafe for an able-bodied person, they also shouldn't be in an impassable or unsafe condition.

Um so I I feel that any time it's some passable or unsafe, that is an exception that we can make.

Um then the other question was about um the amendment one, which was to have this schedule posted on the city website by the director of public works.

Um my assumption is you would do that in coordination with staff recommending if it met the criteria of the ordinance if it's adopted.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

I I believe the question there was not about posting the schedule, it was about the first part of the original statement, which is that the director of public works designates the roadways and intersections as major corridor.

And the question was is that one individual's job?

Are there other people in the department speaking to this?

Uh so the clarification of the the workflow for how an intersection is actually chosen in this bill ordinance.

Sure.

Um there's a lot of things in city ordinance that are tied to the director of that department.

Public works is one of those.

So it's a pretty it's pretty common language.

What I would tell you is I have a traffic division.

And so typically it would come up, you know, there we would reach that threshold of volume.

Um is typically what I would say would be would would kind of key that um as something um, you know, there's the there's a big improved I70 project that's gonna impact some of our roadways if those things change and the speeds on a particular roadway change or something like that, that could key that.

So as we start to see those things, we would look at ones that meet that criteria, and there would just that there just needed to be a way to be able to add those things in as things met the criteria instead of in my opinion coming to you each time I wanted to add one particular roadway, as long as I had a structure to work with, and I couldn't just add any old thing.

So thank you, and thank you for the follow-up on that.

Um Shane, can you speak?

So I I realize, and and I apologize for if this is you know the first time attending one of our discussions around this ordinance, um, because we didn't actually have you give a big presentation, um, which I think we kind of thank you a little bit because it's almost 11 o'clock.

But that said, that does mean that we did miss out on talking about some of the pedestrian improvements that we do have in the works.

I don't know if it's useful to say to that or to speak to if you have a number of them or or what some of the ones that we're working on that are trying to address some of the issues that we're talking about when we talk about pedestrian infrastructure.

Sure.

Um so do you want like construction projects or do you want um some of the like the safe streets for all grant projects?

I think we're the safe streets for all ones because those are actually I think gonna be a little bit more impactful that we'll see better in and but there I know there's a lot of both.

Yep.

We've been extremely successful in obtaining um safe streets for all grant funding for a variety of um study related um things associated with our vision zero um initiative.

Um one of them is taking a look at our existing complete streets policy and updating that.

Um we've had one in place for over 20 years, but this is taking a look at that and making updates where technology's changed or um where there's things that we could we could do to um make our roadways more usable by all users.

Um there's a pedestrian level of comfort map um project that we're doing.

Um we redid for the first time our like our vision zero initiative Como to zero.

So there's a website that we're compiling all this information in that kind of is the the place to go to look to see all the things that we're doing and you know how how we're um meeting those goals.

Um we did a road safety audit on business loop 70.

Um that's gonna help provide information to the reconnecting communities and neighborhoods grant we got for business loop 70.

So we've got someone that's doing a study on the entire corridor, and that's kind of a precursor to the possibility of um pursuing a build grant or something like that with that would that would be a construction project based on that study.

Um so those are those are kind of some of them.

We've got we've got a project we're gonna um use the highway safety manual to look at some um existing roadways um to determine um which roadways make sense to do in a in a future capital improvement sales tax um where we can where we can improve safety the most.

So there's just a variety of projects that have been grant funded that are all tied to vision zero.

And so I think all of those are and then there's a lot of sidewalk projects in the work as well, but that's kind of the planning stuff.

Yeah.

And then and then my last kind of follow-up question on this is it still in our vision zero in I know we're kind of rebranded as Commodore Zero Vision Zero, the three E's, which is the engineering, education, and enforcement.

Is that still the three main pillars within a vision zero plan?

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

Any questions?

Yeah, follow-up questions.

Um this is for Chief Schlute.

Do you know, or anybody, I guess.

Do you know off the top of your head um one uh commenter, and I've seen this myself, um, drivers pulling into like the turn lanes and they're blocking the crosswalks, or even here downtown, they pull through and they're blocking the crosswalks and pedestrians have to kind of bump out.

Do we have an existing ordinance that would enforce a warning or a ticket for those drivers for blocking crosswalks when pedestrians have the right of way?

I believe so.

I think I couldn't quote it chapter and verse, but yes, I believe so.

Do you know how often that's enforced?

I don't.

I mean, to be really honest with you, that would fall down on that lower level end and it would require probably somebody out.

Really hard to do in a car.

We'd almost have to have somebody stationary observing it and then calling it out almost, especially in a really congested area like downtown.

But if that's something that we're getting complaints about, I'm sure it probably happens pretty regularly.

I know, especially when people are trying to turn when they're coming onto Broadway from the side streets.

I've noticed a lot, especially if you're trying to turn and nose out to try to see, and then the crosswalk gets blocked.

So I do believe there's an ordinance that addresses that, but I couldn't quote it to you.

Okay, thank you.

Any questions questions?

Yeah, done.

Yeah.

Um several comments were made about citations or people being taken to jail and uh about it, and this is gonna fill up the jails, which they don't have the room for anyway.

Um so can you tell us kind of what if someone is cited under this ordinance, uh, if it passes, um, what would be the process?

So first we're always gonna look for voluntary compliance, right?

That's just when we're to the point where warnings aren't working and and we get to that level.

Now, I think for my standpoint, this is just another opportunity, you know, depending on the circumstance, but these would go to the community support docket at municipal court.

So you get a citation, it's very similar to you know, the city trespassing tickets or the camping and the park tickets that we issue that sometimes it just gets to the point where it's time now to issue a ticket.

Uh so it goes to the community support docket.

We have folks from the health department uh our social service workers that come alongside people, and Judge Nose is very good about trying to help figure out what he can do to help those issues.

And so, in speaking with him, I know it's a very, very rare occasion when someone is even fined because they try to work out all these other um opportunities to remedy the situation without fines and certainly not jail.

I think when we started this process, I asked for uh a report.

I I asked the municipal court folks how many people had gone to jail on city citations recently, and I wanted to match it with what I believe because what a lot of people don't know is we actually have to pay the city, the police department has to pay any time somebody's in Boone County jail on a municipal ordinance over three days.

So I was able to ask my finance folks, hey, how much have we paid the jail and fees?

And the answer was zero dollars for the past three to four years, I think they said.

And then that was confirmed to the admissible court.

And that's all because the judge works really hard to not even send them to Boone County jail, but if they do, they're never really out there for more than 48 hours.

Um I can't, I would be hard pressed to think about someone going to jail for this.

Um he works really hard to not even do issue warrants, so he gives them repeated opportunities to try to make court dates, work through the social service workers, and so it really is a process, and I think for us it's kind of one of those connection points to hopefully get people connected with services.

Thank you.

Additional questions?

Yeah, Valerie.

Yeah, on the other end of this um ticket question.

Um if your officer observes someone in the median um in a true emergency, um, if they're passed out, if they have some other medical condition um in which they're not able to respond, but they're obstructing traffic.

How do you respond to that?

If they're incapacitated.

So I'm not gonna channel Becky, but when we talk about enforcing laws, there's usually a culpable mental state that's required.

And so we talk a lot of times about knowingly, negligently, all those types of things.

It would be very hard to argue that someone was purposefully doing or knowingly doing something if they weren't they were passed out or not aware of their surrounding.

And in those cases, we're worried about the medical aspect of that.

So I'd kind of equate that to when someone calls in on an overdose, we don't arrest the person for drug possession, if that makes sense.

Um is your officer able to assist them or call in other services in that situation?

And would this ordinance help them to do that?

Well, hopefully, this would kind of come about in one of two ways, like we talked about before, which would be someone calling uh, you know, 911 or 311 for assistance.

And I think in the case of a citizen calling in, joint communications was more than likely dispatch an officer and fire and medics to that type of call if they thought that happens pretty regularly, actually.

If an officer just happened upon it, you know, we do get um, you know, basic first aid CPR things of that nature, and so we would be able to provide as much assistance as we could, but they would be calling for the fire and fire and medics folks to come help.

Thanks.

Sure.

Any other questions for your staff on this one?

All right, council comments.

Valerie, you want to go first?

Sure thing.

Um I've been writing a lot of notes during this whole evening.

Um, and I hope I do all of this justice.

Umy ordinances, um, which we worked on very hard.

Um planned, some of which took unexpected turns.

This ordinance has bad bones.

We can't amend our way around the intent of this ordinance.

The actual outcome remains the same.

The ordinance limits the rights of pedestrians on public infrastructure.

It doesn't actually make anyone safer or provide a more concrete pathway to build better infrastructure.

I'm not honestly convinced that it will discourage persons from using medions.

Um in this instance, we're legislating against the road users that have the least choices.

Um Median because we say that you can't.

And it leaves me asking, why do we even need this?

Why are we having this conversation?

I did go over the report from CBB, the data.

I read the accident reports.

I'm not seeing the numbers in the detail that I believe are sufficient evidence to make this change.

And I'm concerned that the legislation causes more problems than it solves.

We tabled this back in November to ask our boards and commissions for input.

None of our boards and commissions supported this ordinance.

Three out of four actively oppose the ordinance.

These are the experts that we appointed to advise us.

I I agree that staff are also experts.

And I don't think that I can do that here.

And I want to ask, what does that measure?

Does this ordinance help us to do that?

Does that make us more equitable?

Or does it discriminate against certain road users?

I'll also identify that US Census data has shown that those who walk to work and those who use our public transportation and our pedestrian infrastructure are disproportionately lower income residents.

Even if we are not intentionally targeting any subset of society, it still puts a more vulnerable population under more scrutiny.

And I think that there are better ways to come at this situation to preserve safety of road users.

Thank you.

Mira.

This ordinance concerns me for many reasons.

And they are the same reasons that it concerns many of the people who are in this room now, who have been in this room throughout the night, who have reached out via be heard, email, phone call, text, previous public uh comment, public statements.

We have been hearing and listening to those concerns.

Some of the ones that really stand out to me and have stood out to me since I first started came into this issue before I even sat on the dais on council.

This ordinance is not data driven.

We do not have firm data on how this would lead to the pedestrian safety that it claims to lead to.

In the report itself, in the priority list of issues, speed limit and the amount of traffic were both higher priorities than the size of the median.

If you dive deeper into that section, you will see they are higher priorities than a median existing at all.

In the speed and volume of traffic sections, medians are irrelevant.

It is about pedestrian safety legally crossing and sidewalks or crossing and crosswalks, it is about pedestrian safety, including cars going up onto sidewalks.

The median itself is irrelevant until the third reason on the list.

And I want to be incredibly clear.

Many years down the line when we are not on the dais, when our police force looks entirely different, when our legal department looks entirely different, when there is no one there to remind them what our intent originally was.

And so if 50 years down the line, this is still being enforced, and our intent is not clear in the language of the ordinance, we cannot control how it is going to be enforced.

I believe that our current police department would enforce this in a way to prioritize the safety of all of the people in our community.

This ordinance does not end when our current police force leaves their positions.

And this ordinance does not end when we leave the dais.

And in our pre-council meeting today, we talked to Judge Kavanaugh about the municipal court and the community support docket.

And I keep hearing one question over and over and over.

If I can't be here, where do you want me to go?

Where can I go that I won't get in trouble if I don't own my own private property, if I don't rent my own private property, where can I be?

And right now we don't have an answer.

We don't have the opportunity campus open yet.

Our overnight shelters are not available in the daytime.

There is not another place to tell someone you need to get off the median, but you can go here.

And similarly, at our last work session, one of the questions that I asked, and I ended up having to ask it multiple times, was how does someone whose mobility requires them to walk slower than the average person cross a road safely if they cannot get across the length of the road in one or two traffic signals.

He couldn't seem to wrap his head around the idea that I would not be able to cross a road in what was deemed a typical time for the typical pedestrian.

And in fact, the response I eventually got from this consultant who wrote the report was that I should walk into traffic.

What he told me to do was to continue walking and hope that the cars who had a green light would stop for me because the ordinance says they are supposed to.

Again, I want to be clear that our city staff never said that to me.

And our police officers very clearly spoke up that they would never prevent me from standing on the median in that instance.

But the ordinance, as it is written, would prevent me from standing on the median in that instance.

The ideology behind the ordinance would suggest that it was safer for me to walk into traffic with a green light than to stand safely on a patch of cement that cars are not meant to go on.

In my mind, there are enough, there are not enough amendments in the world to fix an ordinance that is built on that mindset.

I believe we can move to pedestrian safety in Colombia.

I care deeply about pedestrian safety in Colombia.

This is not that move.

Pedestrians, drivers, cyclists, and those who rely on our roadways to access services or to support themselves.

And I want to address each of those directly.

First, if we expect pedestrians to use designated crossings, then we have a responsibility to ensure those crossings are safe, accessible, and reasonably available.

That means continuing to invest in sidewalks, lighting, curb ramps, and thoughtful roadway design in partnership with Modot, the Columbia Public Schools, and the University of Missouri, where it is relevant.

Enforcement must account for real world conditions, particularly for individuals with disabilities, or in areas where infrastructure gaps exist.

Second, we cannot ignore that this ordinance will affect individuals who panhandle along major corridors.

The courts have made it clear that peaceful panhandling is protected speech under the First Amendment.

This ordinance cannot and should not be used to suppress speech or target people based on their economic status.

What it can do is establish consistent expectations about where individuals stand in active roadways in the interest of safety.

The focus must remain on roadway safety, not on who someone is or why they are there.

Implementation will matter, and enforcement must be content neutral, evenly applied, proportionate, and ADA conscious.

If this ordinance is used in a way that disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, then we will need to revisit it.

Oversight and accountability are essential.

And compassion should not require us to ignore legitimate roadway risks.

Columbia can walk that balance, and it is our responsibility to do so carefully.

Nick.

And we've heard various and sundry expressions of people's views of this.

I also want to say that we've heard again this tonight, as we heard in our previous meeting that there are some who are convinced that we'd come into this room with our minds made up.

I want to again assure folks that we are listening and continue to listen as I continue to listen to my colleagues even now.

I also want to say that there have been references to one side or the other.

And I find that binary unsatisfactory.

And so it's uh it is one of those difficult things.

I'm encouraged by a couple of things by the expression of care for people who are unsheltered.

Uh our community continues to have this as a high priority, and uh I assume that that will continue to be true.

Multimodal transportation and pedestrian and bicycle rider safety are high priorities as well, and that's good.

There's a lot of energy around that.

Uh there's also a lot of emotion around this, and I want to encourage us uh, as one speaker said, half of the room is going to be angry with you no matter what you've how you vote.

There are strong feelings on either side of this, and I want to encourage us to remember that we are all of us human beings and neighbors in this community, and as we move forward, however we move forward, that we keep that in mind, and that we value one another and we value one another's uh opinions.

I want to say a word about infrastructure.

Um I had the opportunity to visit Salt Lake City recently.

If you've been to Salt Lake, you have seen streets that are 130 or 132 feet wide.

When I was walking those streets and walking across very long uh blocks to get to front to my hotel, I really looked at those streets with envy because I thought, man, you could do all kinds of pedestrian and bicycle stuff with these streets.

At the same time, I suspect that if I were to talk to members of the council in Salt Lake City or to their staff, they would say, yeah, but we've got these mag, we've got these huge blocks that present all kinds of problems for us.

I think that we do prioritize uh the kinds of things we're talking about tonight.

And I think about the project on forum and how we've included uh some pedestrian and bicycle um amenities there that I hope will be uh a model for the kind of construction we do into the future.

I also am aware that in 25 or 30 years, folks who are still living here may look back on us in that particular project and say, what in the world were you thinking?

So we have what I call an inherited infrastructure.

It it is what we have, and we have to do the best with what we have.

Um folks in Salt Lake have to deal with streets that are incredibly wide.

We have to deal with streets that are all too often also too wide, too straight, and too long.

But this is the infrastructure we have, and we need to do the best we can, uh, and I believe we will continue to do that.

I will uh also say one other thing.

It's the difficulty of the making this decision is made all the more difficult in an atmosphere nationally of efforts to subdue speech and locally when there are some who dehumani dehumanize the unsheltered, and one high-profile community leader conflates the homeless with violent crime.

So we need to can but so we need to consider this as best we can, as rationally as we can, and with the best intent that we have.

And then in the uh if it passes, that it is um it is followed with with the best in mind for our community.

Done.

Well, I'm not gonna be as eloquent as uh some of the previous speakers.

Um first off, I want to commend everybody here tonight that stood and spoke, and those that didn't.

Uh for the most part, everyone was courteous, respectful of differing opinions, and that's much appreciated.

Um Matt Jenny, thank you for saving us all some time by having the group stand, and otherwise we'd probably still be doing public comment.

So thank you for that.

Um there was references made to, well, where will they go?

Well, that's one of the reasons why we delayed this until July 1st, because by then the opportunity campus will have opened, and they will have a place then where they can go to get the services that they need.

Um the the help that they need, the shelter, the food, the medical services.

So that's the reason and the primary reason, maybe the only reason, why we delayed it, uh, the implementation.

So there's that.

Um there was mention made that the data doesn't support the act, or the accident data doesn't support the ordinance.

Part of that is to me, it's simple common sense.

the the help that they need the shelter the food the medical services so that's the reason and the primary reason maybe the only reason why we delayed it uh the implementation so there's that um there was mention made that the the data doesn't support the act or the accident data doesn't support the ordinance part of that is to me is simple common sense do we have to wait until something happens is that what we have to do do we not care about the safety of these individuals that are there because if so far we've been lucky and the accidents haven't happened what's to say that they're not going to happen tomorrow or next week you know we don't put you know Scott Boulevard has some nice wide mediums we don't put playgrounds in those medians for a reason okay it's a safety issue and that's the ordinance you know people have characterized it differently but this is about safety it is about trying to get people away from some of the major intersections the high speed intersections um so that and do it safely and and again by delaying it till July 1st the opportunity campus will be there to provide the services that they allegedly are trying to seek currently standing on the street corner or on the on the in the median Betsy well first I want to thank the staff because this actually was a council request um I'm not sure that the staff really wanted to go down this road which they've been going down for uh quite a long time and so I want to thank them for that because I know lots of times our questions are sort of pointed and you're like wait wait a minute I'm just giving you the information I'm trying to interpret this you know wasn't really your idea in the first place.

Um but I'd like to thank the 39 people that did uh speak tonight along with uh the the groups that stood um we've also seen I probably have three hundred emails regarding um either for or against this particular ordinance and I expect I don't get as many emails as other people get so I can only imagine what your all boxes look like.

Um I do think the medians are available for short term um just for walking across so for those that have trouble walking and I certainly am one of those who can spend a couple of cycles getting from one side to another especially if it's over on stadium or something like that.

I look at the medians as a place where I can stay for a short term.

I do think they're pretty distracting when you have people um sitting on them or uh camping on them or whatnot.

Um so I do think that they're available to try and make it safer but they're not exactly a safe place to stand.

Um and I do think we as we continue hopefully to get more police officers we will get our traffic enforcement back up which should help folks.

But I do appreciate everyone's uh time and effort to come out um and give us their opinions and their concerns regarding this thank you yeah I'll end this oh I I want to say besides appreciation for staff and everyone for coming out I want to say thank you to my fellow council members somebody mentioned you know what sort of thought do you put it into do you just make up your mind before you come do you spend time listening to everyone here and a lot of you in this room have met with council members in the time being council members have reached out to stakeholders you've reached out to peer cities to talk about what are they doing in their communities looked at this and I just want to say thank you for the time and energy you've put into this as well besides just staff who get paid to do it.

So yeah no I'm just kidding.

I I do want to comment also my appreciation I appreciate the the comments of the people who understand what the city has control over and what they do not.

I appreciate appreciate the reference to the fact that we really do need to work with MODOT on the safety you mentioned six out of the eight intersections are MODOC controlled infrastructure and as we continue to write strongly worded letters encouraging them to put pedestrian safety improvements and pest pedestrian facilities on any of their projects having that that that knowledge is important to know and we'll keep continue to push for that there was also discussion around um the data and I mentioned the eight incidents eight is still more than I would like I don't care that we haven't had a ton.

It is more than I would like eight of the total and then six at the Modot records.

When I look at these and I look at these numbers I also then compare them to the numbers that the safety report also says which is that at 30 miles per hour 50% chance of survival 40 miles per hour 15 chance of survival 50 miles per hour chance of survival so when I came at it from this it was from that I have concerns over that and I have only some limited controls on speed limits on some of those spaces.

I also think about for me uh as we get to those and those incidents the potential of distracted driving again I only have so much control over people and the behaviors that they do.

And so for me, that's where I was coming at this from.

And similar to what Nick has talked about before, it is a yes and like figuring out how we can both build out the pedestrian infrastructure that we know we need, and also thinking about how we do the education and how we do the enforcement to make sure that we're seeing the results that we want for our vision zero goals.

So I'll say that to say there's a lot going on.

I I would like to when we get to this, and I'll probably make this under Council comments, but we heard a lot that we want to continue to monitor this data.

So thinking about a six month and twelve month out report how on like what are we actually seeing the data is on this, as well as what unintended consequences are we seeing from this and be monitoring that and to your point, Jackie, making adjustments as needed.

So without further, I'll ask um Sheila to call roll on bill two sixty-five twenty-five as amended.

Council two sixty-five twenty-five as amended, Miss Carroll.

No.

Miss Elwood.

No.

Yes.

Yes.