advertisement

Repeal 6214 submits another petition to block Opus development

Monday, June 9, 2014 | 9:52 p.m. CDT; updated 7:24 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, June 10, 2014

COLUMBIA – The group known as Repeal 6214 handed in a referendum petition Monday afternoon in an attempt to force the Columbia City Council to repeal the city's second agreement with a student-housing developer or put the issue to Columbia voters.

The group, which draws its name from the bill number of the original Opus Development Co. agreement, handed in the petition bearing what they say is 3,711 signatures to City Clerk Sheela Amin in her office at Daniel Boone City Building. Repeal 6214 has already submitted a petition aimed at the original Opus agreement because of concerns over the one-week process the council used to pass it in March.

The council passed the amended and restated development agreement with the St.Louis-based developer at its May 19 meeting.

As part of the agreement, Opus would contribute $450,000 to sanitary sewer and water utilities needed to serve the proposed 260-bed, six-story project and buy bus passes for residents for two years. The developer plans to build the student-housing complex on Locust Street between Seventh and Eighth streets. The infrastructure contributions are also part of the first agreement.

The second agreement was sponsored by First Ward Councilwoman Ginny Chadwick, in part, to remedy the repeal group's concerns about the council's process. If no petition had been submitted by Monday for its repeal, the ordinance would have rescinded the city's first agreement with Opus and replaced it with the new agreement.

The repeal of the first agreement being contingent upon not petitioning the second agreement angered the group, and its attorney Josh Oxenhandler threatened the city with a lawsuit in a letter addressed to the council and Mayor Bob McDavid, according to previous Missourian reporting.


Confused by what has happened with this ordinance? Here is a round-up of what happened before the petition was submitted and how things could move forward.


In the letter, Oxenhandler wrote the council had no authority to enact a second ordinance to repeal the first. He also wrote that the council "took coordinated action to pre-empt the referendum ... and absolute intent to silence the political speech of thousands of Columbians."

Repeal 6214's spokesman Jeremy Root said the group submitted the second petition for several other reasons, including:

  • Holding the city accountable for what petitioners view as a violation of due process. The City Council used an abbreviated process to pass the original development agreement with Opus Development Co.
  • Concerns about the proposed project's impact on downtown's ailing infrastructure.
  • Concerns with the student housing development's ability to conform to established city plans.

"There's been a little confusion in the community because it's the second effort," Root said. "But when you talk to people, it doesn't take them long to understand the issue."

The group has been gathering signatures in diverse ways, Root said. One of its larger collections efforts took place at Art in the Park at Stephens Lake Park this past weekend.

Root said Chadwick engaged in a petition "blocking effort" at the event. Numerous petitioners witnessed Chadwick asking the public to not sign the petition, he said.

Chadwick disagreed with this account of events. She said she attended Art in the Park as a citizen and not in any official capacity. Chadwick said she was mocked by petitioners, and, in response, she then began asking residents why they were signing the petition. After that, she said, petitioners screamed at her.

Amin said the city clerk's office will work with the Boone County clerk's office to verify signatures are from registered Columbia voters and ensure there are no duplicates. The petition has to be vetted within 30 days, according to the city charter Section 130.

If the petition has enough valid signatures and there are no other flaws, the council would have to consider its repeal or put the issue to the voters within 30 days, as required by Section 133 of the city charter.

The petition needs 3,209 signatures from registered Columbia voters to be valid. That number represents one-fourth of the number of votes cast in the 2013 mayoral election, which is required by Section 128 of the city charter. In order to be valid, the petition also needs to include the full name, number and text of the ordinance it's trying to repeal, which the petition handed in to Amin on Monday includes.

If the petition doesn't have enough valid signatures or is insufficient in any other way, the petitioners will have 14 days to gather more, Amin said.

The council could act on the first petition on June 16 when it hears the second reading of two bills concerned with the first petition. On May 29, Amin notified the petitioners they had received 3,446 valid signatures on their first petition. One bill, 162-14, would allow a council vote on the repeal of the original agreement which remains in place. If the council were to vote against repeal, the next bill, 163-14, would allow the council to call a special election for Nov. 4 to allow voters to decide the issue.

Supervising editor is Samuel Hardiman.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Michael Williams June 10, 2014 | 10:41 a.m.

"After that, she said, petitioners screamed at her."
_______________

I'm starting to like Ms Chadwick.

I suspect she's finding out some of her constituency are not very nice people. She addressed their STATED concerns of "It's about 'process'" only to find out "Uh, no it's not!".

You've been lied to, Ms Chadwick.

Wish I'd have been there so I could have put the incident on uTube. Maybe someone WAS there....and will do it.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance June 10, 2014 | 10:57 a.m.

@ Mike

You appear to be parroting what Chadwick has been saying for a while now. If you are going to troll and pretend "you now kind of like this councilperson", be a little less obvious with the talking points.

Plus I hear she had a development lawyer helping her harass signers, is that true?

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin June 10, 2014 | 11:17 a.m.

"She addressed their STATED concerns of 'It's about 'process' only to find out 'Uh, no it's not!'".

That's not entirely true. The "process" issue -- Council passing the first Opus development agreement during a hasty weeklong legislative extravaganza in March -- was only one of several issues petitioners found troubling.

The biggest issue -- and the one City Hall continues to downplay -- is lack of infrastructure, which the second Opus agreement fails to address as egregiously as the first.

The need for infrastructure is the reason for the "development agreement" with Opus that is the subject of so much controversy and opposition.

Contrary to what the Councilwoman has been saying, that development agreement -- in fact, all development agreements -- is not a one-way document that requires the developer pay $450,000 toward infrastructure.

Rather, it is a 2-way document -- like all agreements -- that requires the developer payment AND the city provide the rest, which we have heard, time and time and time again, is INADEQUATE. It even says so in the agreement: Infrastructure is INADEQUATE to service this project.

The city's agreeement to provide those things -- all at taxpayer and ratepayer expense -- is a fundamental sticking point with the people who oppose the project.

And why shouldn't it be? Columbia is notorious for poor infrastructure, and piddle-farting around with getting it repaired amidst an endless stream of rate and tax hikes.

By trying to leverage poor infrastructure into a TIF, city leaders created a kind of Hobbesian Box -- they said "we're out of infrastructure and can build no more," and now the people are holding them at their word.

They're boxed in by their own declarations:

"The city's infrastructure can't handle any new downtown or central city building. The pace of development in the area has outstripped the electric and sewer capacity, which is 100 percent utilized" -- city manager Mike Matthes, Columbia Daily Tribune, 12/7/2013

"Until the city of Columbia finds money to upgrade electric, sewer and other infrastructure, there can be no more development downtown," City Manager Mike Matthes said. "I could tell you, ballpark, we've got $100 million of infrastructure we're going to need to add to, fix or replace that's nowhere in the budget," he said. -- Columbia Daily Tribune, 12/7/2013

"In an email obtained by the Columbia Tribune, Columbia public works director John Glascock and Building Regulations Supervisor Phil Teeple told many of the area's civil engineers that downtown's sewer infrastructure was at capacity — placing an effective moratorium on new development in the downtown area. -- Columbia Daily Tribune, 2/11/2014

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin June 10, 2014 | 11:24 a.m.

It's important to understand what a development agreement is; why citizens would want to repeal one in the face of such infrastructure woes; and why, for large projects especially, proper zoning is not enough.

This story explores the meaning of a development agreement in more detail. Key quote:

"While the proposed plat meets all applicable City Zoning and Subdivision Regulations standards, the subject site lies within a constrained portion of the City’s downtown sewer system," the Columbia Planning and Zoning Commission reports about the Kroenke site.

"As such, no construction permits will be issued until a development agreement is reached between the City and developer to resolve the existing sanitary sewer capacity issues that currently affect the site."

DEJA VU: Infrastructure woes cloud Kroenke plans for site next to Lucky's

http://www.columbiaheartbeat.com/index.p...

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements