Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-06-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS JUNE 5, 1973 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in regular session on Tuesday, June 5, 1973 at 7:30 P.M. in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building. Present: City Manager Donald L. Grimes; Purchasing, Personnel and Budget Officer Sturman Mackey; Administrative Aide David McWethy; City Attorney David Malone; City Clerk Helen Young; and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. Directors Absent: None. Others Present: Representatives of the news media. Minutes of the regular meeting of May 15, 1973 had been distributed to the Board members prior to the meeting. Director Orton questioned a statement near the middle of page 218 which read: "City Attorney Malone stated that that was what he was suggesting, that the person buying the lot would be required to put up a cash bond guaranteeing the installation of that side- walk in order to get the lot released " City Attorney Malone agreed that the statement was in error and requested that the statement read: "...that the developer could put up a cash bond...." Director Carlson stated that when there is a negative vote on an issue she would like the reason for that negative vote made clear in the minutes. Mrs. Carlson requested that the following material be added toward the middle of paragraph three on page 213: "Director Stanton asked why had Section 1(d) of Article 4 been changed in addition to the change for Article 9 concerning the suspension of permits. Attorney Malone explained that it was in Article 4 that definition of non -conforming structures was set forth. Director Carlson said she saw no justification for changing those very explicit terms which gave the city, or any of its citizens, a chance to contest a proposed building before the actual construction of it was started, regardless of whether or not a permit had been issued. The proposed change would give the builder uncon- testable go-ahead just as soon as he got his building permit. Since getting a permit is a private matter, not requiring any notice to the public or adjoining property owners, no one would know about a controversial undertaking until it was too late to reverse it. The Razorback Road kind of issue would be impossible for the citizens to raise if the builder managed to get his permit first." Then after the next two sentences add: "Director Carlson suggested that 'private rights' are not the same as public rights and that this amendment took away the public rights." After some discussion about whether or not to make the lengthy insertion in the minutes, Director Orton moved the insertion be made. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. There being no further corrections or additions to the minutes, the minutes of the May 15, 1973 meeting were approved as amended. Director Orton moved that the Board take up the matter of reapportionment as the next matter of business. Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously In answer to Director Orton!s question, City Attorney Malone explained four possible courses of action: (1) Accept the reapportionment as adopted by the Circuit Judge; (2) Proceed to reapportion the City under the Home Rule provisions; 223 (3) Go into Chancery Court to enjoin the implementation of the Circuit Court order and question the constitutionality of the Circuit Court proceedings; (4) File a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court questioning the procedure employed for reapportionment. City Attorney Malone commented that it is his recommendation that either Alternate #1 or #4 of the possible courses of action be followed. In answer to Director Noland's question, the City Attorney said that citizens could file a writ of certiorari. Director Carlson pointed out that the Court gave as one of its reasons for its method of reapportionment the desirability of having the Republican and Democratic parties having their input in the formation of the wards Mrs. Carlson said that in her opinion that reasoning was outside the realms of what reapportionment of the City is all about. Director Orton stated that she felt that the Circuit Court did not come up with a plan equally as good as the plan offered by the City. Director Carlson said that the law under which the Court took this action said that reapportionment should be made on the basis of population and property valuation. Director Carlson noted that there is a lack of balance in the realignment accepted by the Circuit Judge insofar as the "University ward" is concerned. Mrs. Carlson explained that the "University ward" is so largely made up of University property that is not taxed that the reapportionment is highly disproportional *Amended below. Don Ward from the audience stated that the plan the City had come up with was simplicity in itself. Mr. Ward said that in this country no person should be penalized because of his political views. Ginger Parker, representing the Washington County League of Women Voters, read a statement to the Fayetteville City Board of Directors regarding the reapportionment of the City. The statement read as follows: "The Washington County League of Women Voters does not support any particular plan for the reapportionment of the Fayetteville city wards. The League believes that the best apportionment plan is one which divides the city most equally according to population, to allow for equal representation for every voter. The League feels that the plan submitted by the Special Committee on City Reapportionment and accepted by Circuit Judge Maupin Cummings does not meet this requirement satisfactorily, since the population of one ward, Ward 3, appears to be 1000 persons greater than the smallest ward, Ward 1, as well as 800 persons greater than the next most populous ward, Ward 2. For this reason, we do not feel this apportionment plan is fair and equitable. "The Washington County League of Women Voters is also concerned that registration and voting be made as easy and convenient as possible. A simple division of the city so that a person can easily ascertain his ward and proper polling place is desirable The League does believe consideration of other factors such as traditional ward boundaries is legitimate if it results in less confusion to the individual voter. However, the League believes the most important factor in a good reapportionment plan is equality of representation." City Manager Grimes commented that it would probably be in the best interest of the City to accept the reapportionment plan of the Court at this time and possibly after the next census the City could take another look at reappor- tionment. *...as to assessed property valuation. The law obviously intended to give representation weight to amount of city taxes an area pays as well as the amount of population an area has. 224 1 Director Orton said that she felt that the City should take the matter to the Supreme Court. "Our job here is to represent the people of the City. As their representatives we are letting them down if we just do nothing about it. The people will have to live with this for at least four years. It is amazing that something so simple could not be given the recognition it deserves," Mrs. Orton said. Mayor Purdy said that he was disappointed with the decision made by the Circuit Court and that he preferred the plan which the City had suggested, but, " I am unable to see the gain we would make is worth the risk and turmoil and time consuming effort which would be required to change that decision." Director Murray stated that he would like to see the Circuit Court's decision tested. Director Noland said that he agreed with the Mayor that the City's plan is superior but since any election that is held is an at-large election, he wondered if contesting the Court's decision would be worth the effort. In answer to Director Orton's question about how much effort would be involved in taking the matter to the Supreme Court, City Attorney Malone stated that it would require work from a legal standpoint and there are other legal problems that take the City Attorney's time, and one must also consider the City staff time which would be required. Director Utley commented, "My recollection is that this Board considered at some length the procedure we would follow to bring about a reapportionment. It was the consensus of the Board that we go the route of resorting to the Circuit Judge for a reapportionment. At the same time we agreed to a proposed plan to be submitted to the Circuit Judge. He has rejected our plan. Since we have agreed that we would let the Judge make the decision, then whether we like it or not is another matter." Director Utley added that if the citizens of the town feel strongly enough about this then they can pursue the matter further. Bob Hicks from the audience asked the City Attorney for an estimate of the cost of taking this matter to the Supreme Court. City Attorney Malone stated that the approximate cost would be between $500 and $1500. Director Utley said that he had not heard from the citizens of Fayetteville that they feel they have been aggrieved. Director Utley added that in 60 to 90 days if that fact were deduced then the City could resort to reapportioning the City under the Home Rule procedure. City Attorney Malone said that the County Clerk has an immediate problem of assigning people to wards according to the reapportionment plan. Director Stanton said that he had not heard any comments pro or con on this issue either. Director Stanton suggested that this matter be tabled until the next meeting and that meanwhile citizens can talk to a Board member about this issue or be present at the next Board meeting. Director Carlson moved that this matter be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" Utley. There being six "Ayes" and one "Nay" the motion passed. Upon request of the Mayor, the City Attorney read a proposed ordinance to levy the assessments for street improvements on Sycamore Street between College Avenue and Woolsey Avenue. City Attorney Malone said that the sidewalk will be on the south side of Sycamore Street which is the park side of Sycamore Street. 225 David McWethy, Administrative Aide, explained that had the sidewalk been placed on the north side, many more trees and bushes would have to be removed. Leonard McCandless, speaking in behalf of his mother who lives on Sycamore Street, had several questions regarding the Sycamore Street improvement district. Mr. McCandless questioned the system of arriving at the assessments for the improvements and pointed out that the major property owner on the south side of Sycamore Street is the City of Fayetteville. Mr. McCandless asked if the positioning of the street would be on the present right-of-way. He was concerned about this because the curb and gutter that has been poured to the approach off College Avenue does not line up with the present paved area. Mr. McCandless also pointed out that the newly installed utility poles on the north side of Sycamore Street are approximately 12 feet into his mother's property and there is no deed to the City for this property. Mr. McCandless also expressed concern about the water situation. He commented that the street would need to be elevated so the water would not run through his mother's driveway. Mr. McCandless said that it seems unfair to ask the property owner to pay more than has been previously assessed of property owners with no guarantee that the water will not come down in the front yards City Attorney Malone explained that the assessment is not based entirely on the frontage feet of the property - that is only one of the factors. Other factors involved are lot depth, possible use, zoning, and assessed value. City Manager Grimes explained that the City is paying $25,000 for the improvements of Sycamore Street which is more than the City's fair share of the cost of the project. City Attorney Malone explained that the Highway Department installed curb and gutter which will have to be removed and lined up with the street. Mr. Malone further explained that improvements to the intersection are planned and additional right-of-way may be required at that time. David McWethy explained that the power poles which were moved were not moved because of the street improvements, and that only one pole had to be moved because of the increased turn radius, according to information supplied by the power company. City Manager Grimes encouraged Mr. McCandless to discuss the drainage problem with Street Superintendent Clayton Powell before construction begins Mr. Grimes said that if the matter could not be resolved between Mr. McCandless and Mr. Powell that Mr. McCandless should contact him. City Attorney Malone said that the City bears the cost of building up the elevation back to the right-of-way limits. Janet Richardson, corner of Green Valley and Sycamore, asked if the bulldozing was necessary on Sycamore Street. Mrs. Richardson said that they leveled some trees in Veterans Park - more than she felt necessary. City Manager Grimes explained that the City is not eager to take out any more trees than is necessary, but because of the slope and bank the bulldozing was necessary. Steven Day, a resident of Sycamore Street, reported that since the engineering work for this improvement district was done, McDonald's has built a rear exit, a gravel street. Mr. Day said that this gravel has washed down on the street and asked if there was some way to make them pave the street or keep them from having this exit. The City Manager said that this would be called to the attention of the manager of McDonald's. Mr. Grimes said that he felt that the manager will be willing to cooperate on this matter. 226 1 Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Noland moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the third and final time, after which the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. *Ordinance No. 1921 appears on pages 188 and 189 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. The next item on the agenda was a request by the City Manager for authorization for a feasibility study regarding the mechanical composting of municipal solid wastes and sewage sludge. City Manager Grimes stated that he would outline in detail for the management.' class who will perform^the.study the information the City needs. Mr. Grimes recommended that $500 be allocated from the 1972 Revenue Sharing Funds for this study. The City Manager stated that at the time the study is completed hopefully a recommendation could be made to the Board of the type disposal to be used Mr. Grimes reported that the manufacturer of a mechanical composting unit would need five months time to get a composting unit in operation. In answer to Director Utley's question, the City Manager said that the County officials are very interested in working fvith the City in exploring the possi- bility of using a mechanical composter. City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution authorizing the allocation of $S00 from the 1972 Revenue Sharing Funds for a feasibility study regarding the mechanical composting of municipal solid wastes and sewage sludge. Director Noland moved the resolution be adopted. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 46-73 appears on page 144 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. Attached to the agenda was a memorandum from the City Controller requesting that five new police vehicles (1973 models) be purchased this year with Revenue Sharing Funds, thereby saving approximately $500 per unit outright. The City Controller explained in the memorandum that the maintenance cost alone, if we continue using the 1972 models into 1974, would more than pay for two 1973 new vehicle replace- ments, and, since new Federal legislation would prohibit motor vehicle manufacturers from giving volume discounts to larger motor vehicle dealers, the price of the 1974 Model cost to cities, counties and state agencies would be increased by some $300 to $500 per unit. City Manager Grimes stated that he felt that it would be in the best interest of the City to advertise for bids for five new vehicles this year. Mayor Purdy asked whether we would be using the life out of these cars a year earlier or whether we would have more cars on the road. City Manager Grimes answered that there would be a larger fleet on the road, consequently there would be fewer miles put on each car. Mr. Grimes further explained that hopefully this would stretch out the life of the cars. 227 - Mrs. Carlson commented that if this new Federal legislation does not make any difference with the Hatfield Pontiac -Cadillac Company bidding, the low bidder for the last purchase of new police vehicles, we are just buying earlier and starting depreciation earlier. Mr. Hatfield explained that Hatfield Pontiac -Cadillac Company lost $100 on each car they sold to the City, Washington County and Benton County in their recent bidding. "I don't know whether we would consider selling you five more cars at our bid price," Mr. Hatfield said Director Stanton moved that the City Manager be authorized to advertise for bids for five new police vehicles. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Attached to the agenda was a letter from Fire Chief Charles McWhorter which provided information regarding the search for a location for a fire station east of Fayetteville. City Manager Grimes said that it is recommendation can be made regarding Fayetteville. Fire Chief McWhorter was present at Board. Director Carlson asked why the land the City already Highway 16 could not be used for a new fire station. Fire Chief McWhorter replied the only thing south of that site is agricultural land. Director Carlson stated that she is highly opposed to a station exiting directly onto the highway. Director Stanton explained that a stop light could be placed on the highway which could be turned on when a truck is leaving the station and this would stop traffic immediately. City Manager Grimes explained that this item will be placed on the agenda when a firm recommendation can be made for the site location for a fire station, hoped that in two weeks a firm the site for a fire station in east the meeting to answer questions of the owns on Bypass that City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution to authorize the condemnation of sewer line right-of-way on the Tom Pearson, Jr and Fred and Hazel Kerr property for the Winwood-Viewpoint sewer line project. Director Orton asked what the objections were. City Attorney Malone explained that Tom Pearson, Jr. is not happy with the amount of money the City proposed to pay for the easement. The City Manager explained that the Kerr's do not want the sewer line to cross their property. Don Ward, a resident of the area, was present at the meeting. Mr. Ward said that this land is wooded rocks. "Almost anything you would do to the land given a few years would not be noticed." Mr. Ward said. Director Carlson moved the resolution be adopted. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Carlson. "Nays" Stanton. There being six "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 47-73 appears on page 145 of Ordinance F, Resolution Book 3. City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution to authorize the condemnation of the Claude and Lila Dowell property for the Highway 265 West water line. City Manager Grimes explained that the Dowell's do not wish to grant an easement to the City for this water line since the water line would come through their front yard. The City Manager asked the Board to approve this condemnation with the understanding that the right-of-way people would be sent back for further negotiations with the Dowell's asking for an easement 228 1 • across the Dowell's back yard or some other alternative route. Director Orton said that she would like to wait until the alternatives are explored before voting on this condemnation. Director Carlson moved that this matter be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Attached to the agenda was a letter from Robert E. Quillen, factory distributor for Kirby Company, and a letter from the City Manager in reply to Mr. Quillen's letter. Mr. Quillen asked for an opportunity to discuss the "Green River Ordinance" with the Directors. Mr. Quillen and another representative of Kirby Company were present at the meeting to make the Board familiar with the Kirby business. The Kirby Company representatives explained that direct personal contact is the best way they have found to do business. They pointed out that the "Green River Ordinance" has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. The Kirby Company representatives also pointed out that the "Green River Ordinance" as recorded in the Fayetteville City Code is discriminatory because it allows the door to door sale of products of the farm yet it prohibits the door to door sale of other products. Director Orton reported that she has talked with several housewives and that they were almost 100 percent for keeping the "Green River Ordinance" in effect and even expanding it to include telephone and religious solicitation, but allowing drives by sbhools, Scouts, and other such organizations. City Attorney Malone suggested that the City staff be asked to review this ordinance and perhaps amend it to prohibit solicitation upon residences where there is displayed at that residence a symbol which has been designated by the City as one to discourage solicitors. No action was taken on the matter. Mayor Purdy was excused from the meeting. Assistant Mayor Orton chaired the remainder of the meeting. Attached to the agenda was a quotation tabulation for pipe for use in water and sewer construction projects and a. letter from the City Engineer requesting that the purchasing procedures be waived and that the low written quotation be awarded on these items until the annual contract can be awarded. Director Carlson moved that the recommendation be accepted. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. (Mayor Purdy was absent at the time the vote was taken.) Attached to the agenda was a bid tabulation for Dinsmore Trail water line and the 16 inch water line relocation adjacent to Highway 71 North, and a recom- mendation that the bid be awarded to Russell Wilson of Fayetteville, the low bidder in the amount of $15,245 for the Dinsmore Trail water line and $1,900 for the 16 inch water line relocation. Director Carlson moved that the recommendation be accepted. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. (Mayor Purdy was absent at the time the vote was taken.) Attached to the agenda was a memorandum from Sturman Mickey, Purchasing Officer, containing a recommendation that the bidding requirements be waived and that the City Manager be authorized to purchase a Sky Witch Model 7-710 high lift working platform for the Traffic Department at the low quoted price of $2,480.50 from Sky Witch Industries of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 229 --' Director Stanton moved the recommendation be accepted. Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. (Mayor Purdy was absent at the time the vote was taken.) Attached to the agenda was bid tabulation for fencing and lighting fixtures at the Industrial Park baseball field and Administrative Memorandum No. 260 containing the recommendation that the lighting fixtures bid be awarded to Southern Electric Supply Company, the low bidder in the amount of $4,093.38, and that the fencing bid be awarded to United Fence Company for the nine gauge fabric at the low bid price of $4,514.08. City Manager Grimes reported that the cost of poles and wiring in the lighting for the Industrial Park baseball field would be $4,556.95. This would make the total cost of the project $13,164.41, which is $1,164.41 more than was authorized for this project City Manager Grimes recommended that the $1,164.41 be allocated from the Contingency Fund of the 1972 Revenue Sharing Funds City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution authorizing the allocation of $1,164.41 from the 1972 Revenue Sharing Contingency Fund. Director Murray moved the resolution be adopted. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Assistant Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 48-73 appears on page 146 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. Attached to the agenda was bid tabulation for Winwood-Viewpoint sewers and recommendation that the bid be awarded to Triple "A" Construction Company, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, the low bidder in the amount of $16,078.90 and award of Alternate "A" in the amount of $639.00. City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the contract with Triple "A" Construction Company for the Winwood-Viewpoint sewer project. Director Carlson moved the resolution be adopted. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton. "Nays" None. There being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Assistant Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 49-73 appears on page 147 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. City Manager Grimes announced a meeting with HUD officials at 9:00 A.M. on June 19, 1973 in the Hospitality Room of the Arkansas Western Gas Company building, regarding the Joint Community Development Statement. The City Manager called the Directors' attention to a letter from Bob J. Mayes which was attached to the agenda Mr. Grimes explained that the Master Street Plan calls for an arterial street across this property at 2190 North Garland. The purpose of the letter dated May 14, 1973 was to put the City of Fayetteville on notice that Mr. Mayes expects the City to either purchase the property in the prescribed length of time (one year), or to release the property from any restrictions the City may have on it. 230 1 • City Manager Grimes recommended that the receipt of the letter be acknowledged and that Mr. Mayes be informed of the procedure the City would follow in the acquisition of the land. The Board expressed approval of the City Manager's recommendation and of the City Manager's proceeding to get prices for the property. Also attached to the agenda was a summary of Fire Department needs for equipment and men. Director Utley asked whether the vehicle listed which would need replacement in 1973 had been budgeted. City Manager Grimes replied that it had been budgeted and the vehicle has been ordered. A draft ordinance providing for the licensing, control and maintenance of all animals, fowl and reptiles within the corporate limits of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas was attached to the agenda. The City Manager stated that he would like to discuss this proposed ordinance with the Humane Society. Mr. Hatfield called the Board's attention to the new traffic light at Evelyn Hills Shopping Center and stated that for the last six years he has been trying to get similar signals at Dickson, Lafayette, and Maple intersections with College Avenue. Mr. Hatfield asked the City to consider placing this type traffic signal at the Dickson, Lafayette, and Maple intersections with Colhge Avenue. City Manager Grimes reported that he has talked with the Traffic Superintendent about timing the lights on College Avenue so that a person moving at the speed limit could move through all three lights. Director Carlson said that she would propose that right turns on red be allowed except where a sign is displayed prohibiting such a move on red. Assistant Mayor Orton asked the City Manager to look into the matter of reversing the present ordinance to allow a right turn on red except where prohibited. There being no further business, Director Stanton moved the meeting be adjourned. Director Murray seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously whereupon Assistant Mayor Orton declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: 231 APPROVED: