Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-07-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 3, 1973 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in regular session on Tuesday, July 3, 1973 in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building at 7:30 P.M. 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 and members of the audience. Minutes of the regular meeting of June 19, 1973 had been distributed to the Board members prior to the meeting. There being no corrections or additions to the minutes of the June 19, 1973 meeting, the Mayor declared the minutes approved as mailed. Mayor Purdy declared the public hearing open on a proposal to reapportion Fayetteville's wards under Arkansas' "Home Rule" statute. Marsha Wood read a prepared statement from the Washington County League of Women Voters which read as follows: "The Washington County League of Women Voters commends the Fayetteville Board of Directors for its decision to hold public hearings on the matter of reapportionment of the wards of the City of Fayetteville. "We believe that the following criteria should be met by a fair and equitable reapportionment plan: 1. Equality of population 2. Simplicity "Although all seven Directors will be elected at large, four of the City Board positions have residency requirements. Equality of ward population is therefore necessary to provide equal repre- sentation for all Fayetteville citizens. "The League is concerned that registration and voting be made as easy and convenient as possible so as to encourage citizens to exercise their right to vote. Ward division lines which are con- fusing or difficult to remember discourage voters, since time and energy must be expended to learn the proper polling place. Therefore, we urge that the Board adopt a simple division of the city so that a voter can easily ascertain his ward and proper polling place. "The Washington County League of Women Voters believes the reapportionment plan drawn up by City Attorney David Malone and City Administrative Aide David McWethy meets both of these require- ments. Therefore, we urge the Fayetteville Board of Directors to adopt this reapportionment plan." William G Myers commented that there is far more at issue in this matter than four City Board positions elected at large - (1) We need equal representation; (2) The plan adopted by the Circuit Court has a "University ward"; and (3) At some future time the Board may wish to elect four members "from the ward by the ward" since the Board has that option under the "Home Rule" statute. Mr. Myers said that he favors the City's plan for reapportionment 240 7 1 as the most equitable and the most easily remembered plan. Under the City's plan, Mr. Myers pointed out, the University is split by Wards 1 and 4. Mr. Myers urged the Board to adopt the plan proposed by the City. Roy Simpson was present at the meeting to speak in favor of the City's proposed plan for reapportionment because (1) It is a simple plan; (2) It offers more equal representation than the Court's plan; and (3) Mr. Simpson said that he felt that the City Board should do the drawing of the wards rather than the Circuit Judge since the Judge is not a member of the governing body of the City. Mr. Simpson stated that he did not feel the idea of loyalty to a ward was a legitimate concern in drawing ward lines. Mr. Simpson expressed appreciation to the City Board for its efforts and expressed his support for the Board. T. C. Carlson, Jr. urged the Board to adopt the plan proposed by the City as opposed to the "Maupin Cummings Plan" or the "Ruth Roberts Plan". Mr. Carlson commented that under the Judge's plan Ward 4 is clearly a "University ward" and University property is not taxable. Mr. Carlson warned that, "We are going to lose the University of Arkansas to Little Rock if we keep beating at the University." There being no furthercomments from the floor, Mayor Purdy declared the public hearing closed and asked for comments from the Board. Mayor Purdy stated, "I was and am of a mind that the risks and the efforts are greater than the gain in fighting to go with our plan. I am obviously defeated." Mr. Rirdy offered to vote in favor of working out something for the City's plan or for a similar plan only if some provision were made to take the matter to a court test. The Mayor said that he felt that a simple "Home Rule" solution• left too much "in the air". City Attorney Malone, in answer to Director Stanton's question, said that he did not think that the "clouds could be cleared" from this issue without a court decision. Mr. Malone advised that if the Board wishes to redistrict under the Home Rule statute that the Board do so and then authorize legal action if necessary to support the plan adopted by the City as+opposed to the plan that has been ordered. Mr. Malone said that the matter could be heard in either the Circuit or the Chancery Court and the decision of where it would be heard would depend upon several factors. In answer to Director Stanton's question, Mr. Malone said that the decision of where the matter would be heard would have to be made at a later time. Director Utley reminded the Board that this "exercise" dates from February 27, 1973 when the Board voted to go on record that the Board preferred the election of four representatives from wards and three representatives at large. Mr. Utley said that therBoard is being "...capricious, irresponsible, and not responding to the best interests of the City of Fayetteville by this discussion unless it is with the purpose of having a special election in order to get representation for the people of Fayetteville. The purpose of reapportioning is for getting representation from each ward and if not, I see no use in pursuing this further." Mayor Purdy and Director Noland agreed with Director Utley that the purpose of the reapportioning was for a special election, but Director Noland said that he feels that this reapportioning is a necessary step that has to be accomplished before a date can be set for a special election. Director Orton said that she is against a special election and feels that the election of Directors should take place at a general election when more people are voting in order to get representative government. 241 Director Stanton, addressing the argument of special vs. general election, said that if people are not responsible enough to vote it is not the Board's fault and the Board should not be concerned about it. Director Carlson stated that she did not see the rush to make the citizens come forth and state an opinion of whom they want to represent them all over again. Director Utley moved that following the vote on the reapportioning plans, a vote be taken on the City Manager's recommendation regarding the date of a special election or an alternate date be set for a special election. Director Carlson commented that this item should be placed on the agenda so the citizens would know what the issues will be at the Board meeting. Director Orton agreed that there is some correlation between the matter of reapportioning and having a special election but she said she did not feel there was time to discuss both issues at this meeting. Mayor Purdy stated that he agrees with Director Utley that the Board has committed itself to a special election but he added that at this time he does not feel it would be possible to set a date for the special election because the court might not make a decision on the reapportioning until that date is past. There was no second to Director Utley's motion. Director Utley moved that a vote be taken on the reapportionment plans and that that vote be followed by a vote as to whether this Board is in favor of having a special election. There was no second to the motion. Director Utley moved that a public discussion be held at the next regular meeting of the Board on the advisability and practicability of a special election. In answer to Director Utley's question, City Attorney Malone said that the legal aspect of the reapportioning could conceivably be settled within 60 to 90 days, but reminded the Board to keep in mind the work that must be done by the County Clerk after the reapportionment issue is resolved. Director Utley withdrew the motion. City Attorney Malone read a proposed ordinance entitled, "AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES OF WARDS IN THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES." Director Utley requested that paragraph 4 of the proposed ordinance be amended to include "assessed property valuation". It was the will of the Board to accept that amendment to the proposed ordinance. Director Carlson moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance as amended be placed on second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance as amended be placed on third and final reading. Director Stanton 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. The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance the third and final time. Before calling for a final vote on the proposed ordinance, Mayor Purdy asked for an indication from the Board as to whether or not the Board intended to call the matter to a court test. The Directors indicated they would be willing to authorize whatever legal action is necessary to defend and uphold the reapportionment plan adopted by the City. 242 1 Director Noland moved that the City Attorney be authorized to take whatever legal action is necessary to defend and uphold the reapportionment plan adopted y the City, taking the matter to the Supreme Court if necessary. Director rton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Purdy then 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. 1922 appears on pages 190 and 191 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. Director Utley moved that the Board go on record as stating that they will announce for the first scheduled meeting subsequent to the final ruling on this issue a vote as to whether or not a special election shall be held and if so, when such an election shall be held for the election of ward represen- tatives. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The next item on the agenda was consideration of a request by Mr. Charles Woodward for the transferral of Yellow Cab Company's Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Mr. Woodward was present'iat the meeting and he presented an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. The application was incomplete and was not signed. Director Carlson pointed out several facets of the operation of the Yellow Cab Company which she felt were not in compliance with the ordinance regulating the operation of taxicabs. Mrs. Carlson stated that it might -be to Mr. Woodward's advantage if enforcement of the ordinance were brought down heavily on Yellow Cab Company before Mr. Woodward takes over the operation of the company. Director Utley moved this matter be tabled until Mr. Woodward brings in a completed application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Mr. John Warren, President of Fayetteville Transportation Company, Inc., was present at the meeting to comment that Yellow Cab Company is being allowed to operate cars which do not comply with the ordinance and requested that Yellow Cab Company be forced to comply with the ordinance as Fayetteville Transportation Company is doing. City Manager Grimes assured Mr. Warren that he would tell Yellow Cab Company to get all cars off the road that do not comply with the taxicab ordinance. City Attorney Malone read a proposed ordinance to amend Sections (a) and (b) of Ordinance No. 1390 (Section 13-10 of Code of Ordinances) of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas: SOLICITORS, PEDDLERS, HAWKERS AND MERCHANTS OR VENDORS GOING IN OR UPON RESIDENCES BEARING NOTICES PROHIBITING SUCH CONTACTS. City Manager Grimes reported that it would cost the City approximately $500 to mail a sticker or emblem for this purpose with the water bill. Mr. Grimes said a notice would also be enclosed with the sticker informing the resident that in order for the City to enforce the ordinance the sticker should be displayed on the door of the residence. City Attorney Malone told the Board that this proposed ordinance has not been tested in court but similar ordinances have been tested and have been found acceptable by most courts. 243 Board members discussed the possibility of reversing the ordinance to say that persons who wish to be called upon should display a sign. Directors Carlson and Orton commented that there are many more people who do not wish to be called upon than people who do wish to be called upon by solicitors. Also, many persons may not wish to disfigure their front doors with a sticker to ensure them against invasion of privacy. City Attorney Malone said that he had not seen an ordinance such as that which had been tested. Mr. Malone said that the proposed ordinance falls back on the trespass theories of law and he commented that he was unsure what the courts' reaction would be to an ordinance which would prohibit solicitors except where a welcome sign were displayed. Director Utley asked if the City could impose a requirement that solicitors register with the City before soliciting in the City limits. At the time of registration the solicitor could be told the meaning of the emblem and be made knowledgeable of the City ordinance. City Attorney Malone said that is being done in some cities in the state and some cities also require a solicitor to post bond sufficient to cover the cost of the goods in case of default. Director Stanton said that if a citizen does not wish to post a sign provided by the City to prohibit solicitors, he can turn away salesmen another way. City Attorney Malone advised that the proposed ordinance as written is on more sound legal ground than it would be if it were amended by reversing the ordinance to require that a person who does wish to be called upon display a sign. Director Noland suggested that Section 1.b) be amended to read in part: "When said sign or emblem is not displayed in a visible manner on said residence, it shall be a misdemeanor to enter upon said property for the purpose of soliciting or selling as covered by this ordinance." Director Carlson requested that the proposed ordinance be further amended to require all solicitors, including charitable organizations, to register with the City. City Attorney Malone advised that in order to require registration of solicitors another section would have to be added to the proposed ordinance. Director Stanton suggested that the proposed ordinance be amended to require that solicitors register with the Police Department and if that is not satisfactory the ordinance can be amended further to require the display of a sticker to prohibit solicitors. The City Attorney said that he would prepare such an ordinance to be con- sidered by the Board at its next regular meeting. A representative of Kirby Company was present at the meeting to say that Kirby Company has a service center in Fayetteville and is here to stay and provide a service to the citizens of Fayetteville. A member of the audience stated that she appreciates the privacy the Green River Ordinance provides her. She added that she would hope the registration requirement would apply to persons taking polls and surveys, including religious surveys. Director Orton asked the City Attorney to check into the possibility of eliminating telephone solicitation by City ordinance. The City Attorney said that he could provide the Directors with a copy of such an ordinance but he added that he felt that it might be invalid. Director Carlson moved this matter be tabled until the next regular meeting of the Board. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. (Director Utley was absent at the time the vote was taken.) 244 I City Manager Grimes requested Board authorization,to advertise for bids for the Highway 71 South waterline relocation. Mr. Grimes explained that this project will be included in the 1973-74 Water and Sewer Budget which will be effective August 1, 1973. Director Carlson moved the City Manager's recommendation be approved. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a license agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration for installation of a MAL (Medium -intensity Approach Light) System at Drake Field. In answer to Director Carlson's question, City Attorney Malone reported that it was not necessary to condemn the right-of-way for the MALS System. Director Utley 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 Mayor declared the resolution adopted. *Resolution No. 54-73 appears on page 152 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. Attached to the agenda of the Directors was information regarding a plat of a replat of a part of Lot 2, Block 6, and all of Lot 3, Block 7 of Meadowlark Addition. City Manager Grimes recommended that the developer be required to correct the drainage problem in the subdivision. Mr. Grimes said that he is not asking that the developer be required to overlay the streets as the Street Superintendent has recommended since the streets have been previously accepted by the City and the City has assumed the responsibility for the streets. Mr. Grimes said that he would like to work with the developer in getting the drainage problem solved. Edward Hancock stated that Meadowlark Addition has $20,000 to $25,000 homes in it now, but if the developer is required to make too many improvements in the subdivision the homes cannot be sold at that price. Bob Battenfield said that the subdivision was approved prior to 1960 and was recorded before subdivision regulations::were-.passed. Harrison Davis, developer of Meadowlark Addition, commented that he was at Meadowlark Addition during a heavy rain and he saw no water problem in the subdivision. City Attorney Malone read a proposed resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract guaranteeing improvements in Meadowlark Addition. 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. 55-73 appears on page 153 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. City Attorney Malone advised that it would be preferable to wait until the next regular meeting of the Board before passing an ordinance to approve the final plat of a replat of certain lots in Meadowlark. Addition. However, the developer said that time is an important factor in this matter. City Attorney Malone read a proposed ordinance to accept the dedication of streets and utilities and approve the final plat of a replat of a part of Lot 2, Block 6, and all of Lot 3, Block 7 of Meadowlark Addition to the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 245 Director Noland moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance the second time. Director Orton moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance the third 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. 1923 appears on page 192 of Ordinance and Resolution Book 3. Attached to the agenda was Administrative Memorandum No. 261 containing the recommendation that bids for playground equipment, Bid No. 204, be awarded to the low bidder meeting specifications for each item. Sturman Mackey explained that the location of the playground equipment as contained in Administrative Memorandum No. 261 is suggested and must be changed to include the placement of some of the equipment at Hotz and Asbell School Parks. Mr. Mackey also explained that this purchase of equipment is not a duplication of equipment proposed in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation grant application. The 1972 Revenue Sharing Budget included an appropriation of $5,000 for this equipment. - Director Utley moved the recommendation be approved. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The Directors were handed a bid tabulation for Bid No. 207, Concrete Construction, and memorandum containing the recommendation that each item be awarded to Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. The bid terms and conditions provided that the bid would be awarded on an all -or -none basis for ease in administering the contract and to assure that all work performed under the contract would be fully compatible with each component part. Director Carlson moved the recommendation be accepted. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Purdy commented that he is opposed to the sale and use of fireworks in the City and that he would vote to adopt an ordinance to prohibit the sale and use of fireworks in the City limits. Director Carlson referred to a letter from Frontier Airlines, Inc. which was attached to the agenda. Director Carlson noted that in the letter Frontier Airlines implies that they will pay a share of law enforcement officer costs according to the number of enplaning passengers. City Manager Grimes stated that that is what the City has asked them to do. In answer to Director Carlson's question, Mr. Grimes explained that it is the duty of the airlines employee to search enplaning passengers and their baggage and that the law enforcement officer employed by the City is present in case of some occurence. 246 1 011, There being no further business, Director Orton moved the meeting be adjourned. Director Utley seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously whereupon Mayor Purdy declared the meeting adjourned. APPROVED: ATTEST: City lerk 247