HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-12-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
1 DECEMBER 4, 1973
The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in regular
session on Tuesday, December 4, 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 Jim
McCord; Assistant City Attorney David Malone; City Clerk Helen Young; and
Directors Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton.
Directors Absent: Orton.
Others Present: Representatives of the news media and members of the audience.
Minutes of the November 20, 1973 meeting had been distributed to the Board
members prior to the meeting.
City Attorney McCord requested that the minutes be amended on page 359 to reflect
that the item regarding the modification of sidewalk requirements in Rosewood
Estates was tabled from the November 6, 1973 meeting.
There being no further additions, deletions or corrections, the minutes of the
November 20,11973 meeting were approved as amended.
REPORT ON LAKE FAYETTEVILLE PARK FUND DRIVE
David Lashley; Chairman of the Lake Fayetteville Park Fund Drive, reported that
the goal of $30,000 has been exceeded. Mr. Lashley reported that the fund, as
of December 1, 1973, had $31,309 in cash and $7,250 in pledges, making a total
of $38,559.
Rodney Ryan, Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, introduced
Henry Dunsworth, Manager of the local Levi -Strauss plant, and Tom Harris,
Director of Community Affairs for Levi -Strauss, who presented a check in the
amount of $30,000 to the City of Fayetteville to be used for the development
of Lake Fayetteville Park.
Director Noland moved that a resolution be adopted thanking the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board and Levi Strauss for their work and contributions
to the Lake Fayetteville Park development. Director Noland agreed to an
amendment suggested by Director Carlson to include in the resolution
...and all others who contributed..." Director Utley seconded the motion
to adopt the resolution. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton.
"Nays" None.
There being six "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the resolution adopted.
*Resolution #105-73 appears on page 208 of Ordinance G Resolution Book 3.
WATER EXTENSIONS OUTSIDE THE CITY
City Attorney McCord read a proposed ordinance amending Sub -Section E of
Section 1 of Ordinance No. 1761, Section 21-16 (e), Code of Ordinances, City
of Fayetteville, Arkansas, regarding the extension of water lines outside the
City.
Director Murray moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be
placed on second reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll
call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" None.
Director Carlson abstained from voting.
369
There being five "Ayes", no "Nays" and one abstaining vote, the Mayor
declared the motion passed. City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance
the second time.
Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed
ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Noland seconded
the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" None.
Director Carlson abstained from voting.
There being five "Ayes", no "Nays" and one abstaining vote, the Mayor
declared the motion passed. City Attorney McCord read the proposed
ordinance the third and final time.
Director Carlson explained, "My abstention has been because if we were
to pass this ordinance immediately we have not had the opportunity of
comparing it with the existing ordinance nor the opportunity of looking
up this Resolution #5-64. What is Resolution #5-64 that is being
repealed?"
City Attorney McCord said that Resolution #5-64 provides that no further
water distribution main extensions outside the corporate limits of the
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, be authorized and/or constructed, except
within the boundaries of Suburban Water Improvement Districts duly
created under Arkansas Act No. 41 of 1941, as amended, and now holding
contracts with the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Director Carlson commented that "...there is a danger here in the second
sentence of Section E." (The sentence reads: "Water extensions within
suburban water districts and cities which have contracted for water from
the City shall be made at the expense of and in accordance with the policies
of such districts and cities.") Director Carlson continued, "We have
standing at the present time, a memorandum of understanding between the
four cities and Beaver Water District that any extensions made outside the
corporate limits for the purpose of serving the water districts or anyone
else within a designated planning jurisdictional area, and we have defined
ours as a growth area, any extensions in that area are to be made in
accordance with the rules and regulations and approval of the city that
is getting ready to put the water out there."
City Attorney McCord responded, "That part of the amended ordinance is
exactly the same as the existing ordinance verbatim."
Director Carlson went on to suggest that the ordinance be amended so there
would not be a conflict, "...because at any time if we wish to put the water
lines in a water district within that area we should have it that it has to
meet the approval of the City. With that approval you don't even have to
have a rule to that nature anyway because as tenuous and as impossible of
enforcement as was our City ordinances in the growth area until just
recently, they are now enforceable by virtue of the fact that the County,
who has legal jurisdiction of the land outside the corporate limits, has
adopted a subdivision regulation which recognizes and endorses any rules
that the City has within the growth area. So an awfully lot of this seems
unnecessary. It already is in existence. Anything we choose to put forth
now as rules and regulations for the installation, either privately or by
water district, or by the City, has to be made in accordance with the City's
regulations if the City gets busy and passes regulations that apply. I
really would like to analyze this in light of our current ordinance, the
County's adopted rules, the memorandum of understanding we have with
Beaver Water District, before we pass a final vote on this."
370
City Attorney McCord responded, "The existing ordinance can be interpreted to
prohibit the extension of water lines outside the corporate limits and that is the
purpose of the amendment. As far as her point that the ordinance may be super-
fluous and that it includes regulations that are already mandatory, as she is
well aware, many of our ordinances are based on State statutes and it is not
necessary to codify them in an ordinance, but we do so in order to manifest the
City's intentions and I don't feel that its being superfluous is reason in and
of itself to decline to take action. This ordinance is based on sections of the
existing ordinance and sections of the sewer ordinance dealing with extensions
beyond the City limits." Mr. McCord added that he and the City Engineer have
conferred on the matter of amending the ordinance, and the proposed ordinance
read at this meeting is what the City Attorney and the City Engineer feel will
be a comprehensive and workable ordinance regulating the extensions of water
lines outside the City limits.
Director Carlson stated, "Nonetheless, I would certainly not give any water
district, even though you may not foresee a water district would be operative"
within our growth area, ... I wouldn't give an ordinance endorsing or permitting
them to lay any lines in accordance with their policies."
Director Utley asked for clarification on whether "water line extensions" refers
to connections off of extensions which the City has already made separate
contracts for, or whether it refers to the bulk water mains.
City Manager Grimes explained that this particular section pertains to districts
which are developed beyond the area the City has chosen to serve. "I think RDA
is a good example. We have entered into a contract with them to serve an area.
They set their own rules and regulations within that area, but they must comply
with our rules and regulations in addition. So before we will agree to contract
to sell them water, they must comply with certain requirements which we set
forth."
Director Stanton referred to the third sentence of Section E which reads:
"Construction of extensions are to be made only upon approval by the Fayetteville
City Water and Sewer Superintendent." Director Stanton asked if the Water and
Sewer Superintendent would have to approve the plans for any extensions or any
connections that they might make in these water districts outside of the City.
City Engineer Paul Mattke replied, "Yes. We definitely are going to.,.ilm order
to agree to serve customers in these areas beyond our growth area, we are going
to have to have control over the installation of their systems and how they are
placing demands upon our system."
Director Carlson further stated, "The ordinance as it now stands envisions the
service of water to bodies like Farmington and Greenland...It also envisioned
that if we gave water to suburban water districts they would pay for their own
systems. As it reads now, it also states that any other extensions of water
would be made at expense other than the City of Fayetteville. I understand
that Jim's (McCord) purpose here is to try to erase that provision so that the
City may under its own laws pay for extensions outside the City limits. But,
he has written this so broadly that he has now got the City exercising juris-
diction which I don't believe it can constitutionally exercise way out and beyond
the area that the County has granted it jurisdiction over....The City is going to
have a hard time enforcing building regulations or anything else beyond the
growth area. This ordinance is failing to take into account that there might
be a water district being served within our growth area. You have not made a
clear enough distinction between the growth area and beyond the growth area and
I think it will lead to some troubles."
371
Director Noland pointed out that these are already terms of existing con-
tracts - that they will abide by the Fayetteville regulations with respect
to the installation of their water lines.
Director Carlson agreed, and added, "You opened and said it would be done
by their policies, and in the next sentence you say it will be done only
by the approval of the City Water Superintendent. Then you go on to say
that every customer who taps on...that is from here to Harrison."
Director Utley responded, "Only as long as we contract for it."
Director Carlson continued, "I think the City will have a hard time
enforcing its building, plumbing codes, and so forth, outside the growth
area unless you get the County to change its presently adopted suburban
development."
Director Murray asked whether the City's plumbing code is not based on
the State plumbing code. City Manager Grimes replied that the City's
plumbing code is the State plumbing code.
Director Stanton said that he did not think this ordinance would cause
problems of enforcement because the City has had a policy for years that
when connections were made outside the City that the plumbing had to be
approved by the City.
Director Noland asked if the County had water for sale - if they would be
selling water to these people. "If we sell the water I think we should
have some jurisdiction over how it is used," Director Noland said.
Director Utley commented, "If that building is inside a district or a
municipality that we have contracted to provide water to, they have to
adhere to the proper plumbing codes or we will not contract to provide
water to the municipality or district."
Director Noland said, "At the point of our delivery we will control this.
If they are not willing to abide by these restrictions - which are state
restrictions as well as City restrictions - then we will shut the water
off." Director Noland, addressing his question to Paul Mattke, asked if
the City has any plumbing regulations which are not part of the State
Code. Mr. Mattke replied that each municipality may adopt more
restrictive regulations which the City of Fayetteville has done in a
few instances, "...but basically we follow the State Plumbing Code
with very, very minor exceptions."
Director Carlson noted that this ordinance proposed to authorize the
City to enter upon the premises and inspect the plumbing system and order
the owner to make repairs, maintenance, etc., all of which is certainly
not within the State jurisdiction.
Director Noland reminded Mrs. Carlson that, "...at one of the earlier
discussions, this was one of the points that you insisted on....You said
you wanted some control over the sewage systems in the areas where this
water was being sold."
Director Carlson replied, "That is right. So you keep your water system
and your potential of increasing septic tank proliferation draining into
the water reservoir we all use, we keep that within our own jurisdiction,
and likewise where water is you allow the authority that does have
jurisdiction and can enforce and that is a water district's purpose in
being. They have legal jurisdiction for enforcement within their district...
But this City has no jurisdiction to go out and enforce its regulations on
anybody else."
Director Noland added, "We likewise have terms in our contract with these
cities that they will abide by the same regulations that our citizens are
having to abide by with respect to plumbing, etc.,...and, therefore, they
will be in a position of controlling it and we will be able to control the
delivery of the water to them if they do not abide by the regulations."
372
Director Carlson said, "But we are not proposing it that way. We are saying
that we are going to come in there and you are going to abide by our rules and
regulations."
Director Noland asked, "How will we know if there are situations which need
correcting if our people cannot go in there and inspect them?"
Director Carlson replied, "I guess that is the risk you take in selling water
to either Farmington, Greenland, White River Rural Water District..."
Director Utley said that this proposed ordinance eliminates that risk.
Director Murray called for the question.
Director Carlson commented that this discussion mainly consists of a cautionary
"...that there is more that every Board member here needs to be aware of and
take time to study before they vote on it...."
Mayor Purdy asked the City Attorney, "Do you think it is allright?" Mr. McCord
replied, "I have consulted with Mr. Mattke and this is based on existing
ordinances and I don't foresee any problem. I think it would be very helpful
if you vote to extend water out into the growth area as far as providing some
control over the facilities."
Mayor Purdy then asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?':'
Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed.
*Ordinance No. 1964 appears on pages 240 through 242 of Ordinance and Resolution
Book 3.
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR THE HUD/EPA WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS WITHIN THE
CITY
Assistant City Attorney David Malone read a proposed ordinance entitled, "AN
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WATERWORKS AND SEWER REFUNDING AND
CONSTRUCTION REVENUE BONDS, 1974 SERIES A, BY THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
FOR THE PURPOSE OF REFUNDING CERTAIN OUTSTANDING BONDS AND FINANCING THE COST OF
CONSTRUCTING EXTENSION, BETTERMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATERWORKS AND SEWER
SYSTEM, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL
OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS; PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY."
Mr. Malone explained that this proposed ordinance is intended to apply to the
revenue bonds to fund the HUD project which is all inside the City limits and
to provide the funds to re -fund certain outstanding bonds. These ordinances
Mr. Malone added, were prepared by the firm of Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldridge
and Clark. John Echols was present at the meeting to answer questions of the
Directors.
Director Murray moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be
placed on second reading. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call
the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" None.
Director Carlson abstained from voting.
There being five "Ayes", no "Nays" and one abstaining vote, the Mayor declared
the motion passed. Assistant City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance
the second time.
Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance
be placed on third and final reading. Director Utley seconded the motion.
373
Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the motion passed.
Assistant City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance the third and
final time.
Director Carlson opened discussion by saying, "We have as yet had no briefing
of the financial aspects of this bond issue....Would someone refresh me as to
how much money it is that the City needs to put up as matching funds, and how
much are we getting from HUD?"
City Manager Grimes reported that the HUD grant is $1,096,000, the City's
share on that portion of thy work is $1,658,000; the EPA grant is $645,000
the City's match for that is $442,000 Also in answer to Director Carlson's
question, Mr. Grimes said that the City also needs about $200,000 for
contingencies and other matters.
Director Carlson commented, "I can see that we don't have quite that amount.
Our last audit indicates that we have $1,300,000 on hand. I am also con-
cerned with that rule that we put ourselves to that we earn over and above
the operating and maintenance expenses, an amount equal to 133 percent of
our bond service amount. Our projected budget for 1974 shows that we
propose to use as operating and maintenance expense all of the money we
are going to take in except the $560,000 we need to pay the current bonds
with and we will have $2,600 left over. This doesn't amount to having
33 percent left over for any contribution to reserve. I am also concerned
and worried at looking at the 1971, '72, and '73 audits, and to the best
of my ability to analyze them, it shows that in 1973 we have $1,400,000
allegedly as income over and above the operating and maintenance. Therefore,
a debt service payment of $463,000 left approximately $950,000 as an excess.
If that $950,000 actually was an excess, I searched the audit thoroughly
to try to find out where it went because our budget for 1974 only showed
some $140,000 excess to start off the year's budget with. The audit shows
an increase in total assets of the system of only $344,000, leaving
$600,000 unaccounted for."
City Manager Grimes said, "We have retained fiscal agents who are experts
in municipal bond field to advise us on these matters. They, in turn,
have retained the finest bond attorneys available in the State. The
preliminary figures submitted by our fiscal agents indicate that we
have 175 percent coverage if these bonds are sold at six percent....For
each of us to be going through the audit and trying to come up with
individual computations, I think is a waste of time. It is extremely
complicated business and one which, if one doesn't go to experts with it,
I feel we are making a very serious mistake."
Mr. Grimes added that, "I anticipate we will beat six percent considerably
unless we run into some unexpected delays of some nature in being able to
sell these bonds. If we are able to move forward and sell them within the
next 30 to 60 days I think we will find a good bond market and hopefully
sell them for around five percent."
City Controller Pat Tobin, in answer to Director Carlson's question, said
that the bonds that we propose to re-issue are callable without penalty.
Director Carlson then said, "There are aspects of this ordinance that I
find to conflict with the Arkansas Act 131 of 1933....The section that is
in the Statute books called 19-4208 and another one I can't exactly cite
for you but it defines what operating and maintenance expense will be, and
also in that whole thing, and probably in 4208, you will find what the
definition of 'surplus funds' is. And here we are issuing an ordinance
that will define 'surplus' differently."
374
Director Carlson continued, "Under the Constitution it provides that the
governing body of the City may place any ordinance that it deems controversial
out for approval and at the vote of the people."
Director Carlson then moved that this ordinance be submitted to the vote of
the registered voters of the City of Fayetteville. The motion died for lack
of a second.
Director Noland, addressing his question to Mr. Malone, asked, "As far as
you can see there is no conflict with existing Statutes?" Mr. Malone replied,
"As far as I can see there is none. We have excellent bond counsel. I will
go back and re -read those sections, but I see no particular difficulty with
them."
There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked the question, "Shall the
Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray,afid Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed.
*Ordinance No. 1965 appears on pages 1 through 22 of Ordinance and Resolution
Book IV.
ISSUANCE OF REVENUE BONDS FOR THE GROWTH AREA WATER PROJECTS
Assistant City Attorney Malone read a proposed ordinance entitled, "AN ORDINANCE
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WATERWORKS AND SEWER CONSTRUCTION REVENUE BONDS,
1974 SERIES B, BY THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING
THE COST OF CONSTRUCTING EXTENSION, BETTERMENTS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WATERWORKS
AND SEWER SYSTEM, TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE
PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THE BONDS; PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO;
AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY".
Director Murray moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be
p+l?acedl on second reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call
the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the motion passed.
Assistant City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance the second time.
Director Murray moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed ordinance
be placed on third and final reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the motion passed.
Assistant City Attorney Malone read the proposed ordinance the third and final
time.
Director Carlson opened discussion by commenting, "We were told during the
progress of this $1.3 million bond issue development that it was the aim of the
Water and Sewer Committee to have this outside -the -city system be self-sustaining
and not be a charge against the entire system - that it could be so arranged that
the revenues therefrom would have to pay its own cost and that the water rates
now paid by other users of the city system would not be jeopardized and rendered
highly possible that they might have to go up in order to meet the expenses of
this immediate expenditure outside the City limits, and further developments
thereof. But now I see this ordinance is so designed that this indebtedness in
order to build the system is to become a charge against the revenues of the
entire system."
375
Director Carlson continued, "My main opposition to this is simply that it is
so unnecessary for the City to undertake this extra expense. There isn't a
single aim that this City has voiced as its purpose in going outside the City
with this extension that cannot now be met without adding further debt
charge to the City's water system or running the risk that this investment
will not pay for itself and the people inside will have to suffer less service
than they might otherwise have. I think it is well known that what I think
would be much wiser...if they would but sell the water wholesale to those
people living outside the City limits. There is every legal means set up
for those people to have their own jurisdiction over their system and not
have service provided by a political entity in which they have no vote.
At the same time, all the rights and interests of the City would be
protected; and furthermore, the wholesale revenue would be completely -
well nominally so - without additional expense for the City. In other
words, it would help materially to pay for the highly indebted system
that we already have."
Director Stanton said, "I understood that the rates for the people living
outside the City would be higher than those for the people inside the
corporate limits of the City,..and that these rates can be adjusted
without adjusting the rates of the inside -the -City users. I think there
are some advantages that we have discussed over the last couple of years
to the City actually owning and operating the water system outside the
City limits....I think we have to look at the growth potential of our area."
Director canton continued, "..:.a major consideration during the discussions
on this matter was that when these areas which are outside the City limits
now are annexed, the water system will be adequate and compatible."
Director Carlson said, "...Seventy percent of our area inside the City
limits is undeveloped and if we are not able to take care of the development
of that area, why should we go outside and encourage people to build homes
outside, thereby contributing nothing to increase tax base to improve
the urban situation inside our City limits. It will proliferate septic
tanks...."
Director Stanton commented, "People are going to build out there regardless....
It is not proper and I don't sense there is any intent whatsoever to increase
the cost of service inside the City limits to provide this service outside
the City limits."
Mrs. Carlson further stated, "We did have, perhaps do still have, an
ordinance that says once the City supplies water to anyone outside the City
limits, the takers of that water can be annexed into the City limits upon
the decision and vote of the City Board of Directors....That annexes them
in and subjects them to the possible fighting of it due to the fact that
we probably will not be able to supply them the other municipal services
that are constitutionally and statutorily required to be probable...."
Director Utley asked, "Is the point you are making that there would be
more extensive growth outside the City and more requirements outside the
City as a result of this being City water as opposed to a rural water
district? I don't see the difference in any problems that might accrue
from it."
Director Carlson replied that, "The only problem is simply that we would
be funding the expense of underwriting the system out there and we would
be getting a system out there over which they have no governmental
jurisdiction."
376
1
Director Utley continued, "...If we provide it wholsale, the system we. have now
between here and Beaver Lake would become overtaxed at approximately the same
point in time as it would if we provide it direct. But under this direct pro-
vision, we are including that as a portion of the pro -rated cost in order that
we will not be confronted with an overtaxing of the system as it now exists
then the people in the City of Fayetteville having to pay the bonding issue to
improve it. In other words, the rate systems that are set up now will insure
that as this system becomes overtaxed, both the rural community as well as the
City of Fayetteville will have an adequate system and the funding to take care
of the requirements both inside and out. That would not be true if we went to
a wholesale system."
Director Noland said he would like to second what Director Utley said. Director
Noland added, "The Black and Veatch Study very definitely demonstrates that the
users of this system will be paying for the system and it will not be the
people in the City of Fayetteville that will be paying for the system. This is
a very conservative study, and I feel a very well -made stddy,since the engineering
consultants are experts in this field."
Director Noland, directing his question to the attorneys, asked if this ordinance
is meeting all of the legal requirements of the statutes of the State of Arkansas.
City Attorney Malone replied, "To the best of my knowledge, yes sir."
Director Carlson moved that this ordinance be placed to the vote of the people
of Fayetteville for their adoption. The motion died for lack of a second.
Mayor Purdy then asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?"
Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed.
*Ordinance No. 1966 appears on pages 23 through44S of Ordinance and Resolution
Book 3.
Mayor Purdy announced, "I have authorization from Marion (Orton) to the fact
that she is sorry she couldn't be here, but that if she could be here she would
vote favorably on both of these ordinances."
MUNICIPAL PARKING AUTHORITY; OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES
City Attorney McCord advised that Items 6 and 7 on the agenda be tabled because
of the death in Dr. Garland Melton's family. Dr. Melton was the person who was
to speak for the Parking Authority. City Attorney McCord explained that since
this is a controversial issue, it seems only fair that Dr. Melton be present to
rebut any opposition.
Director Noland moved that Items 6 and 7 on the agenda be tabled until the next
regular meeting of the Board. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll
call vote the motion passed unanimously.
WAIVER OF SUBDIVISION REQUIREMENTS (LOT SPLITS) - KATHERINE STUBBLEFIELD
City Attorney McCord read a proposed ordinance to approve the waiver of subdivision
requirements (lot splits) of Mrs. Katherine Stubblefield, for property located on
Stubblefield Road; and accepting and confirming the dedication of street right-
of-way and/or utility easements contained therein.
The City Attorney explained that he drafted this proposed ordinance according to
the Planning Commission recommendation: The ordinance is conditioned upon the
dedication of ten feet along the northern edge of the property and fifteen feet
along the southern and western edges of the property for street and utility
easements.
377
Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance
be placed on second reading. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon
roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the second time.
Director Stanton moved the rules be further suspended and the proposed
ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Noland seconded
the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
City Attorney McCord read the proposed ordinance the third and final time.
City Manager Grimes said, "I am not opposed to the lot split, but I do
feel that the normal utilities that are required of subdivisions should
be extended to serve these lots. The Stubblefield Addition to the west
of these lots is not served by sewer at this time. Sewer is available
approximately 1,050 feet east of the properties in question....Water is
available on Stubblefield Road extending from the west to the western
side of Loxley Avenue. I feel that if this lot split is approved that
we should require that the water and sewer facilities to City specifi-
cations be extended to serve the lots....I feel that in order for orderly
future development, the sewer line should be required at this time....
I feel it should be at developer's expense."
Mrs. Stubblefield said that at the time this development was made, the
sewer was not available. Surveys were made for the sewer line at one
time, but the people living there voted not to have the sewer line so
they lost their priority. Mrs. Stubblefield added that she would run
a six-inch water line from Stubblefield Addition to serve these lots.
Director Carlson stated that our subdivision ordinance is not aimed at
a developer who owns property on an already established street and merely
desires to sell two lots. "I don't see why we need to force Mrs. Stubblefield
to bring the sewer line up at this time....It seems to me they could sell,
however, there could be no homes built, no septic tanks there, until they
get sewer."
Director Noland said, "In the interest of consistency, I don't believe we
could approve this."
Director Stanton asked Mrs. Stubblefield if there were any plans for the
development of the adjoining property so that the sewer might be available
to this property. Mrs. Stubblefield replied that possibly the adjoining
property would be developed.
City Manager Grimes commented that since the City definitely has an interest
in getting a sewer line up to serve the portion of Stubblefield Addition
which is already developed, perhaps this item could be tabled again so
that he could have a chance to work with Mrs. Stubblefield and other
members of the family to try to work out some type of cooperating arrange-
ment whereby the City could participate in this line.
William G Myers, from the audience, said that it would appear to be in
the best interests of the City to make it easy for Mrs. Stubblefield to
sell to somebody who has money and ready and willing to try to getta
development of the sewer line. "I would suggest that your ordinance could
be amended to state that this subdivision permission does not constitute
approval of the use of septic tanks on the lotS of any residential or
commercial development. With such a basis, she could sell to a person
who wants to build....Running roughly 1100 feet of sewer line in order
to get permission to sell off a portion of two lots, seems to me to be
oppressing widows and orphans."
Director Noland moved this matter be tabled until the next regular meeting
of the Board. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote
the motion passed unanimously.
378
1
1
L
1
TRANSFER OF YELLOW CAB COMPANY'S CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND
NECESSITY TO FAYETTEVILLE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Walter Niblock, attorney representing Fayetteville Transportation Company,
requested that the request for the transfer of Yellow Cab Company's
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity be passed for the time
being.
Director Stanton moved to pass this agenda item. Director Carlson seconded
the motion. Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously.
RATE INCREASE IN TAXICAB FARES - FAYETTEVILLE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY
Upon request of the Mayor, City Attorney McCord read a proposed ordinance
to amend Section 22 of Ordinance 1910, Section 20-33.4, Code of Ordinances,
City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, to reflect an increase in rates which may
be charged for the acceptance and discharge of passengers in taxicabs
Under the proposed rate schedule, the present zones would remain the same,
but the method of computing the fares would be changed.
Director Carlson reported that all of the citizens she had spoken to about
this matter had no objections to this rate increase and they believed it
would be fair and equitable.
Director Utley commented that this appears to make it cheaper for the people
in the heart of the City to travel and more expensive for the people on the
perimeters to travel by cab. Director Utley said that there is nothing to
keep a cab company from operating from various points of the City so the
cabs would not have to originate from one central location.
City Manager Grimes, in answer to Mayor Purdy's question, said, "There are
some inequities in this zone rate map which are going to cause some real
complaints....The only thing I am worried about are some of these inequities
that are going to crop up where if you go a short distance and have to pay a
high rate due to the structure of this thing. Those will have to be corrected
as we recognize them and are able to identify them "
Director Carlson said that the cab companies do adjust rates sometimes to make
a fair rate in order to remain competitive and stay in the good graces of
their customers.
Walter Niblock, representing Fayetteville Transportation Company, said that
gasoline costs have increased 30 percent over the last six months for this
company. "This rate increase is a matter of whether or not the cab company
can survive." Mr. Niblock urged the Board to adopt this ordinance at this
time because the cab company needs immediate relief.
Director Noland said that he thinks because of the increase in gasoline costs
that this rate increase is justified.
Director Stanton moved the rules be suspended and the proposed ordinance be
placed on second reading. Director Carlson 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
be placed on third and final reading. Director Noland seconded the motion.
Upon roll call vote the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read
the proposed ordinance the third and final time.
Director Utley asked Administrative Aide David McWethy if this rate structure
is as fair and equitable as he would visualize. Mr. McWethy reported that,
based upon the information presented, he would say the rate structure is as
fair as is possible.
•
379
There being no further discussion, Mayor Purdy asked the question, "Shall
the Ordinance pass?" Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton.
"Nays" None.
There being six "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed.
*Ordinance No. 1967 appears on pages 46 and 47 of Ordinance and Resolution
Book IV.
1974 GENERAL FUND BUDGET
Copies of the proposed 1974 General Fund Budget had been distributed to
the Board members prior to the meeting. City Manager Grimes announced
that the 1974 Budget should be adopted at the next regular meeting of the
Board.
Mr. Grimes called attention to items in the budget message: proposed
salary increases and proposed sanitation rate increases. The City
Manager noted that it is proposed to subsidize the Sanitation Department
this year from the Revenue Sharing Funds, but after that, it is hoped
that this department can be operated as an enterprising fund. Regarding
salary increases, Mr. Grimes commented that the increase in the cost of
living will probably be about 8-1/2 percent by the end of this year. "If
we have another 5-1/2 percent cost of living increase next year, which has
been the average for the three years preceding this last year, we are going
to have about a 14 percent cost of living increase over a two-year period."
Mr. Grimes continued,to say that the employees were given a 5.5 percent
increase in 1973, and if the 10 percent increase is approved for 1974
the employees will realize about a 1 percent pay increase over a two-year
period of spendable income.
Sturman Mackey, in answer to Mayor Purdy's question, reported that data
he received from spot checking all over the state, indicated that most
industries have made pay increases such as this because of the high labor
market. Mr. Mackey continued, "Wages had to be raised in order to keep
and gain employees.'...I think with the minimum entry level rates we are
proposing in this 1974 pay plan, I think that will maintain us at a
level of competition to meet our needs."
City Manager Grimes, in answer to Director Utley's question, said that
the increases proposed for the first of the year would be "across the
board". "The othersts are referred to as 'merit increases' but they
are relatively automatic unless we are having trouble with the employee....
When you are in an inflationary trend, this business of merit increases
becomes very difficult. I can't help but think that if he works through
the year without this merit increase he has lost money, whereas if the
economy were stalilized he could stay even I am more liberal with the
merit increases because of the economy we are in."
Director Stanton said that he would hate to see. the City get into the
policy of giving merit increases just because a person shows up for work
every day. "I think anyone who does a good job certainly deserves to be
rewarded....If these are earned, I think this is fine, but I hate an
automatic situation."
Director Carlson said that she would like to see a "partial automatic" to
a very minor extent, but indicated that she felt that a larger increase
should be merited and would not have to come necessarily every year, but
could be considered at any time.
City Manager Grimes explained that sometimes a Department Head will
recommend that a merit increase be deferred in order to provide incentive
for an employee.
380
1
--
Director Carlson referred to paragraph one on page 6 of the preliminary 1974
Budget and asked that that paragraph be re -worded to be a more accurate
reflection of the picture of taxation.
Sturman Mackey explained that the reference made to "nine mills" refers to
the previous page.
City Manager Grimes agreed with Director Carlson that the paragraph could be
revised to clarify it.
City Manager Grimes said that the approval of the 1974 Budget will be placed
on the agenda for the December 18, 1973 meeting.
APPOINTMENTS TO NORTHWEST ARKANSAS REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Director Stanton presented the report of the Nominating Committee, announcing
that the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission has requested that
the following members be re -appointed to the committee: Russell Purdy, 'fir
Garland Melton, and Fred Vorsanger. Director Stanton said that he has talked
with Garland Melton and Fred Vorsanger and they have agreed to remain on the
committee. Director Stanton reported that it is the unanimous recommendation
of the Nominating Committee that these three members be re -appointed to the
NWARPC.
Director Stanton also announced the following up -coming vacancies: Planning
Commission (3); Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (4); Library Board (2);
Pollution Control Committee (3); Housing Authority (2); Board of Adjustment (1).
Director Stanton asked the Board members, if they have persons they would like
to suggest for any of these positions, to have those persons contact someone
in the City Manager's Office and leave$a resume of their experience and
qualifications, and express their willingness to attend the meetings of the
committee if they are chosen. Interested persons should contact the City
Manager's Office by Tuesday, December llth.
Director Utley moved that the recommendations of the Nominating Committee be
approved. Director Noland seconded the motion.
Director Caftson said that she would like to consider these appointments at
the next regular meeting of the Board, "...so the members of the Board could
have an opportunity to see if they can't find really well-qualified people to
serve and provide some rotation of mental input to the Regional Planning
Commission."
Director Stanton commented, "Before we make changes just for the sake of making
change,...it has been a pretty well proven fact that it takes fromaa year to a
year and a Half for the people to become familiar with the background and pro-
cedures of these committees."
Director Carlson said, "That is why we have staggered terms ending, and the
public has an opportunity to provide some fresh input....If we are not granted
an opportunity, to provide a recommendation for fresh input, then I feel that
the puMlitli`s being disserved to that extent."
Director Stanton said that the Board was notified of this matter about four
ago.
a o.
Mayor Purdy called for a vote on the motion to approve the Nominating Committee's
recommendation. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray and Stanton.
"Nays" Carlson.
There being five "Ayes" and one "Nay" the Mayor declared the motion passed.
381
•
PARTICIPATION IN A FAYETTEVILLE-SPRINGDALE TRANSPORTATION STUDY "CONTINUING
PHASE PROGRAM"
City Attorney McCord read a proposed resolution authorizing the Mayor and
the City Clerk to execute an agreement by and between the City of Fayetteville
and the City of Springdale, the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning
Commission, Washington County, Benton County, and the Arkansas State
Highway Department, which agreement provides that the parties thereto
shall jointly be responsible for the oper tion of the continuing planning
process to be described in "continuing p se program" developed in
accordance with the Federal Highway Administrations's policy.t
A copy of the agreement was attached to the agenda.
City Manager Grimes explained the composition of the citizens' committee
and the executive committee.
Director Carlson expressed disapproval that the City Manager o5 Fayetteville
is not a member of the executive committee.
Mr. Grimes said that he serves in an advisory capacity to the executive
committee.
Director Stanton moved the resolution be adopted. Director Utley seconded
the motion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded:
"Ayes" Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson and Stanton.
"Nays" None.
There being six "Ayes" and no "Nays" the Mayor declared the resolution
adopted.
*Resolution No. 106-73 appears on page 209 of Ordinance and Resolution
Book 3.
AIRPORT STUDY COMMITTEE
Director Carlson referred to the 1974 Budget which proposes an allocation
for a paid consultant to do the study that the airport committee was
thought to be qualified to do. Mrs. Carlson requested that the airport
committee be asked to come in with a report of the study they were
appointed to do.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Director Stanton moved the meeting be
adjourned. Director Noland seconded the motion. The motion passed
unanimously, whereupon Mayor Purdy declared the meeting adjourned.
ATTEST:
Ji.�,
City Jerk
382
APPROVED:
Mayor
anti