Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-04-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS April 2, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in regular session on Tuesday, April 2, 1974, in the Directors Room of the City Administration building at 7:30 P.M. Present: City Manager Donald L. Grimes; Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; Jan Day, acting as City Clerk; and Directors Orton, Purdy, Murray, Noland Utley, Carlson and Stanton. Directors absent; None. Others Present: Representatives of the news media and members of the audience. Minutes of the meetings on February 19, March 5, and March 19, 1974, had been distributed to the Board members prior to the meeting. Mayor Purdy introduced the minutes of February 19th and asked if there were any changes to be made. Director Carlson requested a change in Item No. 3 under CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS. She wanted to insert the following: "In discussion, Director Carlson said that Skyways apparently desired the City to build the needed hangar because the City could obtain municipal financing at a lower rate of interest than Skyways could privately obtain it.". Scant comment was made on the change and the change was adopted. There being no further additions, corrections or deletions, the minutes stood approved as amended. Mayor Purdy introduced the minutes of March 5, 1974, and asked if there were any changes to be made. Director Carlson had one minor change on the minutes of March 5, and that was on the last page where Mr. T. C. Carlson had made the statement, "Lester said you can see any record we have.". Her change was one to clarify the statement and make it read, "County Judge Lester said . . .". The clarification change was adopted and there being no further additions, corrections, or deletions, the minutes stood approved as amended. Mayor Purdy introduced the March 19th minutes and asked if there were any changes to be made. Director Orton had a correction to make to the Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance #1747. She had made a motion to amend the Ordinance to read that there be a masonary garbage can holddr with screening alongside the street. The phrase, "with screening" was omitted from her motion when it was put into the minutes and Director Orton felt that the screening was the main part of that amendment. After brief discussion, the change was adopted. Mayor Purdy then asked for any other additions, corrections or deletions and as there were none, the minutes stood approved as amended. AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY City Attorney Jim McCord read a proposed Ordinance to rezone a 2.42 acre tract of property located on the Southeast corner of Porter Road and Deane Street from R-1 Low Density Residential District to R-2 Medium Density Residential District, as requested in the appeal to the Planning Commission's denial of rezoning petition R74-4 by Gordon Houston. Director Murray moved that the rules be suspended and the Ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon 38 1 i A roll call the motion passed unanimously. CitftAttorney read the Ordinance a second time. Director Murray moved that the rules be suspended and the Ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Stanton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. After the third reading of this Ordinance, Mayor Purdy asked if there was any discussion. Director Orton brought out that the lack of sewer facilities made the property inappropriate for a denser zoning and that it was not legal for the Board to zone conditionally. Director Utley then stated that his ob- jection was not to zoning with a condition, but rather one of principle. To explain his statement, Director Utley went on to point out that the people who had bought property in the area hndlbuiiltitheir homes did it with a clear understanding that this was a low density residential area. He also mentioned that Mr. Houston bought the property before I-1 zoning went into effect and there was no record that he had any objection when it was zoned R-1, and if he bought it after the zoning, then he was made aware of the fact that it was a single residential area. For the reason stated above, Director Utley felt that the Board should hold this area to R-1 zoning. Mayor Purdy asked for discussion from the audience in favor of the proposal. Gordon Houston, the property owner, point out that there was a considerable amount of rental property around this area, including Washington Plaza and a trailer park. He also stated that the property around the land he owns is pretty well vacant and that his property is out by itself on a corner and he would hesitate about building an R-1 residential area there. Mayor Purdy asked for any more discussion in favor of this proposal and there being none, he then asked for those comments in opposition. There were four residents of this area present to voice their opposition; Donna Bair of Porter Road, Mrs. Ben Porter, Mrs. Allen and Mr. Will Melvin of Dean Street. Each of these people seemed to be in agreement that changing the zoning of this area would cause more overcrowding of Asbell School; that there would be an excess of noise and congestion; that it would put R-2 uses too close to their own property. At this time, Mayor Purdy acknowledged a petition submitted by the residents and property owners of the area requesting that this rezoning be denied. The Ordinance having already been read three times, Mayor Purdy asked the question, "Shall the Ordinance pass?". Upon roll call, the following vote 'was recorded; "Ayes", None. "Nays", Orton, Purdy, Murray, Noland, Utley, Carlson, Stanton. There being no "Ayes" and seven "Nays", the Mayor de- clared that the Ordinance failed to pass. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE # 1726 City Attorney Jim McCord read a proposed Ordinance amending Ordinance #1726 to require that Private Security guards in the City of Fayetteville be li- censed pursuant to the provisions of Act 605 of 1973. Director Murray made a motion that the rules be suspended and that the Ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the proposed Ordinance a second time. Director Noland made a motion that the rules be suspended and the Ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the Ordinance for the third and final time. Mayor Purdy then asked for discussion and comments. There was a lengthy deliberation on the proposed Ordinance by the members of the Board, but due to the fact that no definitive statement could be made regarding the amounts of liability insurance coverage required, Director Noland made 39 40 the motion that the proposed Ordinance be tabled until the next scheduled meeting. Director Orton seconded the motion. Mayor Purdy posed the ques- tion, "Shall the proposed Ordinance be tabled until the next regular Board meeting?". All Board members being in agreement with this motion, the acting City Clerk called the roll. The following vote was recorded; "Ayes", seven. "Nays", none. The proposed Ordinance was tabled until the next regular Board meeting of April 16, 1974. AN ORDINANCE ABANDONING STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #60 City Attorney read a proposed Ordinance which called for the abandonment of Street Improvement District #6O. Director Murray made a motion that rules be suspended and the the proposed Ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Utley seconded this motion. Upon roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney Jim McCord read the proposed Ordinance for the second time, and Director Utley made a motion that the rules be suspended and that the proposed Ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Murray seconded this motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Director Murray posed the question of whether or not it would be possible to abandon the portion of the Ordinance which applies to Urban Renewal and leave the other in existence, and would any advantage accrue to the City from this action. City Attorney Jim McCord replied by saying that it might not be legally possible and in his opinion, there are several reasons why it should not be done, two of which are that the original cost estimates for the project are no longer valid and that it would be fairer to the property owners involved to start this Improve- ment District over and then if the majority of the property owners want to go ahead with the District and approve it, realizing that the costs are going to be more, then they could do so. Mayor Purdy asked the audience if anyone would like to speak for or against abandoning the project and there was no response. Director Orton inquired as to why the property owners would want to continue the project if Urban Renewal is going to do it. City Attorney replied by saying that the Urban Renewal was only going to do one block out of the four blocks. Mayor Purdy asked if the Board was ready for the question. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: Seven "Ayes", no "Nays". Mayor Purdy declared the vote unanimous. 85-86 *Ordinance NO. 1994appears on Pages. Of Ordinance & Resolution Book IV AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 4 OF THE CITY CODE City Attorney Jim McCord read a proposed Ordinance regarding the operation of pet shops and kennels which would make it unlawful for any person owning or operating a pet shop to sell any diseased animal, and require that animals kept in a kennel or pet shop be "humanely treated and properly nourished". It would prohibit the keeping of animals in an area "in such numbers the access to food and water is not readily available". Director Murray moved that the rules be suspended and that the Ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimous- ly. City Attorney then read the proposed Ordinance a second time. Director Orton made the motion that the rules be suspended and the proposed Ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. The proposed Ordinance was then read a third and final time. Mayor Purdy asked for discussion. Director Murray stated that he would like to include reptiles along with animals in this Ordinance and also make a provision stating that the sale 1 r 41 of poisonous reptiles is unlawful. The next point taken was a question by Director Utley asking if anyone could give a clear definition of the phrase "humanely treated and p bperly nourished", and to overcrowdedness. City Attorney stated that this would be a fact question for the Court, not the person swearing out an Affidavit. There was a lengthy discussion by the Board members on these two points mentioned by Directors Utley and Murray. The discussion also covered the questions of whether or not to include fish and fowl along with reptiles when listing animals covered in this Ordinance. There was then a considerable deliberation on how to word the amendments to Sections 1 and 2 and the title of this Ordinance. The City Attorney read the amended Ordinance which was changed to read as follows: An Ordinance to Prohibit the Sale of Diseased or Poisonous Animals or Animals the Sale of Which is Prohibited by Federal Law; To Regulate the Operations of Pet Shops and Kennels; and for Other Purposes. Section 1. As used herein, the terms "kennel" and "Pet Shop" shall be construed to include any individual or establishment for the raising, training, boarding, or selling of dogs, cats, birds, mice, rats, reptiles, fowl or fish or other small animals for hire or profit. Section 2. It shall be unlawful for any person or a pet shop or kennel to sell, offer for sale or expose any diseased or poisonous animal, or any animal, the sale of which is prohibited by Federal Law. The owner or operator of a kennel or pet shop shall properly treat any diseased animal and shall properly isolate those animals having a disease contagious to animal or human life; provided, any animal which is diseased past recovery, shall be destroyed. Mrs. Guinn, of the Humane Society was present and requested that there be some provision made concerned with the overcrowded space in'which animals are kept. The motion was made by Director Stanton that the above written amendments to this Ordinance be accepted. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion was passed unanimously. Mayor Purdy then posed the ques- tion, "Shall the Ordinance pass as amended?". Upon roll call vote the amend- ed Ordinance passed unanimously. *Ordinance NO. 1995 appears on Page 87 of Ordinance and Resolutions Book IV A REQUEST BY THE CITY MANAGER City Manager Don Grimes presented his request for authorization to advertise for bids for repairs to the Lake Fayetteville dam spillway. He explained why the repairs were necessary and stated that it was something that must be done. Mayor Purdy asked for any questions or comments from the Board. Director Utley moved that the City Manager be authorized to advertise for bids to repair the Lake Fayetteville dam spillway. Director Murray seconded the motion. Mayor Purdy asked for further discussion and there being none, the clerk was requested to call the roll. Upon roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES City Attorney Jim McCord read a proposed Resolution to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers and McGoodwin, Williams and Yates for engineering services for a "Step I" Sewerage System study, for which an EPA grant application had been submitted. Mayor Purdy asked City Manager,Donald Grimes for his comments on the matter. Mr. Grimes stated that approval of the grant was received last Friday from EPA for the Federal participation in this study. He stated, "We shot high in our application and the grant was approved fof the maximum of $67,000.00.". He went on to say that the total estimate of this Study is $76,600.00 and, 42 of course, there are also some items there that could run at slightly above that; some lab work and things of that nature. The local share of the total will be 25% with EPA paying 75% of the study cost. Mr. Yates and Mr. McClelland were present in the audience to answer technical ques- tions about this matter. After a lengthy question and comment period with Mr. Yates indicating what would be included in the estimates and what *Insert--- would be additional, Director Carlson commented as follows: "We have this one proposal from one set of engineers in tandem, a pair, working together. We have one engineer proposal here, and you have seen that we did receive a grant which would allow us to spend $90,000.00 and we have here a proposal that I personally think has a rather high lump sum amounts in it. I really think that it would be far more advantageous to all of us to make a sound decision if we had comparative proposals from other engineers.". Director Noland pointed out that this group of engineers had already spent many hours writing and preparing this proposal and that it would be rather unfair to come in with another firm where the grant is in hand and they have not done the background work nor spent the hours that these engineers have spent in preparing this EPA grant proposal. Another firm would also have somewhat of a competitive advantage time -wise. Director Carlson stated that the Board should not be afraid to seek competitive figures. She also stated that not only might another firm make a lower proposal, but could possibly do it in less time. Mayor Purdy asked for a motion. Director Utley moved that the resolution be approved. Director Murray seconded this motion. Mayor Purdy asked for further discussion. Upon roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes" Orton, Purdy, Murray, Noland, Utley and Stanton; "Nays" Carlson. There being six Ayes and one Nay, the Reethlution passed. *Resolution No. 16-74appears on Page 24 of the Ordinance and Resolutions Book IV A REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER City Manager Donald Grimes gave a brief report on what had been done regarding the proposed Professional Plaza subdivision sewerage system. He met with Springdale Water and Sewer officials to see if there was a possibility of disposing Sewerage from the area of Zion Road into Springdale's Sewerage system. He said that at the present time there is no feasible way of dis- posing into Springdale's system as they are overloaded already. He then stated that be had been examining the feasibility of a sewer district to serve this area and found it to be a very good possibility. He went on to explain that the engineering department is in the process of preparing legal descriptions for the formation of a sewer improvement district for the area in question. Mr. Grimes mentioned that there is an individual involved in this project who has volunteered his time to work among the property owners to put this district together. "He and I are both optimistic about it if we can get 51% plus those who would be in favor of this project", Mr. Grimes stated. He added that by the end of the week the legal descriptions should be drawn up in order to go ahead in preparing a proposed district. There were questions raised about what would be included in this district and how much would have to be pumped. Mr. Grimes said he would bring back the results of what the engineering department was doing. Mayor Purdy closed the dis- cussion by saying, "In short summary, it looks hopeful.". REQUEST BY THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ENGINEER City Manager Don Grimes presented a request for the City to participate in a portion of the construction costs for the sewer main construction of the proposed Bogan, Eason and Sweetser Addition to the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Neal Albright submitted the request to Mr. Paul Mattke in a letter of December 4, 1973 and Mr. Mattke, in turn, presented this request to Mr. Grimes. *Director Carlson questioned the lump sum price for Studies "A" and "C" (totalling $76,600) and the open-end provisions for payment of study "B" which might easily escalate to more than $50,000.00 additional contract cost. Twenty-one months exclusive of approval times involved likewise seemed excessive partly in view of the July,1977 deadline established by the 1972 `EPA water quality law. 1 1 1 1 1 a 43 There was discussion and question period among the Board members and with Mr. Albright. Mayor Purdy then asked if both parties were in agreement with this proposal and Mr. Grimes said that it was. The City Attorney Jim McCord, read the resolution authorizing the Board of Directors and the City Controller to expend $4,300.00 for sewer line oversizing in the Bogan, Eason and Sweetser Addition to the City of Fayetteville.. Director Orton made a motion to accept the resolution. Director Noland seconded the motion. Upon roll call the resolution passed, there being seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". *Resolution No. 17-74 appears on Page 25 of the Ordinance and Resolution Book IV - CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS 1. City Manager Grimes brought up a purchasing item, which was to replace toilet and shower facilities in the City Jail. He recommended that the job be awarded to Fayetteville Heating and Plumbing Company in the competitive bid amount of $7,603.00. He stated that payment would come through the Crime Commission grant. Director Noland moved that the City Manager's re- commendation be accepted. Director Murray seconded the motion. Upon roll call the recommendation was passed unanimously. 2. The second item presented by Mr. Grimes was a Resolution for two temp- orary construction easements for the State Highway Department for construction along Highway 265 adjacent to Lake Fayetteville property to install two large culverts where the two creeks run into Lake Fayetteville. The City Attorney read the Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the construction of two temporary easements for a paving project on Arkansas Highway 265. Director Utley moved the Resolution and Director Carlson seconded the motion. Upon roll call the Resolution passed unanimously. *Resolution No.1113474 appears on Page 26 of the Ordinance $ Resolution Book IV 3. The Third item of business introduced by Mr. Grimes was the Lease Agreement with Skyways. Director Carlson commented that she did not think this arrangement was within our Constitutional authority to do. She had hoped that the City Manager would find some other way to help and support Skyways. She expressed the opinion that the better alterna- tive would have been to pass bonds under the Amendment 49, which is de- signed especially for that type of industry. City Attorney McCord asked Director Carlson if her objection to the proposal was that of lending the city's creatto a private enterprise. He then stated if the City builds and pays for the hangar by issuance of Revenue Bonds, then the title to the building is at all times in the City's name, and if the Revenue Bonds are secured by a lease of the premises and the hangar, then it doesn't hppear to be a private enterprise. Following a brief discussion of the Board and clarification of question the City Attorney suggested that a Resolution authorizing the execution of the lease be passed. He then read the Reso- lution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a lease agreement with Scheduled Skyways for leasing hangar space and a hangar from the City of Fayetteville, Director Murray moved the Resolution and Director Noland seconded the motion. There being six "Ayes", Directors Orton, Purdy, Murray, Noland, Utley and Stanton, and one "Nay", Director Carlson, the Resolution passed. *Resolution No. 19-74 appears on Page 27 of the Ordinances $ Resolution Book IV. Having no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: • 11 Acting C'1erk APPROVED: Russell T. Purdy, Mayor