HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-04-16 Minutes•
44
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
April 16, 1974
The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a regular
session on Tuesday, April 16, 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; Darlene Westbrook, acting as City Clerk; and
Directors Orton, Purdy, Murray, Noland, Utley, Carlson, and Stanton.
Directors Absent: None
Others Present: Concerned Citizens for Highway 62, representatives of the news
media and members of the audience.
Minutes of the April 2, 1974 meeting had been distributed to the Board members
prior to the meeting.
City Attorney McCord requested a change on Page 43, Item 3 under Other Business.
He requested that the phrase reading "lending money to private enterprise" be
changed to read "lending the City's credit to private enterprise".
Director Carlson then requested some changes to the previous board meeting
minutes that occurred on Page 38, Paragraph 3. The minutes should read that
there was "scant" comment instead of "no" comment. Also, Director Carlson
wanted changes made on Page 42 regarding the agreement for engineering services.
She wanted to insert the following: "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
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."
Director Orton then moved that the minutes be approved as amended. The
motion was not seconded. Director Stanton then commented that he recalled
Director Carlson's statement at the April 2 meeting and that her proposed
addition as she stated it was correct. Director Orton again moved that the
minutes be approved. Her motion was seconded by Director Noland and upon a
roll call vote there were 6 "Ayes" and 1 "Nay" cast by Director Stanton.
There being no further additions, changes or deletions, the minutes stood
approved as amended.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #1661
The City Attorney read an Ordinance to amend Ordinance #1661 regarding
service roads along controlled access highways. Director Stanton then moved
to waive the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Director
Murray seconded the motion and there being seven "Ayes" during the roll call
vote, the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director
Murray moved that the rules be further suspended for the third reading.
Murray's motion was seconded by Director Stanton and after a unanimous vote
of the board, the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final
time.
1
1
45..
At this point, Mr. Archie Blanton, Chairman for the Concerned Citizens of
Highway 62, presented the Board with a petition signed by Highway 62 property
owners who opposed the proposed ordinance. He stated that the group did not
object to controlled access roads per se but to the loss of property due to
easements, etc. that property owners sustained. It was his opinion that every-
one in Fayetteville would be justly treated if the board would consider his
group's opinions and objections. He commented that they promise to "stay
with it" until an agreement was reached and labled the proposed ordinance as
"unjust to everyone.'
Mr. Gene Larr, another 62 property owner and secretary of the group, questioned
why it was necessary to ruin property that was located as far as 300 feet to
400 feet off of the highway. He asked if the board could amend the ordinance
further so that it would exclude Highway 62 as a controlled access highway.
He was also concerned that extension of city utilities would obligate the
property owners to the city in the future if the city needed right-of-way
for a service road to Highway 62 should it be declared a Limited Access High-
way.
Director Orton explained that in some instances the terrain was such that a
service road could not always be parallel to the highway. She also stressed
that the purpose of the amendment was to change the definition of anservice
road so that anservice road would not always have to be parallel and that it
was needed for situations that existed along the 71 Bypass.
Director Carlson then asked the Board which streets and highways had been
declared as controlled access highways. The Board informed her that only the
Highway 71 Bypass had been declared as a controlled access highway. Director
Carlson then read the definition of a control@ed access highway to the group
and told them that the state would have a hand in determining a controlled
access highway and that it would not be a city decision exclusively.
Mayor Purdy commented that the amendment had no bearing on Highway 62 West
and Director Orton added that only if Highway 62 were declared an access high-
way would the amendment apply. She assured the group that at this time the
amendment would apply only to the Highway 71 Bypass but that highways that
were declared controlled access highways would be subject to the ordinance.
Director Utley stated that the board has visualized a future land use plan on
limited access facilities on 62 West but that The Highway 71 Bypass was the
only limited access highway at the present time and that the amendment the
Board was considering at this meeting did not apply to Highway 62.
Director Carlson then stated that her main concern was the provision in the
ordinance that indicates when there is a development of land, the landowner
would then be charged with complying with the amended ordinance. It was her
opinion that the Board should determine when property is to be charged as a
"land development". She said that the extension of utilities and the granting
of right-of-way caused the landowners concern, as these actions could necessitate
the dedication of sermi,certdddridthtgabWay and construction of such roads at property
Mr. Larr expressed that the thing to do would be to review the entire ordi- owner's
nance and how it affects the landowners. He objected to the city's "piece expense.
work" stating that it made owners over -cautious of improving their property
for fear that the city would subsequently take it for right-of-way.
Director Stanton explained that the reason for changes were brought about
because of the problem along the Highway 71 Bypass that prohibited parallel
service roads in some places. Again he echoed the previous Board statements
that the amended ordinance would have nothing to do with Highway 62 and that
the ordinance was concerned only with re -defining service roads.
Doris McConnell, whose parents live on Highway 62 West, was concerned about the
fact that Highway 62 and other highways might at some future time be declared
•
46
limited access highways.
specific problems of the
access roads".
Mayor Purdy explained to
to be declared a limited
be known at that time.
She would like to see the ordinance affect the
Highway 71 Bypass only and not include "future
the group that "if and when" Highway 62 West was
access highway that the group should let their opposition
Director Carlson said that the Board was not considering the ordinances
individually per street. She said that the amendment would have an impact on
all streets but added that the amendment was a good one as it allows for
planning. A re -definition of terms in relation to the development of land
was necessary in her estimation.
Another 62 property owner, Mr. John Goss, argued that if the city can't afford
to buy the land for theservice roads that the citizens could certainly not
afford to give it to the city. He said that if an agreeable solution could not
be attained that the Highway 62 group would "fight it all the way".
City Manager Grimes at this point expressed his doubt that the citizen's group
and the Board understood one another's efforts and again explained the pur-
pose of the amendment to Ordinance 1661. He told the audience that there had
been an error in the original ordinance saying that an service road must run
strictly parallel to a limited access highway. The amendment was to change
the definition so that a service road would not have to be parallel in all
casses. Such a case, he pointed out, would be the existance of nearby roads
that could be used as service roads. He assured the group that the city would
not ignore what their desires were and that the Planning Commission would
hear their complaints and try to do their best to comply with their wishes.
Manager Grimes also asked them to give the democratic processes a chance to
work.
Mr. Goss expressed his opinion that the city goes "step-by-step" to acquire
property for service roads and that this "step-by-step" process was what the
group feared.
One citizen stated that the definition of "development" was unfair and as he
understood the ordinance passed April 14, 1969, there were no distinctions
between home owner improvements to property and the improvements a land
developer would make. He considered the ordinance a "blanket ordinance" for
the entire City of Fayetteville. The ordinance, he pointed out, did not
specifically indicate that the Highway 71 Bypass would be the only highway
affected by the amended ordinance and suggested that the ordinance be further
amended to reflect that clarification.
Director Utley again expressed the Board's position that what the Board was
trying to accomplish was to change the service road definition so that a
service road might deviate instead of being parallel; and in case the ordinance
did not pass the developer would not be able to deviate'the'-iocation of a
service roadsi£..and_when Highway 62 West would be designated a limited access
highway.
Director Carlson said she would like to see further changes to fit the needs
of the people.and that she would rather see those changes made than a
re -definition of a service road. She felt that the definition of "develop-
ment of land" was an error and would like to see it changed.
Director Orton then suggested that perhaps the ordinance amendment be tabled
in order that changes be made.
Mayor Purdy said that the Board was trying to do the best it could in trying
to correct the existing errors mentioning that the ordinance was a small step
towards that goal.
1
1
The City Attorney agreed that there were serious problems in the definition of
"land development" and recommended that the Board instruct him to re -define the
term "development of land" for the purpose of controlled access roads. He then
suggested that the board consider the matter at another board meeting at which
time he could comply with their request.
Director Utley was of the opinion that the Large Scale Development matter should
not be "tied -in" with the amendment to Ordinance 1661 and the definition of
service roads. Utley said that the amendment under consideration was for the
definition of service roads and suggested that any further consideration of the
matter be deferred until re -definitions are presented by the City Attorney at
a future meeting.
Director Carlson made a motion to table the amendment to Ordinance 1661 for
re -definition of the terms "development of land", "limited access"conditions",
and "service road".
Mayor Purdy objected to Director Carlson's wording as he felt it did not reflect
the need to separate the definitions.
Manager Grimes told the.Board that the next meeting of the Planning Commission
would be May 14, 1974, and suggested that the amendment be deferred until the
May 21, 1974 meeting of the City Board so that recommendations from that commis-
sion would be available for the Directors' examination.
Mr. Blanton of the Concerned Citizens of Highway 62 West said that the group
wanted to be sure what the fate of Highway 62 West would be and that his group
concurred with the fact that the Highway 71 Bypass had been declared a limited
access highway. He added, however, that they did not wish to see Highway 62
bec`omen.ae lamitedt adcessehighway,:,3y.
Director Orton then moved that the matter be tabled until the May 21, 1974
meeting at which time re -definitions would be available asdweil as any other
recommendations the City Attorney may have. Director Noland seconded the
motion. There being 7 "Ayes", the Mayor declared the_motion passed.
ORDINANCE AMENDING SIGN ORDINANCE #1893
The City Attorney read a proposed amendment to Ordinance #1893 which would
allow the installation of signs to identify a common area, and would set forth
the requirements for traffic sight visibility and the maximum display area
Upon motion by Director Utley and seconded by Director Murray, the rules were.
suspended by ahunanimous votedso that the City Attorney could read the ordinance
for the second time. A motion to further suspend the rules to allow for a
third and final reading was made by Director Stanton and seconded by Director
Murray. Upon roll call the motion was passed with a unanimous vote. The third
and final reading Was then completed by the City Attorney. The Mayor asked
for discussion from the Board.
The City Attorney pointed out that the ordinance could be amended so that it
would not be repetitive of the existing ordinance. He explained that he
drafted the ordinance in the manner the Planning Commission recommended calling
for the approval of the street superintendent based on traffic safety sight
lines as a criteria The City Attorney continued to further point out the fact
that the building inspector is the person who issues permits for all other signs
and that the existing ordinance already prohibits signs that constitute traffic
hazards, thereby creating a redundancy. In view of such facts, the City Attorney
suggested that the phrase referring to the street superintendent's approval be
Changed to indicate that the building inspector would have the responsibility
of such action based on traffic safety sight lines.
47
48
Director Orton inquired about the set -back for such signs to which the City
Attorney answered that all other provisions of the sign ordinance would apply
to area signs also. Director Stanton stated that area identification would
be useless if the set -back was too far and expressed his opinion that such
signs be allowed on the property line. City Attorney McCord then suggested
that the Board could specify set back requirements applicable to area signs.
if they so desired. Director Carlson moved that the City Attorney develop sound
recommendations for locations to coordinate with existing ordinance provisions
and present his recommendations at the next meeting of the Board.
The City Attorney recommended that the building inspector aadpstteet..duperintendent
coordinate their efforts in_dotgrminingdvhspitenver:•ngt area;idehtification signs would be
traffic hazards. Director Stanton stressed that there needed to be some flexi-
bility because each situation requiring an area identification sign would be
different. He also agreed that the building inspector should be the one to
see that signs would meet the provisions of the ordinance. Director Orton
disagreed and felt that it should be the street superintendent's responsi-
bility since he would be more aware of what would constitute a traffic hazard.
She further added that the street superintendent and building inspector
coordinate their efforts in upholding the ordinance provisions and that the
ordinance should reflect the need for such coordination. Orton felt that -
set -back requirements would halp avoid any possible traffic hazards
Director Stanton moved that the City Attorney's recommended amendments be
adopted and Director Murray seconded his motion. There being no further
discussion the Mayor called for a vote. Upon roll call vote there were
6 "Ayes" and 1 "Nay" cast by Director Orton. The Mayor then asked if the
ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote of 6 "Ayes" and 1 "Nay" cast
by Director Orton, Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passed.
* Ordinance No.1996 appears on Page 89 of Ordinance and Resolution Book
ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE #1747
The City Attorney suggested that it would be more proper to amend subdivision
regulations (Item 6 of the agenda) in the manner in which the Board desired
and then require the zoning ordinance to conform with Item 5 of the agenda
rather than amend the zoning ordinance first. He recommended that the board
pass on Item 5 until such action has been completed. With the Board's
approval the Mayor accepted the City Attorney's recommendation and continued
to the next agenda item.
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #1750
City Attorney McCord suggested that amendments to the ordinance be suggested
by the Board and then either vote on the ordinance or refer it to the'Elann-
ing Commission for further consideration before the Board took action. The
Mayor agreed with the recommendation and called for discussion from the Board.
Director Stanton cited Paragraphs 4 and 2A listing materials which may be re-
quired by the Planning Commission for it's scrutiny and felt it was too incon-
clusive. He requested that the ordinance state specifically all materials
required for the Planning Commission's examination and preferred to see the
two paragraphs combined. He brought to the Board's attention that some appli-
cants had suffered loss of time because the requirements for materials to be
submitted to the Planning Commission were vague. City Manager Grimes agreed
with Director Stanton and added that it would make things much more simple
if the requirements were clear so that the Planning Commission could make de-
cisions promptly when a developer presents his subdivision packet for approval.
He also suggested that there might be further requirements for a Planned Unit
Development.
1
49..:
At this point Director Stanton suggested that the ordinance be re -drafted by the
City Attorney and City Manager for future presentation and recommendations to the
Board.
Director Carlson suggested that one change to be made would be the inclusion of
"vacations" in Section 1, Paragraph 2, Sentence 3. She also recommended the
ordinance state that curb cuts would be billed. Then Director Carlson expressed
her concern over the destruction of large trees in the city. It was her senti-
ment that the city not allow deveibpersoportut^'large treest±ndiscrimihately because
of the beadty and pleasure they provide the eiti2ens of Pnyetteville. One
solution she offered was for the city to adopt an ordinance restricting such
cutting by setting minimum 'girths at which a tree may be exempted from such
destruction and proceeded to request the City Attorney to draft an ordinance that
trees of a certain size could not be arbitrarilyScub douinnaSuch Or dinancess'had,.b'een passed
by other United States cities and it would be in the best interests of Fayetteville
if a similar ordinance were adopted. Director Orton added that some U. S. cities
had gone so far as to appoint a city forester. The City Attorney said he would
research the matter.
A member of the audience, Mr. Frank Sharp, guessed that it would take a lot of
effort to keep developers from cutting trees and perhaps the city would consider
declaring some of the older and more beautiful trees as historical as a means
of protecting them.
No action was taken on the tree ordinance proposal.
Director Stanton moved that ordinances 1747 and 1750 be tabled and Director
Murray seconded the motion. The Mayor asked if there be any further discussion
and there being none a roll call vote was taken. There being 7 "Ayes" the Mayor
declared the motion passed.
ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE #1726
The City Attorney stated that he complied with the Board's request that he research
the availability of insurance for private security guards and whether or not it
was indeed available. His survey of insurance agencies informed him that
coverage was available in the amounts of 100/300/100 and that larger amounts of
coverage could be available in tailor-made policies. He suggested to the Board
that the ordinance be amended to reflect that the insurance coverage be required.
The Mayor expressed his concern that the only control over security guard agencies
by the city was that the agencies be required to have their personnel covered
by such insurance. City Attorney McCord confirmed the Mayor's statement and
further added that as long as the agencies were licensed by the State of Arkansas
that the city government could not prohibit 'Suc'hpagentiesaoperating nethe`City and
could,nbtwregulatevinaatmannersconfiigtaIngnsith.State Statutes.but could levy a tax.
Director Utley said he would prefer that security guards obtain surety bonds in
lieu of the liability insurance. The remainder of the Board, however, preferred
the insurance to bonds citing that a bond would be more expensive. Director
Utley then asked the City Attorney if the amounts quoted were consistent with
other cities and the City Attorney replied that other cities had not been
contacted. The amounts quoted were acquired from local agencies that the City
Attorney had contacted.
The deletion of the phrase in Section 2, Paragraph 2 reading, "...either a
surety bond or a liability insurance policy..." was recommended by Director
Stanton. Instead he moved to amend it to indicate a minimum liability of $100,000
per person for personal injury; $300,000 per occurance; and $100,000 for property
damage. Director Stanton's motion was seconded by Director Utley and upon roll
call vote was passed unanimously. Then the' Mayor asked if the ordinance should
pass and there being 6 "Ayes" and 1 abstaining vote from Director Carlson, Mayor
Purdy declared the ordinance passes.
* Ordinance No. 1997 appears on Page 90 of Ordinance and Resolution Book
50
A REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER CONCERNING NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE
City Manager Grimes explained that there is federally subsidized flood
insurance available for structures located in flood -prone areas. He said
that if the insurance program were adopted by the city that future construc-
tion would have to meet certain requirements and therefore would be eligible
for loans from federally -insured institutions or from the federal govern-
ment itself. However, he stated, new construction begun after the insurance
was in effect could not be covered because of the developers possible know -
lege of flood -prone areas. The City Manager then introduced Mr. Gordon
Swearingen, a Division Conservationist with the Arkansas Department of
Commerce, who took the floor and gave a brief description of the insurance,
its requirements, and its limitations.
Mr. Swearingen said that though Fayetteville did not have many flood -prone
areas that the city was obligated, in behalf of its citizens, to consider
the flood insurance program. He reiterated the City Manger's statement that
construction in flood -prone areas would be restricted and required to meet
certain construction requirements. An amendment to the Federal Flood
Insurance Act makes it necessary for any community with flood -prone areas tonne
advised by HUD of its situation. At that time,and before the deadline date
of July 1, 1975, the community may decide to enter the program If the city
chose not to enter by the deadline then additions or improvements to property
and new construction located in flood -prone areas or zones could not secure
loans from the government or from government insured agencies. Mr.
Swearingen brought to the Board's attention that denial of some federal grants
would be certain if the city decided not to participate.
In order to qualify for the insurance program the city has to control any
future construction or developments taking place in flood zones; that is,
such construction or developments must meet certain standards set forth in
a city ordinance. New structures would have to be flood resistant with the
first floor level being at or above the One Hundred Year flood level. Any
major repairs to existing structures in flood zones must meet similar
standards.
Mr. Swearingen also told the Board that any new sewer lines installed by the
city in flood zones must be constructed so that sewage would not flow into
flood waters and cited as an example the use of elevated manhole covers. All
of these requirements, Mr. Swearingen pointed out, must be in the city's
ordinance in order to meet the standards of HUD. At this point of his explan-
ation, Mr. Swearingen stated that he was neither speaking in favor of the
insurance nor was he speaking against it. He further offered that he was
not a HUD official but that HUD had requested appropriate state agencies to
coordinate their state's activities in regard to the flood insurance.
Mr. Swearingen continued to explain that if the city qualifies for the pro-
gram that any property owner within the city limits, whether he be in a flood
zone or not, may purchase the insurance at a cost approximately 1/10 that
charged by commercial insurance agencies. He then quoted some of the rates
for residential and commercial concerns. Once the city enters the program
there is no obligation on the city's part to continue the program; however,
HUD would suspend the city's eligibility if the decision was made to leave
the program.
Upon inquiry by Director Utley concerning what purpose was served by the city
passing an ordinance specifying regulations for structures, the representative
told him that the purpose was to prevent developers from buying land in flood
zones and selling it to unsuspecting buyers.
Mr. Swearingen told the Board that the coverage of the policy is limited to
buildings and their contents and does not include such items as livestock or
other property. The City Manager asked if regular reports to HUD would have
to be made to which Mr. Swearingen replied that HUD requires annual reports
1
•
1
1
51.
stating the total number of buildings in each flood zone and the number of new
building permits issued each year for flood -prone areas as well as other perti-
nent information.
Director Carlson and City Manager Grimes agreed that any forthcoming ordinance
have provisions for restriction of construction in flood zones. The City
Manager requested that Mr. Swearingen supply him with a copy of a good flood
plain ordinance that some city had adopted to use as a guide. .Mr. Swearingen
agreed to do so even though his agency was not involved in the approval or
disapproval of such ordinances.
Mayor Purdy asked for further discussion and there being none he proceeded to
the next agenda item.
REQUEST BY DANDY OIL COMPANY
Dandy Oil Company had requested a':waiver of the requirements of the Master Street
Plan so that=an.addition could be constructed...Mr:.James.=Roy, attorney for the
Dandy Oil Company, presented the Board with a'detailed'drawing of his client's
business location and the desired changes they would like to make. His client
would like to see the 50"' set -back line measured from the right-of-way established
by a 1929 county court order instead of the right-of-way outlined by the Master
Street Plan. It was Mr. Roy's contention that his client would be deprived of
the use of his property without compensation if the set -back was measured from
the Master Street Plan right-of-way. Such deprivation of use of property with-
out due compensation is in violation of Arkansas Gonstitution, Mry Roy-cdpinioned.
He explained that the proposed addition to the building would not encroach any
further upon the Master Street Plan right-of-way than does an addition to the
roof of the building that had already been approved by the Board of Adjustment.
He then requested that an amendment to the Master Street Plan in order that a-
permtimightube obtaanedppermittangthe construction of the proposed addition.
The City Attorney said that Mr. Roy's client would have to acquire either
a Nen an cehoreancamendment, tetthe.'MasteroStreet Piana,tTheCity.A€torneys
further clarified that the Board had no authority to grant variances. Mayor
Purdy commented that if an exception was made to the Master Street Plan in
this instance that the Master Plan would be almost useless, because similar
amendments would also have to be made as requested.
Upon inquiry the Board learned that the plan Mr. Roy was presenting had been re-
vised since his client's first hearing with the Board of Adjustment on February
11, 1974, at which the Board of Adjustment denied the request for variance. The
City Attorney advised that neither.,Stete Statuternorea.tyc0idifaticeleptehiliit'edL£he
Board of Adjustment frotigranping aaebond'ihearingpeattd that perhaps the Board
could grant him another hearing because of the revisions that had been made. The
Board then suggested that he return to the Board of Adjustment with the revised
plan as the Board had no desire to amend the Master Street Plan.
deemed necessary he could return to the Board and request an amendment if
;nsidered by the board-. -.
Director Orton moved that the request by Dandy Oil Company be denied. The
motion was seconded by Director Utley and there being 7 "Ayes" upon roll call
vote, the Mayor declared the motion passed.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING_THE TRANSFER OF FUNDS
The City Attorney read a resolution which would allow a transfer of $3,000 from
the 1973 Revenue Sharing Unappropriated Contingency Balance for use in expanding
the Animal Shelter facilities. City Manager Grimes noted that the Humane Society
has donated $9,000 and $9,000 is budgeted in the 1972 Revenue Sharing Budget. A
total of $21,000 is needed and thus the request for transfer of the additional
$3,000 was being made.
52
City Manager Grimes commented that the funds were to be used to double the size
of the present animal shelter and for needed additions to the sturcture. Mr.
Grimes said that the city would undertake the construction of the additions
using city labor and equipment thereby cutting many of the costs. The Humane
Society's donation in no way obligated the city to the group and the Society
would continue to let the city operate the shelter as it saw fit. City
Manager Grimes cited the close cooperation between the two and appreciated
the Society's concern and advice for the work of the shelter. He also stressed
that ownership of the building would remain with the city. Upon a question
from Director Utley concerning the off -setting of dog pick-up expenses with the
fees the city charged, the City Manager commented that the fees did not come
close to meeting the expenses involved and informed the Board that a new ordi-
nance was being drawn up that included a revised schedule of fees and fines.
Director Noland made the motion that the resolution be passed and was seconded
by Director Stanton. Mayer Purdy then called for a vote and there being 7"Ayes",
the resolution passed unanimously.
*Resolution No. 20-74 appears on Page 28 of the Ordinances and Resolutions
Book IV
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A LEASE
AGREEMENT
The Mayor yielded to Manager Grimes who reported that bids for the lease of
pasture areas in the industrial park, a house, and a metal storage building
near the incinerator unit were opened on April 9, 1974, in the City Board
Room at 10:00 a.m. He recommended that the board award the lease to the
high bidder, Mr. Clyde Weems for an annual fee of $2,700 for pasture land;
$80.00 monthly for house rental; and $360.00 annually for metal storage shed.
Some members of the Board understood that Pollution Control had planned to
use the metal building for storage of recyclable paper until it could be
shipped out. Mr. Weems said he would definitely need an answer regarding
the building by May 20 as he wished to use it for hay storage. The City
Manager suggested that the city might be able to secure a semi -trailer for
the paper storage and Director Orton stated that she understood the Pollution
Control Committee was investigating the possibility of obtaining a paper
baler. Director Noland suggested that the bids for the house and pasture
be awarded to Mr. Weems and then grant the bid for the shed after the
Pollution Committee has been contacted in regard to their plans.
Director Carlson was of the opinion that the city should re -negotiate the
leases every 3 years instead of every 5 years so as to avoid such a long
committal of city property.
City Attorney McCord suggested that the Board amend the resolution to
delete at this time the bid for the storage shed so that an agreement can
be reached with the possibility of leasing the metal building at another
time. He then read the resolution to be voted on. Director Orton moved to
delete the storage building from the lease and to award the bid for the
lease of the pasture land and house. Director Utley seconded the motion
There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote to amend the
resolution. The roll call vote resulted in 6 "Ayes" and 1 abstaining vote
cast by Director Carlson. Then the Mayor declared the motion passed and
asked if the resolution should be adopted. There being 6 "Ayes" and 1 ab-
staining vote cast by Director Carlson, Mayor Purdy declared the resolution
passed.
* Resolution No. 21-74ppears on Page 29 of the Ordinances and Resolutions
Book IV
1
1
•
•
06
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT
City Manager Grimes read a tabulation of the bids received for the Lake Fayette-
ville Park development and recommended that the bid be awarded to the low bidder,
Jerry Sweetser. He also recommended amending the contract to delete the earth
work and temporarily deleting work on the boat dock until sufficient funds were
available to undertake the project.
J. E. McClelland, engineer, assured the Board and audience that the Park
Committee feels there will be no problem in securing additional funds. Mr.
McClelland said he would rather the work for the boat dock be delayed with the
understandi-ng that the city could execute a contract within a 30 -day period to
make certain that the money will be available. He said that the city may have
to pay a premium if the boat dock was excluded completely. The City Attorney
stated that Mr. McClelland's recommendation seemed legal.
Director Orton expressed her concern over the proposed installation of a septic
system in the south paviliion as it was included in the contract. It was her
opinion that the pavillion should be connected with the sewer improvement
district, otherwise she felt that there should not be any facilities at this
time.
The City Manager commented that the city had not prevented single units to use
septic systems and that during the winter months the pavillion would experience
little use. He did agree with Director Orton that, if possible, the pavillion
should be included in'the sewer improvement district.
After stating that there was nothing wrong with a good septic system, Director
Carlson then agreed with Director Orton that a provision be included in the
resolution not permitting' the septic system.as the city had in the past object-
ed to developerls requests to use such a system.
Mr. McClelland then explained that the septic system proposed for the pavillion
differed from those used in residences. Since there would be rest periods be-
tween uses of the facility, the performance 6fi the septic system would not be
affected.
Director Orton's objections were still strong, however, and questioned the
possibility of utilizing a chemically treated system. Director Utley said the
possibility was good but during heavy use periods in the summer months the
companies servicing such facilities are extremely busy and there would be a
possibility that service may not be available when needed. Director Utley
commented on' the possibility of putting the pavillion on a temporary system
until it could be connected with the sewer system.
McClelland assured the Board the pavillion is located on a shelf several feet
above the level of the lake and percolation is "good" in the area.
Director Stanton made a motion to amend the contract to delete the septic tank
system, the earth work, and Tn'c3iidang :;the:.boot rdotknifhfunds :wereicauhitlable.
DirecttoruMbtiaycsecon3edKthe miotironl; -d t=here, WOngr ribnfurtbe'rlcdis`cussiom,'.<Mayor
FairdkiecatilzetScirraiatovelcontethe fesoluti'orbcasiguribrill'edhs"THE; vbternbeang$e7rc';Ayds"
thexMaydradet'iaxehthe resolution adopted.
* Resolution No. 22-71ippears on Page 30 of the Ordinances and Resolutions
Book IV
PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARDS OF BIDS I
The first bid considered was #232 for a street striping machine for the Traffic
Department. The City Manager recommended that the bid be awarded to the low
bidder, the McDaniel Agency of Little Rock, Arkansas who bid $10,610.00 to supply
the city with a Kelly -Creswell "WV -50" striping machine. Director Utley inquired
if the machine would operate while going up steep hills and the City Manager
assured him that it would.
54
The motion was made by Director Stanton and seconded by Director Murray
to accept the bid by the McDaniel Agency. Upon roll call vote the motion
passed unanimously.
Bid #233 was recommended by Mr. Stan Brown, chairman of the Appearance
Committee, to be awarded to the low bidder, Mayes Nursery and Landscaping
Company of Republic Missouri who submitted a bid of $11,918.20 for the
College Avenue landscaping. City Manager Grimes reported that the low
bidder said the city's estimation requiring 54 cubic yards of screened
gravel for the project was too conservative. Director Stanton moved the
bid be awarded to Mayes Nursery; Director Orton seconded the motion.
There being 7 "Ayes" the motion was passed unanimously.
Bid #236 for tape recording and sound equipment for the director's room and
for the Municipal Court was explained by David McWethy, Administrative
Assistant to the City Manager. Mr. McWethy enumerated for the Board those
pieces of equipment bid on to be used in the director's room and those
pieces to be utilized by the Municipal Court. Those were the major purchases
for which the bid was to be awarded; smaller items would be purchased
locally. Mr. McWethy informed the board that equipment for the Municipal
Court was to be partially paid for with a Crime Commission grant that had
not been approved yet. Therefore, he continued, the board would be approv-
ing the purchase of Municipal Court equipment upon the condition that the
grant would be approved by the Crime Commission. Mr. McWethy reported to
the Board that the tapes used in the director's room would run about 6
hours and that they would be re -used. It was his recommendation to the
Board for the bid to be awarded to Stereo World of Brooklyn,New York, and
Custom Audio of Little Rock, Arkansas. Director Orton moved the bid be
awarded to the two firms. Director Murray seconded the motion and upon
a vote of 6 "Ayes" and 1 abstaining vote from Director Utley, Mayor Purdy
declared the motion passed.
CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS
Manager Grimes recommended that bid #245 for concrete pipe be awarded to
Jerry Sweetser whose price would be firm for one year and his committal
would be for a year's period. Director Stanton moved that the bid be
awarded and was seconded by Director Utley. After the Board voted unani-
mously to award the bid to Mr. Sweetser, the Mayor declared the motion
passed.
The City Manager reported a $430,000 refund received by the city from EPA
for the sewer plant and outfall lines. The Manager hoped to have recom-
mendations for a future Board meeting regarding how the money should be
allocated. One possibility would be the placement of the money in a Capital
Construction Fund for accumulation.
RESOLUTION COMMENDING RAZORBACK DISTRICT OF THE BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
Director Orton read a resolution commending the Razorback District of the
Boy Scouts of America for their work in completing the Nature Trail at Lake
Fayetteville and for leaving the Lake Fayetteville Park Area in a litter -free
condition following their camporee on April 5, 6, 7, 1974. Following her
reading, Director Orton moved that the resolution be adopted. Director Noland
seconded the motion and the resolution was adopted with a unanimous vote by
the Board.
* Resolution No.23-74appears on Page 31
Book IV
of the Ordinances and Resolutions
r
RES_QLUTION:AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE
City Attorney McCord read a resolution which would authorize •him to prepare an
ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of revenue bonds in the amount of
$50,000 for the purpose of constructing an airplane hangar facility at Drake
Field. The proceeds from the lease of the hangar would be used to pay for the
bonds. The bonds would not constitute a general obligation of the city, but it
would be a special obligation.
Director Stanton moved that the resolution be adopted and Director Murray
seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, Mayor Purday asked if
the resolution Should pass. A roll call vote of 6 "Ayes" and 1 "Abstain" from
Director Carlson_was'recorded. Mayor Purdy declared thie 'resolution adopted.
* Resolution No. 24-74 appears
Book IV
on Page 32 of the Ordinances and Resolutions
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Director Stanton moved that the meeting be
adjourned and was seconded by Director Murray. The motion passed unanimously
and the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned.
ATTEST:
APPROVED:
Russell T. Purdy, Mayor
55