Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-07-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS July 2, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on Tuesday, July 2, 1974 in the Director's 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, City Clerk; and Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, Utley, Murray, Carlson, and Stanton. Absent: None Others Present: Representatives of the news media and members of the audience. Mayor Russell T. Purdy called the meeting to order and requested a moment of respectful silence. Then the Mayor asked if changes or additions needed to be made to the minutes of the June 18, 1974 meeting. Copies of the the minutes had been distributed to the Board members prior to the meeting. City Attorney McCord requested sentence three in paragraph five on page 90 be amended to read: "City Attorney McCord said that the act applicable to City improvement districts authorizes the Board of Directors to charge whatever interest it deems necessary subject only to a ten percent constitutional limitation." He also requested amending paragraph ten, page 90 to read: "...that the improvement district would not be organized unless a petition containing signatures of a majority in value of the property owners in the district was submitted within sixty days..." A change in paragraph seven, sentence one, page 88 was requested by Director Carlson to read: "Director Carlson cited the length of Blocks four and five, combined as one, and said there was a violation..." Director Orton requested a change in the last sentence of paragraph three on page 87 by deleting the word "region" and inserting the word "Resolution". There being no further changes or additions to the minutes of the regular meeting, Mayor Purdy declared the minutes approved as amended. Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Board of Directors held on June 24 were then considered by the Board for possible changes or additions. Director Orton requested the deletion of the phrase "...a refund of taxes collected under the Voluntary Tax..." appearing on page 95 in the last sentence of paragraph two. Director Carlson then wished to make an addition to paragraph one of page 95 to cause it to read "...proposal for settlement in the form of a proposed court order, a copy of which was placed before each Director." She felt the change would clarify the meaning of the minutes and would be an accurate indication of what the Board had under consideration at the Special Meeting. Discussion followed Carlson's request during which Mayor Purdy expressed his opposition to the change and former City Attorney David Malone (present in the audience) expressed the opinion that the addition was not necessary. 98 1 • Director Carlson then requested her statement in paragraph seven, page 96 be changed as she felt the statement as it read in the minutes was not accurate. Following a lengthy discussion concerning Director Carlson's requested amendment, Director Murray made a motion to table approval of the minutes until the City Clerk and City Attorney could review the tape recording of the meeting and submit revised minutes that would include a verbatim transcript of Director Carlson's statement. Director Orton seconded the motion which passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board. RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARD STREET COMMITTEE City Manager Grimes told the Board that several weeks prior to the meeting, representatives from the Northwest Arkansas Plaza and their attorney met with him and submitted a proposal to be forwarded to the Board Street Committee and consequently to the Board of Directors concerning the opening of a parallel access road along the west side of Highway 71 from Stearns Road north to the Plaza. General Growth Properties (GGP), he told the Board, had agreed to bear the cost of constructing the road if the City would acquire the required right-of-way. GGP had previously agreed to pay half the cost of installing caution lights at Shephard Lane and Zion Road with that work to be initiated soon, Grimes told the Board. Meetings and discussions between City and County officials, the State Highway Department, and traffic engineers concluded that three steps needed to be taken to make the highway safer in the area of the Plaza. One step was the installation of caution lights at Zion Road and Shephard Lane; another step would be the opening of the parallel access road along the west side of Highway 71; and a third step would be to signalize Stearns Road and High- way 71. The Highway 71 Bypass Plan and Parallel Access Plan calls for parallel access roads in the area, according to the City Manager. No agreement had been readhed between the City Manager and Mr. Duane Nelson, owner of Nelson's Funeral Home located adjacent to the access road, when the two met to discuss the possible opening of the access road. Manager Grimes said the opinion of the Board Street Committee was that it was an opportune time to proceed in view of GGP's proposal to pay for the access road construction which was estimated to be approximately $22,000. He also said the State Highway Department agreed that 35 feet of right-of-way would be sufficient for the access road. Director Carlson favored the construction of an access road further west of the present frontage road so as to serve future developments in the area while chanelling traffic from the plaza and allowing maximum use of the road. With the GGP's likely expansion to the west, Carlson thought an entrance along the mid -south of the Plaza would be desireable. Director Stanton said the Board should realize the fact that the area in question would have the majority of growth in the next ten years. David Malone, legal counsel for General Growth Properties, had three points to present to the Board. First he made clear to the Board that GGP's proposal was not the only proposal for consideration but it was, they believed, the best of available solutions at the time of the meeting between City and County officials and representatives of the State Highway Department and traffic safety experts. Secondly, he said GGP had not completely ruled out the possibility of closing its South entrance but GGP did have to consider its commitments to lessees as to retaining the entrance. • 99 99 1 100 An independent traffic impact study requested by GGP recommended the Stearns Road/Highway 71 intersection be signalized and recommended only right turns in or out of the Plaza be permitted at the south entrance. Mr. Malone did not consider Mr. Nelson's offer to donate right-of-way to extend Stearns Road north to run behind Nelson's Funeral Home and re-enter the present access road as a proper solution as it would inconvenience drivers and GGP would not be able to give right-of-way as the land south of the proposed Sambo's restaurant had been sold. In principle, Mr. Malone added, GGP agrees that a back access road would be necessary to serve the property but the immediate problem was to solve the dangerous intersection by opening the frontage road as recommended by traffic consultants and the State Highway Department. Mr. Sid Davis, Attorney representing Mr. Duane Nelson, then presented his client's position for opposing the opening of the access road. Mr. Davis said General Growth Properties had created a problem and was asking the City to solve it at the expense of Mr. Nelson. Mr. Davis distributed a letter showing recommendations arrived at by the State Highway Depart- ment at a meeting a year ago. The first recommendation of the letter was to prohibit cross -median traffic at the Shephard Lane entrance, a step Mr. Davis said GGP was not willing to take to eliminate the dangerous traffic situation. Mr. Davis implied one reason for opening the access road as GGP proposed, is so GGP could sell more leases and said the hazardous traffic situation would still exist even if the road were opened. He then informed the Board how Mr. Nelson had designed the funeral home in a way that would accomodate funeral procession traffic in a safe manner and emphasized that there had been no accidents at the home's entrance in the fire years since Mr. Nelson had opened his business. The opening of the access road would make it necessary for Mr. Nelson to re-route funeral traffic and would involve "taking" most of Mr. Nelson's storage road now used to channel the funeral processions. Mr. Davis then showed the Board on a map the property owned by Mr. Nelson and said Mr. Nelson was willing to give sixty feet of right-of-way off of Stearns Road as far as it would require to construct a road to turn north and connect with the General Growth Property line. The road could run east or west or both to take the traffic out of the Plaza. Mr. Davis indicated if Mr. Nelson's proposal were accepted, the result would be an access road to property that will eventually become the center of the Plaza and felt that General Growth Properties might consider paving or building the road. If the Board rejected the Street Committee's proposal, Mr. Davis felt an agreeable proposal could probably be reached. However, if the access were opened it would destroy the use of the chapel and prayer rooms of Nelson's Funeral Home by introducing the noise of traffic. Mr. Davis told the Board the opening of the access road would damage a complex and expensive drainage system Mr. Nelson had installed on his property and would cause drainage to run beneath the parking lot. Damage to a lawn sprinkling system located on the Nelson property would be inevitable if the access road were opened, Mr. Davis contended. He said the Board should take into consideration that to condemn the property could cost the City as much as $50,000. According to Mr. Davis, the State Highway Depart- ment had given Mr. Nelson permission to remove a fence along the access road to allow for the planting of trees and shrubs and the work would be done by Mr. Nelson if the frontage road were not opened. 100 1 1 1 In the course of discussion, Director Stanton said the prime consider- ation was not what Mr. Nelson or General Growth Properties wanted but to consider what is best in the interest of public safety. He said a decision by the Board should be ma_ded with the public's safety in mind. Director Utley agreed with Stanton and added that he felt a safe access should be accomplished in an economical manner. Regardless of what the Board decided, Mr. Utley said the access road would ultimately be opened to traffic due to the increased growth the area will experience in years to come and the City would have to purchase the right-of-way at a higher cost in the future. In rebuttal to Mr. Davis' statements, Mr. Malone said the $22,600 con- struction estimate by the Street Superintendent for the access road included extensive drainage systems proposed to be placed in the road when the road is constructed. The letter from the State Highway Department that the City Manager had on file, Mr. Malone stated, indicated the concensus of the Highway officials was to connect the frontage road and install caution lights at Shephard Lane and Zion Road. He said General Growth Propertiess had tried to help achieve the improvements recommended by the traffic experts by agreeing to pay half the expenses in installing the lights and by paying the access road construction costs. He again reminded the Board that General Growth Properties had not ruled out the possibility of closing the south entrance but because of lease commitments, General Growth Properties could not at this time close the entrance to cross -median traffic without first consulting the lessees involved. He said Mr. Nelson's proposal might be the desireable solution but it would be several years before it would be truly beneficial whereas the General Growth proposal to .open the access road would be immediately beneficial. Mr. Malone said Mr. Nelson was apparently changing his original pro- posal which was to construct a road behind Nelson's Funeral Home that would extentltnortlik arid connect wirthtdthe actes's±rroad.jt ,.onnect .•;th the -rc^-s road. Mr. Malone was of the opinion Mr. Nelson's original proposal to build the road along the sewer easement would not be practical because of the poor terrain and because part of the land had been sold to a proposed motel. He said General Growth would be willing to landscape the access road if it were opened to traffic. Mr. Davis again emphasized the damage that would be done to Mr. Nelson's parking lot, chapel and prayer rooms, and his business in general if the access road were opened. He said his client was as interested in safety as anyone else but there was no sufficient justification for "taking a man's land" to solve a problem he did not create. If Mr. Nelson's proposal were noteaccepted, Mr. Davis said Mr. Nelson's offer to donate the land would be rescinded,but if the proposal were accepted, Mr. Nelson would donate the land without any restrictions. Director Orton asked who determined where the Plaza's south entrance would be located and Mr. Malone told her the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission had made the recommendation. Director Murray believed the road proposed by Mr. Nelson would be more desireable and should be considered as it would serve an area that eventually will be developed. Director Utley said the acute traffic problem was contributed to by all parties involved. If the property along the present Stearns Road were developed, then the extension of Stearns Road west and north could become a reality and not cost the City any money since the developers would be responsible for constructing the road. However, if development did not occur, then the traffic hazards would remain. Director Utley said it was a matter of taking action now or deferring indefinitely while construction costs increased. 101 101. 102 Director Noland made a motion to defer the matter until Mr. Nelson's new proposal could be considered by the Board. Director Murray seconded the motion and Mayor Purdy called for discussion on the motion. Mr. Malone said if the Board favored delaying their decision, the Board should acquire independent construction estimates for a road as proposed by Mr. Nelson. He believed the road would have tolls located much further west than Mr. Nelson proposed as the terrain along the sewer easement was not conducive to road construction. Mr. Stanton felt it was not the City's obligation to provide access roads to businesses since developers must build their own service roads. Mayor Purdy then called for a vote on the motion to table the matter for two weeks. In a roll call vote, the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 1973 AMENDMENTS TO THE SOUTHERN STANDARD HOUSING CODE At the June 18, 1974 meeting, the Ordinance had been left on second reading in order to give Board Members opportunity to review the new amend- ments. Mr. Harold Lieberenz, Inspection Superintendent, and Manager Grimes both expressed the need for the Ordinance to be adopted to provide Fayetteville with a minimum code. A motion to suspend the rules to allow the third and final reading was made by Director Murray and was seconded by Director Stanton. The motion was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board and the City Attorney read the Ordinance for the third and final time. The Mayor asked for discussion and there being none, asked if the Ordinance should pass. The Ordinance was declared passed after a unanimous roll call vote of the Board ORDINANCE NO. 2021 APPEARS ON PAGE 140-142 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES The proposed Ordinance would amend the Code to allow the use of plastic sewer and water pipe in service lines and would cause the Code to be in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 10 of the Arkansas State Plumbing Code. After the City Attorney had read the Ordinance for the first time, Director Stanton made the motion to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading. Director Noland seconded the motion which was unanimously approved by the Board in a roll call vote. The second reading being com- pleted, Director Murray motioned to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading. Director Utley seconded the motion and in a roll call vote of the Board the motion was passed unanimously. Following the third and final reading, Mayor Purdy called for discussion. As explained by Mr. Lieberenz, the 1971 edition of the Code adopted in April, 1972, plastic pipe was prohibited because the pipe was not acceptable by State standards; but later the State, after making studies, found the pipe would meet minimum standards and approved its use. One reason for the Ordinance being requested, Mr. Lieberenz stated, is to allow the installa- tion of the pipe to help alleviate the necessity of installing the more expensive types of pipe. Mr. Lieberenz, in answer to a question from the Mayor, said it could be possible for the plastic pipe to be damaged by hot water and caustic cleaning compounds. He said if plastic sewer pipe were used it would have to be installed in a separate trench from water lines. 102 1 i • Following slight additional comments, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote, seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded after which the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2022 APPEARS ON PAGE 143-144 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV ORDINANCE PERMITTING OPERATION OF PRIVATE NON -EMERGENCY AMBULANCE SERVICE The Ordinance would permit Mr. Everett J. Cole to operate a non -emergency ambulance service within the City of Fayetteville. Mr. Charles Hanks, legal representative for Mr. Cole, said the service would operate primarily for the purpose of transporting medical patients and not for emergency purposes even though Mr. Cole's vehiplest would be equipped to accommodate emergency situations. He also cited the written concurrence from the two hospital administrators for establishing the service. Mr. Cole believed his business could be operated profitably since there would..be no need for 24-hour staffing of the business.ele informed the Board that certain requirements did exist as to the qualifications for ambulance service employees and said his employees would meet the standards. The City Attorney then read the Ordinance for the first time. Director Stanton made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading and Director Noland seconded the motion which passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. Following the second reading, Director Murray made a motion to again suspend the rules for the third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Noland and was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board. The third reading being completed, Mayor Purdy asked for discussion from the Board and audience. No further discussion being offered, to vayorNosfafthert'dvs66usshoncbeinguoffpred, thevMayoryasked if the Ordinance should pass. Seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded in the roll call vote. The vote being unanimous, the Mayor declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2023 APPEARS ON PAGE 145 OF ORDINANCE F, RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS The Resolution involves three proposed contracts with each of the car rental agencies stationed at the Municipal Airport -- Baker Car and Truck Rentals, National Car Rental, and Carco Rentals. A written summary of the provisions of the contracts was made available to the Board by Pat Tobin, City Controller, who estimated the contracts could generate an additional $10,000 in airport revenues from the agencies' rentals. Mr. Herbert Hatfield was present in the audience and expressed his surprise at the charges the City would be making if the proposed contracts were executed and suggested the Board re-evaluate the rates. It was his Opinion that the agencies could not operate profitably if the new rates were imposed and felt the quality of their services would decline with the added expense.' Also in- the audience was Mr. T. C. Carlson who said he had spoken with Mr. J. D. Fisher, owner of National Car Rentals. Mr. Carlson said Mr. -Fisher had indicated to him that Mr. Tobin, in conference with the agency owners, had "set out the terms" and the agencies could either "take it or leave it." Then Director Carlson said she felt it was an appropriate time for the Board to be provided with an explanation of the airport's debt of $261,000 103 103 104 when the authorized debt was $145,000. She also questioned a twenty dollar ramp parking fee recently instituted by Scheduled Skyways as she felt the amount was "extraordinary". Further investigation indicated to her that Scheduled Skyways employees had caused damage to some airplanes and she asked if the damages were paid for by their insurance or by the City's insurance. Manager Grimes told Carlson that the City has a lease with Scheduled Skyways and charges Scheduled Skyways a fixed base fee with Scheduled Skyways paying a monthly rental for the use of facilities and the privilege of conducting business. He assured Director Carlson he would check into the payment of insurance claims and would also investigate the ramp parking fee Mayor Purdy then asked if perhpas the Board should look into the rental agreements further before making a decision to execute the contracts. The City Manager told the Board that the car rental agencies had signed the contracts and appeared to be in agreementwith the rates. In preparing the agreements, he added, Mr. Tobin had checked with other area airports and the proposed rates were in line with what other cities.charged. It was his opinion the burden of many of the costs for maintaining the air- port should be shared by the people who benefitted from its operation. Director Carlson then made a formal request for a detailed report concerning the airport's management and revenues to be included in the next Board agenda. Director Stanton then made a motion to adopt the Resolution. Seconded by Director Utley, the motion was passed by the Board following a roll call vote of six "Ayes" and one "Nay" which was cast by Director Carlson. Mayor Purdy declared the Resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 52-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 63 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CONSTRUCTION OF OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITIES AT WASHINGTON REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER The Resolution would authorize the Fayetteville Municipal Parking Authority to obtain a feasibility study from the Washington Regional Medical Center for the construction of_,off-street parking facilities at the hospital. Dr. Garland Melton, Jr.; representing the Parking Authority, said Mr. Joe McKim, Chairman of the Board of Washington Regional Medical Center, had met with the Parking Authority, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. The subject of the meeting was to discuss various situations under which the hospital might request the City to build and operate a parking facility to be included in the planned expansion. On June 28, Dr. Melton said he was approached by the architects for the hospital and was informed the hospital authorities would like for the City to undertake the project. The project would not be considered until in-depth studies had been made as to the number of spaces needed, how many people will utilize the facility, and what legal and financial aspects would be involved. Before the City became committed to such a project, Dr. Melton said all results of the feasibility studies would be presented to the Board for their scrutiny. Br. Melton said if the City were to undertake the project a mutual contractual agreement would be entered into exempting the City from any liability except for the collection of the revenue from the parking facility. There would be no financial liability to the City for the studies to be made, but if the City did undertake the project it would be a perpetual City operation. 104 1 Mr. Curtis Shipley, a member of the Parking Authority and Washington Regional Medical Center Board of Directors, said the planned facility pro- vides for approximately 600 parking spaces and includes all the land from College Avenue to Woolsey that is vacant, with all of the parking facilities to be under the Parking Authority. Director Carlson asked why the County did not undertake the project since the facilities would be located on County property and stated she opposed City expenditures to accomplish a project to be located on County property. Mr. Shipley said he did not believe the County had the mechanics to undertake the project but it would be considered when the study is made. The City would lease the grounds from the hospital and by undertaking the parking project would allow the hospital's expansion to be made as originally planned. City Attorney McCord assured the Board that all legal aspects of the project would be thoroughly researched when the study was made. Director Carlson mentioned thelfact that all of the City's revenue from present parking facilities had been pledged through 1980. Mr. McCord said it probably would not be difficult to obtain a release from present bond holders if the City decided to commit themselves to the project and issue additional revenue bonds. He said the Resolution would grant the concurrence of the Board for the Parking Authority to proceed with the establishment of the facility contingent upon obtaining a favorable feasibility study, satisfactory negotiations on legal documents, sale of revenue bonds at favorable interest rates and a favorable opinion as to the legality of the project as a whole. The Board would not be entering into an irreversible position if the Resolution were adopted, Mr. McCord contended. Dr. Melton said when the Board considered the issue of revenue bonds for the project they will have in hand a full report of the study and its findings. Mr. Shipley felt the Medical Center primarily served the people of Fayetteville and since the Parking Authority was responsible for solving parking problems in the City, it would be natural to involve the Parking Authority in the Regional Medical Center parking facility. He felt the Parking Authority's involvement in the project would not only be practical but feasible and could be an indication for the solution of the City's parking problems. After further discussion about legal aspects of the project, City Attorney McCord again assured the Board the Resolution would not commit the City but would only authorize the study to be made. Director Carlson then requested the Resolution read that the City would obtain the study at no cost to the City or Parking Authority. After the City Attorney had read the Resolution, Director Orton made a motion to adopt the Resolution as amended and Director Murray seconded the motion. The recorded vote was six "Ayes" and one "Abstain" cast by Director Carlson. RESOLUTION NO. 53-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 64 • OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV Director Orton then told the Board she had been contacted by many people as to the status of the new dog leash Ordinance and asked when the matter would be discussed by the Board. After some discussion, City Manater Grimes said the proposed Ordinance would be placed on the August 6, 1974 Board Agenda. 105 105 106 Director Carlson suggested the news media inform the public that the proposed Ordinance is available for inspection at the City Administration Building. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Director Stanton made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and approved by the Board. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED: 106 ae4w %