Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-06 Minutes1 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS August 6, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a regular session on Tuesday, August 5, 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, Mally Wagnon Road property owners, and members.of the audience. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Russell T. Purdy called the meeting to order, and, following a brief moment of respectful silence, asked if there be any corrections or additions to the minutes of the July 16, 1974 Board meeting. Copies of the minutes had been distributed to each Board member prior to the meeting. City Attorney McCord requested a correction in the first paragraph, second sentence, appearing on page 111. Mr. McCord said condemnation issues require a two-thirds vote of the Board; therefore, the sentence should be amended to read. "Failing to obtain a two-thirds vote..." In the same paragraph, Director Carlson requested that the minutes indicate the names of the Board members voting "Aye" and those voting "Nay" on the condemnation Resolution involving the access road near the Northwest Arkansas Plaza. Director Carlson also requested the dele- tion of "...and Nelson's Funeral Home..." appearing in the first sentence of paragraph seven of page 108, stating that she did not think Mr. Nelson had submitted an LSD plan that included both the Ramada Inn and the Nelson's Funeral Home. Director Carlson withdrew her request after some discussion in which Director Utley objected to the change because he did not recall Mr. Malone''s exact statements. An addition to the second sentence of paragraph one on page 109 was"then requested by Director Carlson to cause the sentence to read: "Following several accidents at Zion Road and Shephard Lane..." Director Orton then stated she felt the minutes should reflect the reasons for waiving of formal bid requirements on Bids 265 and 262. The City Attorney explained to Director Orton that the Ordinances waiv- ing the requirements specifically stated why the requirements were waived and' that the Ordinances 'are on file in the City Clerk's office should anyone question why the waivers were executed. Director Orton then withdrew her request. No further amendments or corrections being offered, Mayor Purdy de- clared the minutes approved as amended. 117 117 117.1 117.2 117.3 117.4 117.5 117.6 t 118 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS 118.1 The proposed Ordinance would regulate more fully several aspects of animal control in the City and includes a "leash law" that would re- quire animals to be leashed or confined twelve months instead of six months. The City Attorney said the proposed Ordinance was based upon provisions furnished by the Fayetteville Humane Society and the City Manager's Office and was in fact an amendment to the existing City Code regulating animal control. He then read the Ordinance for the first time. 118.2 A discussion followed the first reading of the Ordinance in which the Board considered certain procedures that might be followed. in submitting the Ordinance or portions of it to the voters. Mayor Purdy said the people could vote on the entire Ordinance or just the "leash law" portion 118.3 Director Stanton made a motion, which was seconded by Director Carlson, to suspend the rules and place the Ordinance on second reading. In a roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. The Ordinance was then read by the City Attorney for the second time. 118.4 Director Carlson made a motion to amend the proposed Ordinance by changing Section 4-19 to read exactly as Sections 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21 of the existing code reads and to submit the "leash law" portion to a vote of the people at the November General Election. The City Attorney then read Sections 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21 of the existing Code to the Board. 118.5 Director Orton was of the opinion that perhaps the leash portion of the Ordinance should not include both dogs and cats but that the voters be able to vote for a year around leash law and for the leashing of either dogs or cats thereby removing the possibility of "double . jeopardy" to the Ordinance. She felt some people might be in favor of leashing dogs but not cats, and those not favoring a leash law for cats would vote against the entire leash law. 118.6 In submitting the Ordinance to a referendum, the City Attorney said in a memo to the Board that the Board might either adopt the proposed Ordinance with the leash provision deleted and without repealing the existing leash requirements; then submit a proposed Ordinance contain- ing year around leash requirements to a vote of the people. Or the Board might adopt the proposed Ordinance with a section containing leash require- ments for dogs and cats for the same months as presently required for dogs under the existing Ordinance and then submit an Ordinance with year around leash requirements for dogs and cats to a vote of the people. Mr. McCord said if the Board wished to include cats in the Ordinance the Board- could also consider amending Section 4-19 of the current Ordinance. 118.7 Directors Stanton and Utley felt the entire Ordinance should be submitted to a referendum. Utley said the Board should work towards a workable Ordinance that would be voted upon by the people and decided upon by the majority. Director Orton did not favor submitting the entire Ordinance to vote of the people as she felt it would run a greater risk of being rejected because Orton felt one voter might oppose one facet of the* 118.8 The definition of "running at large" was then discussed by the Board. Director Utley said the use of the word "otherwise" should be deleted in Section 4-16 of the Ordinance because the word was not sufficiently defined. In the course of discussion, Board members questioned whether an animal could be considered "running at large" if it were on the owner's property but not chained, or, if it were under "voice control" of its owner. *ordinance while another might vote against another facet. 118 1 119 Mayor Purdy then called for a vote on Director Carlson's motion, 119.1 which was seconded by Director Orton, to change Section 4-19 to read exactly as Sections 4-19, 4-20, and 4-21 of the current Code reads and to place the leash law portion of the Ordinance before the people in the November General Election. In a roll call vote, six "Ayes" and one "Nay", which was cast by Director Utley, were recorded. The motion was declared passed by the Mayor. In further discussion concerning the remaining aspects of the Ordi- 119.2 nance, Director Stanton made a motion to amend Section 4-2 by striking the first sentence to cause the `section to read as it exists in the current Ordinance because he felt the section as it was proposed would create problems for the Planning Commission since there are several large tracts of land in the City that are grazed by cattle. In discussion regarding Stanton's motion, Mr. Tom Bercher, Fayette- 119.3 ville Humane Society President, expressed his concern for the deletion of the sentence as it would permit the keeping of livestock in down- town Fayetteville. Mayor Purdy said that it would allow livestock in downtown areas only if the people keeping the livestock met all other requirements pertaining to the keeping of animals, i.e., plenty of room for the animals, sanitary conditions, etc. Director Utley asked if there were any zoning regulations regarding the keeping of live- stock in the City limits and whether or not the proposed animal Ordinance would be in conflict with zoning regulations. The City Attorney told Utley that there would be no conflict with the zoning ordinance and that the -raising of livestock.is- included -'in use:unit seven (Animal Husbandry): as a'permi•.tted use -only in•A-1 districts, but the zoning ordinance* There being no further discussion in regard to the motion, Mayor 119.4 Purdy called for the Board's vote. The recorded vote was six "Ayes" and one "Nay", which was cast by Director Utley. Mayor Purdy then asked if there were any comments to be made 119.5 concerning Section 3 of the Ordinance pertaining to animal cruelty. Director Orton made a motion to delete the word "drive" and Director Stanton seconded the motion. In a roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. In regard to Section 4-16 and the definition of "running at large", 119.6 the City Attorney read a definition of "running at large" that had been used by the City of Fort Smith in its animal ordinance. Director Carlson motioned to adopt the definition used by Fort Smith; however, other Board members felt the definition was too restrictive. Carlson's motion died for lack of a second. Director Utley was of the opinion that as long as an animal was 119.7 in its owner's yard, the animal could not be considered "running at large". Director Orton suggested a phrase be added to the section that might read: "If the dog is loose in the yard, he must be in the company of the owner or a member of the family." The City Attorney then read his suggestions for regulations to be 119.8 included in the Ordinance. His suggestions included a restriction per- taining to the frequent barking or howling of dogs, a provision making it unlawful for the owner to fail to keep an animal's premises reasonably clean and free from offensive odors, procedures to facilitate the en- forcement of the Ordinance, provisions for the confinement of dogs for *does not define what constitutes the raising of livestock. 119 120 inspection of rabies, and regulations for the keeping of vicious dogs. The Board then indicated their approval of such provisions to be included in the Ordinance. 120.1 Mr. Robert Ellis, a member of the audience, felt it should be the owner's responsibility to pay any fees and vaccination charges should the owner's dog bite someone. Directors Carlson and Orton were in agreement and Director Orton clarified that the owner should be responsible unless the dog had been molested or teased. Director Murray added that if a person is not an invitee to the owner's property then the dog's owner should not be held responsible for the payment of the fees. 120.2 Mr. Ellis then stated that there seemed to be a gross disregard for the law as it currently exists and also that he felt the leash law should be a self-financing operation as he did not care to subsidize the dog owners from the funds of the City. Regardless of whether the animal is a cat, dog, or pet mice, Mr. Ellis contended that the pet was the owner's sole responsibility. He then raised the question about how the animal control officer would contend with packs of dogs that would be running at large six months out of the year if the proposed Ordinance failed to be approved by the people. Packs of dogs, he stated, were a threat to the safety of small children since packs of.dogs have been known to attack.children. Mr. Ellis said he could see no reason to submit the Ordinance to a vote since other important ordinances had been decided upon by the Board and not the people. He called for the passage of a strong Ordinance by the Board or an abandonment of the current Ordinance so that he might feel free to have a dog and let it run at large. 120.3 Mr. Bercher said the Humane Society would like to see a wider range in the licensing fees of the neutered and unneutered animals as the fee difference of $1.00 would not seem to be sufficient motivation for owners to have their animals neutered. Also, he added, the Society would like a provision included in the Ordinance for an automatic release of dogs to the Humane Society following their ten day confinement in the pound rather than the provision calling for the disposal of the animals after the ten day period. 120.4 Mr. Morris Collier was of the opinion that since the Board had heard many arguments for the leash law and few opposing arguments, he saw no reason why the leash law should come to a vote of the people. 120.5 Mr. Dan Scott, who favored the year around leash law, said he would not be willing to construct a fence in order to confine his "nine -pound Chihuaha". Mr. Scott agreed that as long as a dog was in its owner's yard it could be considered to be under control; however, he stated he did not feel voice control would be a sufficient definition for "under control". 120.6 Mr. Frank Lewis felt the requirement that a cat wear a collar with its identification attached should be further considered by the Board. He agreed that cats should have some type of identification but felt a collar around a cat's neck could be a hanging noose. 120.7 Director Murray said that an owner is given a certificate of vacci- nation when his animal is vaccinated. Overpopulation of dogs and cats is a national problem, he added, to which the only solution is the neutering of the animals. 120 12.1: Mayor Purdy then asked that the Ordinance be left on second reading 121.1 and remaining discussion be delayed until the next regular meeting. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGINEERING STUDIES AND COST ESTIMATES Residents of North Mally Wagnon Road had petitioned the Board of Directors to cause engineering studies and cost estimates to be made to determine the feasibility of paving a portion of North Mally Wagnon Road from Highway 16 East. Mrs. Rosie Dorsey, spokesman for the group, informed the Board that the name of the road was Mally Wagnon Road and not Mally Magnon Road as the agenda had stated. She then asked if the street had to have curbs, gutters, and sidewalks installed. Manager Grimes told her that the curbs and gutters had to be installed in order to comply with the current street requirements but that the Board had the authority to waive sidewalk instal- lments. He reminded the property owners, however, that the Board had been strict in its decisions to require installation of sidewalks. There were some questions raised as to whether some of the property owners' land was actually included in the dity limits. City Attorney McCord reminded the Board that the City could not assess property outside the city limits to be included in a street improvement district. After some further discussion, it was concluded that the engineering study would also:determine which pieces of property were inside the city limits. No further discussion being offered, Director Orton made a motion to adopt the Resolution and Director Utley seconded the motion. Upon roll call vote of the Board the motion was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NUMBER 56-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 68 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV APPROVAL OF THE 1974-1975 WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT BUDGET Copies of the proposed 1974-75 Water and Sewer budget had been in- cluded with the July 16, 1974 Board Agenda. Mayor Purdy asked the Board if there were any questions or discussion concerning the budget. Director Carlson said she endorsed a recommendation made by Professor John Todd that the budget be presented to the Board of Directors in the form of the regular Operating and Maintenance expenditures and in another section so that the Board can understand and make decisions upon capital improvements such as betterments, expansions, and extensions. Also she stressed the importance of making decisions on replacements to the system. She said there were three very important considerations in the manage- ment of a bonded enterprise -- the Operating and Maintenance, paying the bond debt, and maintaining an adequate replacement management termed "depreciation". Director Carlson was of the opinion that, "We have been totally lacking in attention to depreciation. We have a reserve fund called 'repair and replacement' but it is never used; we never budget anything from it and itis an inadequate amount. We should have the factor in our budget of Operating and Maintenance and one phase of that should be betterments and improvements to the system. We should have another part of our budget allocated out to the depreciation aspect; and it wouldn't hurt at all,_inffollowing the total management, to show in the budget the bond payments. They should be clearly presented in the light of those factors of management." 121 121.2 121.3 121.4 121.5 121.6 121.7 121.8 122 122.1 In continuing her comments, Director Carlson said she found the Arkansas Law fairly clear about expending money from water and sewer funds for purposes other than the water and sewer management. Only when surplus water and sewer funds existed could such expenditures be made, she believed. Director Carlson said there was a special portion of the law directly aimed to contributing to the General Fund for those things the General Fund "foots" the bill for and the Water and Sewer Department derives benefit from. 122.2 "I would urge that we all pay attention to and give deep thought to trying to manage our Water and Sewer budget so that we do have surplus", Carlson said, "because if we were able to correctly identify some funds as surplus, then we could contribute what is known as 'in lieu of taxes'. The law specifically says you can put in not in excess of five percent of your gross revenue. If we could ever obtain that level of financial management, we could contribute to the General Fund more than we do to- day 122.3 Another aspect of the budget drawing comments from Director Carlson was the petty cash fund. She said she saw nothing in the budget pertaining to petty cash, yet she knew the Water and Sewer Department had petty cash funds. Carlson said, "The management of the petty cash funds never comes before the Board of Directors. The Water and Sewer Department even has what appears to be a petty cash fund they never touch." She then recom- mended that the petty cash funds be managed as required by State Statute. 122.4 The portion of the budget pertaining to the Transmission and Distri- bution accounts also drew some comments from Director Carlson in which she stated that the funds allocated for repairs to streets seamed to be a large amount. She asked if there were some way the City could manage the timing and scheduling of new water line installations without creating much needed repair to streets. The City Manager told Director Carlson that in order to anticipate some projects, he met each year with the utilities in order to determine what projects the utility companies will be involved with that also involve city streets. Then it is determined if the utility companies can complete their projects before the City paves the street. He said it was not always possible to determine where subdivisions would be._located or where someone might build a house that would require extra water lines. Another factor to consider in regard to the amounts budgeted for street repairs, Director Utley added, was the fact that the materials used for str et repair had increased substantially over the last year. 122.5 Director Noland asked why the Customer Accounting and Collection fund showed the least budgeted increase for personnel services when there was one more employee than last year. City Manager Grimes said the method used in determining personnel expenses was part of the accrual system of accounting. The salaries are detailed but they have been charged to specific projects, Mr. Grimes explained. 122.6 Director Carlson asked why regular Operating and Maintenance salaries were charged to capitalization or extension of the water and sewer system. Mr. Grimes said the accounting system used gives an indication as to what exactly any one project has cost the City at any point in time. 122 1 1 1 Director Carlson felt that with the current system being used, the audit pictures the Operating and Maintenance as costing less than what it actually costs and gives the impression that there is more money left at the end of the year. Professor John Todd, who was present in the audience, said his main concern was that the Board have the information available to do the budget- ing in a proper manner. With the current system being used, Mr. Todd said the City would "wind up" not being able to control its spending and would be under its budget at the end of the year. "You are making deci- sions, both operating and capital expenditure decisions, that become garbled and non -manageable", Mr. Todd said. He was also of the opinion that the operations and capitalization budgets be separated in order to present what he felt would be a more accurate picture of the City's financial activities. Mayor Purdy said that even though he was not an accounting expert, the City was fortunate in having a competent controller who was audited each year by professional auditors and found to be following correct municipal accounting procedures. In regard to an $11,000 allocation for the salary of a sanitarian to be hired in order to comply with a recently adopted water quality regulations designed to protect Beaver Lake from pollution, Director Carlson was of the opinion that the City could not appropriate funds to do things the County government would be responsible for doing. Manager Grimes said the sanitarian had never been hired because the State did not have funds available. to match the City's contribution. Mayor Purdy requested the City .Attorney to check into the legalities involved in allocating the funds for the sanitarian. In regard to the operation of the City's two lakes, Director Murray asked it if would be less expensive to lease the lakes and perhaps sub- sidize them to a certain point. In defense of the recreation expenditures, Director Carlson said that, according to the law, the Water and Sewer Department could legally and justifiably -operate their reservoirs for the benefit of the public so long as the facilities are a part of the Water and Sewer Department. In this discussion, Manager Grimes reported to the Board that the Lake Fayetteville spillway repair would experience some cost overrun because a larger portion of the spillway was damaged by rains before the contractor could begin his work. There being no further discussion pertaining to the Water and Sewer budget, the City Attorney read a Resolution accepting the proposed budget. Director Stanton made a motion to adopt the Resolution and Director Orton seconded the motion. In a roll call vote of the Board, six "Ayes" and one "Nay", cast by Director Carlson, were recorded. The Resolution was declared adopted by Mayor Purdy. RESOLUTION NUMBER 57-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 69 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV 123 123.1 123.2 123.3 123.4 123.5 123.6 123.7 ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN The proposed Ordinance would approve the Large Scale Development plan 123.8 of James F. Freeman for property located at the southwest corner of North 123 124 College Avenue and Longview Street and would accept and confirm the dedi- cation of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. 124.1 The City Manager reported that Mr. Freeman had requested that the' Board table the matter until such time as details involving the right-of-way dedication could be completed. Director Orton made a motion to table the matter and Director Murray seconded the motion. The motion was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. MAYOR'S PROCLOMATION CALLING FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION 124.2 Mayor Purdy said he would announce by proclomation that there would be a vote for all members of the Board of Directors under the special election legislation at the General Election to be held on November 5, 1974. The Mayor said, however, that he did not want to issue the proclomation without the Board's'approval of the date. He requested the Board vote on whether or not the date met with their approval. In a roll call vote, the seven Board members signified their approval by answering "Aye". 124.3 At the Mayor's request, the City Attorney then read the proclomation. (The text of the proclomation is made a part of these minutes and appears on pages 128 and 129.) 124.4 The City Attorney had advised the Board against using ward boundaries established by Ordinance 1922 since there was a strong possibility the boundaries could be struck down if ever contested. At the Mayor's request the City Attorney then read an Ordinance to repeal Ordinance 1922 to allow the City to use boundaries established by the Washington County Circuit Court. Director Stanton then made a motion, which was seconded by Director Noland, to suspend the rules and place the Ordinance on second reading. In a roll call vote of the Board, the motion was passed unanimously Following the second reading, a motion to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading was made by Director Murray and seconded by Director Stanton. Upon roll call vote of the Board, the motion passed unanimously and the Ordinance was read for the third and final time. Mayor Purdy then called for discussion from the Board. 124.5 Mr. McCord said a State Statute existed providing for the method to change ward boundaries. He said the City had established ward boundaries and based their actions upon Section 7 of the Home Rule Act which provided that should a city pass an Ordinance pertaining to its municipal affairs in contravention to a State Statute, that State Statute was repealed. However, Mr. McCord said, the Supreme Court had ruled that that section of the Home Rule Act was in violation of the Arkansas Constitution which pro- hibits municipalities from legislating contrary to general laws of the State. The only way for the City to attempt to establish its own boundaries, McCord told the Board, would be for the City to try to have-.the•Statute declared unconstitutional. Director Utley asked if the State Constitution pro- vided a method by which the City could establish its own boundaries and the City Attorney said he was not aware of any. 124.6 Following a brief history of ward boundaries given by Director Carlson, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should pass. Upon a roll call vote of the Board, seven "Ayes" were recorded. The Ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2032 APPEARS ON PAGE 160 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV 124 1 1 1 ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE BY ADOPTING 1973 EDITION OF SOUTHERN STANDARD GAS CODE At the Mayor's request, the City Attorney read the proposed Ordinance for the first time. Director Stanton then made a motion to suspend the rules and place the Ordinance on second reading. Director Murray seconded the motion which passed unanimously Following the second reading, Director Murray motioned to further suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Stanton and was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. The Mayor asked if there be any discussion pertaining to the Ordinance,and there being none,asked if the Ordinance should pass. Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance passed after the Board had voted unanimously to adopt the Ordinance. 125 125.1 ORDINANCE NUMBER 2033 APPEARS ON PAGE 161-163 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH FAA The Resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a license agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration for a 20' x 40' tract of land adjacent to the Flight Service Station at Drake Field to:be used for the location of a shop and storage building. The license will be deemedbteneWed each year unless the FAA files within thirty days a notice that it will not exercise its option and providing that no renewal shall extend the period of occupancy of the premises • beyond June 30, 1994. There being no discussion, Director Noland made a motion to adopt the Resolution. The motion, seconded by Director Orton, was passed ina a unanimous roll call vote of the Board. RESOLUTION NUMBER 58-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 70 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO LIBRARY OPERATIONS FUND The City Manager had requested the allocation of $2,200 from the General Fund Operating Reserves to the Library Operations Account to provide a salary for one additional library staff member. Mr. Grimes said the funds were needed to allow the library to operate in an effective manner and recommended theybbe allocated. He also recommended a letter of commendation be sent to the library staff commending them for their excellent work. A motion to adopt the Resolution and allocate the funds was made by Director Stanton and seconded by Director Noland. The.motion passed in` a' ufianimou's 'ro1I9ea31'vote ofethe Board. '.= ?7.‘"" - , *RESOLUTION NO. 59-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 71 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV Then Director Carlson suggested the City Attorney draft an Ordinance, to be voted upon in November by the people,that would levy a tax to support the library. City Attorney McCord said there is a constitutional provision for the levying of a tax to support the library; however, it was his under- standing that the County presently levys the tax and the City could not levy the tax on the same property. He assured Carlson that he would in- vestigate the possiblities of such a levy. 125 125.2 125.3 125.4 125.5 1 126 PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS 126.1 Bid 263: Concrete Construction Work - A one-year contract for concrete construction was recommended by the City Manager to be awarded to Jerry Sweetser, the low bidder overall. 126.2 Quotation No. 266: Bridge Guard Railing and Hardware - In lieu of requesting formal bids, written quotations were requested for 250 linear feet of bridge guard railing and the necessary hardware. Administrative Assistant McWethy reported that only one quotation, that of Armco Steel Corporation of Little Rock, was received and would be effective until August 16. Since the railing was needed for the current construction season, it was requested that the Board waive the formal bidding re- quirements in view of currently escalating costs for this item, and authorize the purchase of steel railing at the price quoted by Armco Steel ($1,391.01). 126.3 The City Attorney then read the Ordinance to waive the formal bid requirements for the bridge railing. Director Stanton motioned to suspend the rules to place the Ordinance on second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Murray, was approved by a unanimous vote of the Board. The second reading being completed, Director Murray wade a motion to further suspend the rules and place the Ordinance on third and final reading. The motion, seconded by Director Orton, was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. There being no discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the Ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote, seven "Ayes" were recorded. Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2034 APPEARS ON PAGE 164 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV 126.4 Director Stanton then motioned to award'Bid Number 263 and Quotation Number 266 as recommended. Director Orton seconded the motion. In a roll call vote of the Board the motion was passed unanimously. CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS 126.5 The City Manager reported to the Board that the City's application for the federally subsidized flood insurance program had been accepted. 126.6 In regard to the Urban Systems Project, the fourth priority - improving Sycamore from Gregg to Leverett- right-of-way acquisition is near completion, Manager Grimes told the Board, and he has allied the State to program the project. He said the local share of the project could be obtained from the existing budget. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUPPLEMENTAL LEASE AGREEMENT 126.7 City Attorney McCord then told the Board that erroneous legal des- criptions had been written into the lease with the school district for park sites. Therefore, he submitted a Resolution to the Board that would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a supplemental lease agreement containing the correct legal descriptions. There being no dis- cussion, Director Orton made a motion to adopt the Resolution. The motion, seconded by Director Stanton, was passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board. RESOLUTION NO. 60-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 72 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV. 126 1 ORDINANCE CORRECTING REZONING ORDINANCE NUMBER 1897 The City Attorney read an Ordinance to correct an error in rezoning Ordinance Number 1897. Director Stanton made a motion, which Director Carlson seconded, to suspend the rules and allow for the second reading. The second reading being completed, Director Noland made a motion to suspend the rules to allow for the third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. Mayor Purdy then asked if the Ordinance should.pass. Upon roll call vote, seven "Ayes" were recorded. Mayor Purdy declared the Ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NUMBER 2035 APPEARS ON PAGE 165 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV 127 127.1 Director Carlson then cited a letter attached to the agenda from the 127.2 Standard Register Company commending the Water and Sewer Department's prompt attention to the repairing of a.water leak in an incoming water line at that company's installation. Her question was why the City Water Department responded to a repair call which involved Standard' Register's private water line. She felt the City's policy should be not to repair lines on private property. City Manager Grimes said he would be glad to check into the matter 127.3 but that one possibility might have been that the City was the only source of the needed equipment to repair the leak. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Director Murray made a motion to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Stanton and was unanimously approved by the Board. Mayor Purdy declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk 127 APPROVED: RusselllatatuLy T. Purdy, Mayor 63:44,5 127.4 1 • 128 • • • • PROCLAMATION OF SPECIAL ELECTION Notice is hereby given that a special election will be held in the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, on November 5, 1974, at which there will be submitted to the electors of the City the election of members to the Fayetteville Board of Directors pursuant to the provisions of Act No. 498 of the Acts of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas for the year 1973. At this election the seven directors to be elected as the Board of Directors in the City of Fayetteville shall be elected in the following manner: (1) Positions 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Board of Directors shall be assigned to the four wards of the City in accordance with the number of the respective wards, and one member of the City Board of Directors shall be elected from each of said wards. Provided, that all candidates for a position to which a ward number is assigned shall reside in the ward from which elected, but all such members elected from wards shall be voted upon by the qualified electors of the City at -large. (2) Positions 5, 6, and 7 shall be designated for election of three members at -large. All members elected to represent wards, and all members elected at -large, on the Board of Directors of the City, shall be elected by the qualified electors of the City at -large. If any member of the Board of Directors elected to represent a ward on said Board of Directors shall move his place of residence from inside . said ward, but to another place within the City, said person shall not forfeit his office for the remainder of his term, but shall be ineligible to succeed himself for election as the. member of the Board of Directors from said ward, but shall be eligible to seek an at -large position on the Board of Directors. 128 1 A • • All candidates file for the position for candidate for a position for a Board. of Directors'pdsition shall which he is seeking election. Each on the Board of Directors must file a 129: petition with the City Clerk not mare than sixty (60), and not less than forty (40) days before the election, which petition must contain the signatures of fifty qualified electors of the municipality, requesting the candidacy of such candidate If no candidate for a particular position shall, at the special election, receive a majority vote for said position, the County Board of Election Commissioners shall conduct a run-off election in the City at which the names of the two candidates for said position receiving the highest number of votes, but not a majority vote, shall appear on the ballot to be voted upon by the qualified electors of the City at=large. The winner of such run- off election shall be declared the member of the Board of Directors • for said position. The four members elected to serve from the four wards of the City shall serve terms to expire on December 31, in the year in which the second general election of municipal officials is held subsequent to the date of said special election, and the members of the Board of Directors of the City elected to positions assigned the City at -large, shall serve terms to expire on December 31, next following the first general election held subsequent to the date of said special election. Successor members shall be elected for terms of four years in the manner provided by law. Only qualified electors of the City of Fayetteville, Ark- ansas, shall have the right to vote at the special election. Said election shall be held between such hours and at such places in the, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, as shall' be designated by the Washington County Board of the Election Commissioners for the holding -of 'the generalelection on November 5, 1974_ DATED THIS 6tt day of 0 -Cl Gj41 u 7f 129 CITY 0 , 1974. F FAYETTEVILLE A KANSAS