HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-08-20 Minutes130
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
August 20, 1974
The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a
regular session on Tuesday, August 20, 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, Eva Street property
owners, and members of the audience.
CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
130.1 After the call to order by Mayor kussell T. Purdy and a brief moment
of respectful silence, the Mayor asked if there be any corrections or
additions to the minutes of the August 6, 1974 Board meeting. Copies of
the minutes had been distributed to each Board member prior to the meet-
ing.
130.2 City Attorney McCord said paragraph 125.4 appearing on page 125
should reflect the passage and approval of Resolution 59-74 authorizing
the allocation of $2,200 from the General Fund Operating Reserves to the
Library Operations Account. The City Attorney then requested amending
the last sentence of paragraph 119.3, page 119, to read: "...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 permitted
use only in A-1 districts, but the zoning ordinance does not define
what constitutes the raising of livestock."
130.3 Mr. McCord advised the Board that, upon further research, he had
learned that the City could assess property outside the City limits.
At the August 6, 1974 meeting, in reference to the Mally Wagnon Road
Street Improvement District, McCord had stated that the City could not
assess property outside the City limits to be included in a street im-
provement district.
130.4 The last sentence of paragraph 118.7 was requested by Director
Orton to reflect why she felt the animal ordinance would run a greater
risk of rejection if submitted to a vote of the people. The Board
agreed to amend the sentence to read: "...because Orton felt one voter
might oppose one facet of the ordinance while another might vote against
another facet."
130.5 There being no further amendments or corrections, the Mayor declared
the minutes approved as amended.
ORDINANCE AME'JDING CITY CODE TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS
130.6 The proposed ordinance was first considered by the Board at the
August 6, 1974 meeting when, after several amendments had been requested
130
1
1
131
and approved by the Board, it was left on second reading.
Before the Board renewed discussion on the Ordinance, Mayor Purdy 131.1
said he had had second thoughts about submitting the Ordinance to a
vote of the people. In his statement the Mayor said, "There are certain
things'thif automatically,and legally have to gp before the people to
vote on and some other things which we are empowered to vote on, and I
believe people elect us for this purpose. And I personally would like
to have a chance to revote that (motion). My opinion is that we would
do well not to bring this before the public."
Director Stanton was in agreement with the Mayor and motioned to 131.2
rescind the motion made an approved at the last meeting which would
place the portion of the ordinance pertaining to the leash law on• the ballot
and -'would -amend Section 4:19. -to read as,±tsdoesCi.nethe Current=Code.The motion was
seconded by Directors Carlson and Murray, and after some discussion, a
roll call vote was taken in which each of the seven Directors voted
"Aye" to rescind the motion. Mayor Purdy declared the motion passed
and the previous motion rescinded.
The Board then focused its attention to further revision of the • 131.3
proposed ordinance. Director Utley felt that in order to avoid placing
an "undue administrative burden" upon veterinarians who collect the
annual tax levied on dogs and cats, subparagraph "a" of Section 4-17
should be amended to require the veterinariansato remit the tax to the
City Controller within thirty days instead of the ten days stated in
the Section. Director Carlson felt the remittance of the tax should
be done on the tenth of the following month instead of within €hirty
days. Carlson's suggestion met with the Board's approval.
The Board then discussed the possibility of increasing the amounts 131.4
of the tax for unneutered dogs and cats. Director Murray, although he
said he favored the neutering of dogs and cats, did not feel increased
rates of tax would solve any problems of the overpopulation of dogs and
cats
In discussion of subparagraph "c" of Section 4-17, some Board
members felt cats should wear identification while others felt to collar
a cat would put the animal in jeopardy of being strangled. Several,.:
methods of identifying catss were discussed but none seemed satisfactory.
Directors Orton, Stanton, and Purdy felt identification of cats should
be required but that the type of identification to be used should be
determined by the owner. o•a
' • The_Gity:.Att ineybsuggestedotheishbsection might be amended to
read: "It shall be the duty of the owner or keeper or a cat to attach
the tag provided for in subsection "b" to said cat i'n a"`a ir
reasonable manner." The City Attorney's suggestion met with the Board's
approval.
Director Orton asked the Board to again consider increasing the
rate of tax levied on unneutered or unspayed dogs and cats so as to
create an initiative for animal owners to have their pets neutered or
spayed. During discussion Director Carlson made a motion to amend
subsection "a" by changing the rate of tax for neutered or spayed dogs
and cats from one dollar to ten cents; however, Carlson's motion died
for lack of a second.
During comments from the audience, Mr. Tom Bercher, Humane Society
President, said the Society would like to see a wider range in the
amounts of tax levied on neutered and unneutered dogs and cats as a means
of rewarding pet owners for having the animals neutered.
131
131.5
131.6
131.7
131.8
1
132
132.1 Director Orton made a motion to amend subsection "a" of Section
4-17 to levy a one dollar tax on spayed or neutered dogs and cats,
and three dollars on those unspayed or unneutered; and to increase by
one dollar the tax levied but paid later than February 1. The motion,
seconded by Director Noland, was put to a roll call vote of the Board.
Directors Orton, Purdy, Noland, and Carlson voted "Aye"; Directors
Utley, Murray, and Stanton voted "Nay". The motion to amend the rates
was declared passed by Mayor Purdy.
132.2 Director Orton then suggested that subsection"b" be amended to
allow either a licensed veterinarian or other person authorized by the
City to administer the rabies vaccinations to animals confined at the
City pound. This stipulation would, she felt, allow the Humane Society
to give adopted animals the vaccination before they left the pound and
would provide a means whereby the animals would be certain to receive
the vaccination. Most Directors, particularly Director Murray, did
not favor Orton's proposal. Director Murray pointed out the potential
danger involved in administering the live virus rabies vaccine and felt
the vaccine should be administered only by a licensed veterinarian in
accordance with federal and state laws. No action was taken on Director
Orton's suggestion as it lacked the support of the Board.
132.3 The Mayor then asked for the Board's vote on the amendments to sub-
sections "a" and "c" of Section 4-17. The roll call vote of the Board
was unanimous and the Mayor declared the amendments approved.
132.4 An amendment to Section of 4-18 was suggested by Director Murray
to cause the first sentence of the section to read: " vaccinated
annually against rabies by an accredited veterinarian." The proposed
section stipulated that the animals be vaccinated by a veterinarian
licensed by the State of Arkansas and Director Murray felt the amendment
would simplify the licensing procedure for people moving into the city
from out of state who had had their animal vaccinated by a veterinarian
of another state.
132.5 The City Attorney said the section pertaining to the wearing of the
tag by dogs and cats should also be clarified to coincide with amendments
made to Section 4-17(c).
132.6 In a roll call vote the Board voted unanimously to adopt the amend-
ments to Section 4-18.
132.7 In regard to Section 4-19 of the ordinance, Director Orton
made the motion to strike the words "...upon which a tax is levied..."
appearing in the first sentence of the section. Orton's motion was
seconded by Director Carlson and after some discussion, Director Orton
amended her motion to include the deletion of the phrase "...upon any
premises or street within the City at any time." to be replaced by the
phrase "...within the corporate limits at any time." The amended
motion was seconded by Director Carlson and was passed in a roll call
vote of six "Ayes" and one "Nay", cast by Director Stanton.
132.8 Mr. Frank Lewis, a member of the audience, said he felt the Board
was "double crossing" the people by not submitting the leash portion of
the ordinance to the people for a vote. Mr. Purdy told him that at the
next Board meeting the citizens would have a chance to voice their
opposition before the Board took any final action on the ordinance.
Director Carlson said the Board was considering passage of the ordi-
nance due to pressure from citizens and if the citizens did not like
the final decision of the Board, they could file a petition within thirty
days to have the leash law portion put on the ballot.
132
1
100
During discussion regarding Section 4-20 and the use of humane 133.1
animal traps, Directors Stanton and Carlson requested the deletion of the
last sentence of the section's first paragraph and an addition to the
second sentence to allow the Animal Control Officer to use either traps
or tranquilizers in capturing an animal running at large.
Director Carlson also suggested an amendment to the first sentence 133.2
of the proposed section to read: "The Animal Control Officer is
authorized..."
In regard to the confinement of animals in the pound, Mr. Bercher 133.3
said the current policy is that, if the animal looks well cared for, the
City will confine the animal five days then the Humane Society will keep
it a few days more. The City Manager added that if the animal was licensed
it could be confined by the City at long as ten days. Mr. Bercher said
every effort is made to contact the owner of a licensed animal; but if
an animal is not licensed and looks as though someone has cared for it,
the animal is kept as long as five days.
Director Murray did not object to the animals being released to the 133.4
Humane Society but felt the City should be able to sell the unclaimed
animals as a means of off -setting some of the City's impoundment expenses.
He motioned that the section be amended to stipulate that the City would
be empowered to sell or otherwise dispose of the animal.. h Disposal,
he said, could also include the release of the animal to the Humane Society.
Director Orton, in response to Murray's suggestion, said the present 133.5
procedures used by the City and the Humane Society seemed to be adequate
and could see no reason to make any changes that might jeopardize the
close cooperation of the two. Director Murray's motion died for lack of
a second.
Mayor Purdy suggested amending the first sentence of the last para- 133.6
graph in Section 20 to read• "Whenever any animal in the animal shelter
bears a tag..."
Mr. George Blackwell, commenting from the audience, was of the 133.7
opinion that animal traps should be checked daily and also that the
Animal Control Officer should be allowed to go upon property other than
that of an animal's owner in order to capture the animal at large.
Director Carlson said those traps placed by the officer would be in-
spected daily and those traps placed by individuals would be checked by
the individual. She reminded Mr. Blackwell that the officer is allowed
to go onto anyone's property to capture a dog running at large.
Director Stanton made a motion, which was seconded by Director Noland, 133.8
to adopt the amendments to Section 4-20. In a roll call vote, six Directors
voted "Aye" and one, Director Murray, voted "Nay". Mayor Purdy declared
the amendments adopted.
In paragraph two of Section 4-21, Director Orton requested deletion 133.9
of the work "deliver" and the insertion of "released" to cause the first
sentence to read: "...released to him upon payment." This would avoid
giving the impression that the City would deliver animals to their owners.
Director Stanton then motioned to adopt Orton's amendment as well as the
amendment to revise the wording of Section 4-21 to allow the City to re-
lease animals to the Humane Society after completion of the animal's im-
poundment. The motion was seconded by Director Carlson and was passed
by a vote of six "Ayes" and one "Nay" which was cast by Director Murray.
Mayor Purdy declared the motion passed.
133
134
134.1 In discussing Section 4-22 regarding the confinement of an animal
after the animal has bitten someone, Mayor Purdy was of the opinion that
the person who received the injury should not be liable for the fees in-
curred during the confinement of the animal unless that person had teased
or molested the animal. Manager Grimes stated that if the animal is in
compliance with the ordinance, the owner could not be held liable for the
confinement expenses.
134.2 The City Attorney suggested amending subsection "c" to provide that
the owner would be liable for confinement fees if the dog complied with
the running at large and vicious dog provisions of the ordinance.
134.3 After some discussion, Director Orton requested amending the section
to require the owner to pay confinement fees if the person bitten was not
a tresspasser. In a roll call vote requested by the Mayor, the Board voted
unanimously to adopt the amendments to Section 4-22.
134.4 Upon motion by Director Noland, seconded by Director Orton, the Board
voted unanimously to amend the ordinance by adopting Sections 4-23, 24,
25, and 26.
134.5 The ordinance was left on second reading to allow further discussion
at the September 3, 1974 meeting of the Board. In a final comment, Mayor
Purdy commended City Attorney McCord's efforts in drafting the ordinance.
REQUEST BY WARNER CABLE COMPANY
134.6 Warner Cable Company had asked that their request for an increase in
the cable service rates be heard by the Board, however, the City Manager
reported that the company's president had requested the matter to be
tabled to allow them to further review their proposal for presentation
to the Board at a later date.
REPORT ON EVA AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT COST ESTIMATES
134.7 Eva Avenue property owners had petitioned the Board on May 21, 1974
asking that engineering studies and cost estimates be done for the paving
of Eva Avenue. The report of the studies was presented to the Board on
June 18, 1974; however, many of the property owners objected to the
method used in tabulating the assessments and had requested the Board
to find a more equitable formula for assessing the properties. At the
June 18, 1974 meeting the Board decided to consult a professional real
estate appraiser as to what assessment method could be used. A lengthy
report prepared by Mr. J. W. Gabel, the appraiser consulted by the City
Manager's Office, was attached to the agenda.
134.8 Mr. Al Hughes, an Eva Avenue property owner, commented that it seemed
to him the present method being used to assess property was adequate and
felt the Board would be remiss to adopt another formula to be used ex-
clusively for the Eva Avenue district. He believed the City should have
one formula to apply to all districts and that the assessed valuation of
the property should be considered in the assessments.
134.9 Mr. Wylie Holt, another Eva Avenue property owner, said that while
the developed side of Eva Avenue would assume two-thirds of the cost if
Gabel's formula were used, the formula seemed more equitable. He said
property owners he had contacted who lived on the east side of Eva Avenue
favored Gabel's formula.
134
1
135
The Mayor commented that if the property owners could not agree 135.1
upon an assessment method that they should establish their own improve-
ment district with their own commissioners. When one property owner
asked if the Board would. relax its street requirements if the owners
established their own district the Mayor said the Board would be un-
likely to do so.
When Director Orton asked how many of the property owners on the 135.2
East side of Eva would be willing to accept Mr. Gabel's assessments,
Mrs. Frances Reed said the majority of the owners on the east side
thought Gabel's assessments were fair and felt there would be a majority
of the assessed value to establish the district if Gabel's assessments
were used.
The City Attorney was of the opinion that the present formula 135.3
being used would not stand up in court in some cases, and as he under-
stood the Statutes, the levy had to be advalorem and uniform. He said
the ultimate test is the enhancement of the market value before and
after the improvements.
Director Stanton asked whether.'or-not the majority of the assessed 135.4
valuation would still rule if the assessed valuation method of assigning
the assessments was eliminated. Mr. McCord said there were two criteria
to be used; one criteria has to be met in order for the district to be
formed which is the majority of assessed value and that is not the
same criteria used to assess benefits, he told the Board. In his
opinion he said he felt the method used By, gabe1 tiOedeterm'ilfietnthe•cefhancement
to the market value would stand a better chance of being upheld in
court.
Director Utley was in favor of retaining the present method of a 135.5
assessing property and did not feel the assessments could be levied
a different way each time a district was formed. He asked that if the
Board accepted Mr. Gabel's system of assessing that the system should be
used in assessing future districts.
Mr. McCord reminded the Board thatthe sixty-day limitation for the 135.6
filing of the petition had expired since the Board adopted the first
Resolution stating the assessments and that if the owners would like to
again try to establish the district, the Board would have to pass
another Resolution and the owners would have to petition to establish
the district within sixty days.
Director Stanton asked the property owners if they would be agree- 135.7
able to assessing both sides of the street equally and the property owners
present in the audience answered that they would agree to an equal assess-
ment. Director Stanton said that if the majority in value agreed to
equal assessments the owners could not challenge the assessments in
court. He then motioned to assessaehchooftthe EvaaAvenuetiotscts
equally and Director Noland seconded the motion. In a roll call vote
of the Board, Stanton's motion was approved unanimously.
City Attorney McCord then read rAhResolution listing.rbhe apprazamate assess- 135.8
ments,G£oi4.each nl-ot.cas ibeit $'3,t739.K1:4>.: A1tnotion.to1adapt{ thieResmution was made by
Director Noland and seconded by Director Utley. In a roll call vote of the
Board the recorded vote was six "Ayes" and one "Abstain" cast by
Director Stanton. Mayor Purdy declared the Resolution adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 61-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 73-75 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
135
136
ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY
136.1 Petitioners requesting the rezoning are Ottis and Helen Watson,
Ralph Brophy, and Holley -Ogden Enterprises. The property, located
west of Highway 71B and immediately north of Villa Mobile Home Park,
is a twenty acre tract and is requested to be rezoned from A-1 (Agri-
cultural) to R-2 (Medium Density Residential).
136.2 Following the first reading of the ordinance, Director Stanton
motioned to suspend the rules to allow for the second reading. The
motion was seconded by Director Utley and was approved by the Board
in a unanimous roll call vote. The second reading being completed,
Director Noland made a motion to further suspend the rules and place
the ordinance on third and final reading. Director Murray seconded
the motion which passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board.
136.3 Marshall Carlisle, representing the petitioners, said the pro-
posed plat would not be the final plat as the plat had to go before
the Plat Review Committee. Mr. Carlisle said the petitioners realized
that an access problem existed in the area which they hoped to solve
before the plat goes before the Plat Review Committee.
136.4 During discussion, the City Attorney informed the Board that they
would not be able to disapprove the Large Scale Development plan on the
basis that the plan would involve creating a traffic hazard. Director
Orton then said the Board should table the rezoning request until the
access problems have been alleviated. Director Utley commented that
if the Board approves the rezoning then the Board would have no basis
for disapproving the Large Scale Development plan. Mayor Purdy said
it would be beneficial to the petitioners for the rezoning request
to be tabled because if the request were disapproved by the Board, the
petitioners would have to wait a year before they again submitted the
request.
136.5 The Board members felt the subdivision ordinance needed to be amended
to give the Board a basis for disapproving a Large Scale Development plan
because of inadequate or hazardous traffic access and asked the City
Attorney to work towards such an amendment. Mr. Carlisle said the
petitioners would be willing to have the request tabled for as long as
necessary if the Board would amend the ordinance.
136.6 Director Stanton then made a motion to table the request until the
ordinance had been amended. The motion was seconded by Director Orton
and was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board.
ORDINANCE AMENDING FAYETTEVILLE'S PLANNING AREA MAP
136.7 The City Attorney read the proposed ordinance to realign the map to
coincide with the boundaries of the Projected Forty Year Growth Area.
Director Stanton made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was
passed in a unanimous roll call vote of the Board The second reading
being completed, Director Murray made a motion, seconded by Director Noland,
to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final
reading. The motion passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board.
136.8 In discussion, Director Utley expressed his concern that the new
boundaries would not include Lake Sequoyah and Director Carlson echoed
136
1
Utley's concern and added that any land included in the City limits
should also be included in the Planning Area boundary. Mr. McWethy,
administrative assistant, clarified the matter by saying that the
Planning Area would include land inside the City limits but would ex-
clude areas included in the corporate limits of another city.
Director Stanton motioned to amend the ordinance to stipulate
the the City's Planning Area would coincide with the City's corporate
limits but would exclude land included in another city's corporate limits.
The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed unanimously in
a roll call vote of the Board.
The Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. In
a roll call vote of the Board, the Directors voted unanimously to adopt
the ordinance.
ORDINANCE NO. 2036 APPEARS ON PAGE 166 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Abilities Unlimited
The proposed ordinance would approve the Large Scale Development
Plan of Abilities Unlimited for property located on the east side of '
Happy Hollow Road and south of the Eastgate Shopping Center. After the
City Attorney had completed the first reading of the ordinance, Director
Murray made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on
second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Noland and was
approved unanimously by the Board in a roll call vote. Following the
second reading Director Noland motioned to again suspend the rules to
place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded
by Director Murray and was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board.
The Mayor told the Board that the required additional right-of-way
had been dedicated. There being no further discussion, Mayor Purdy
asked if the ordinance should pass. The roll call vote of the Board
was unanimous.
ORDINANCE NO. 2037 APPEARS ON PAGE167 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - NorthwestFNational Bank
The proposed ordinance, read by the City Attorney, would approve the
Large Scale Development plan of Northwest National Bank for property
located at the north side of Millsap Road and east of Front Street and
Highway 71B. Director Murray motioned to suspend the rules and place
the ordinance on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director
Noland and was passed in a unanimous vote of the Board. The second
reading being completed, Director Noland motioned to further suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The
motion, seconded by Director Murray, was passed unanimously in a roll
call vote of the Board.
Mr. Gary Jackson, an architect associated with the development,
said a more satisfactory drainage pattern had been devised as requested
by the City's street superintendent. He said the street superintendent
had approved of a plan to divert drainage to a storm drain on the south
side of the propertyy
There being no further discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance
should pass. In roll call vote six Directors answered "Aye" and one,
Director Stanton, abstained. Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2038 APPEARS ON PAGE 1680F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
137
137.1
137.2
137.3
137.4
137.5
137.6
137.7
138
ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - James F. Freeman
138.1 The City Attorney read the proposed Ordinance which would approve the
Large Scale Development Plan of James F. Freeman for property located
at the southwest corner of North College Avenue and Longview Street. A
motion was made by Director Stanton and seconded by Director Murray to
place the ordinance on second reading. In a roll call vote of the Board
the motion was unanimously approved. Following the second reading,
Director Murray motioned to further suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on third and final reading. The motion, seconded by Director
Noland, passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board.
138.2 Mayor Purdy explained that approval of the plan would be contingent
upon the dedication of an additional five feet of right-of-way on Longview
Street.
138.3 There being no discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should
pass. Upon roll call vote of the Board the recorded vote was unanimous.
The ordinance was declared passed by the Mayor.
ORDINANCE NO. 2039 APPEARS ON PAGE 1690F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING AND REGULATING OPERATION OF A "FARMER'S MARKET"
138.4 The proposed ordinance would authorize the City Manager to approve
the location and times of operation of the Farmer's Market, and would
allow the vendors to park vehicles at right angles to the street curbs
so long as the vehicles did not create traffic hazards.
138.5 The City Attorney read the ordinance after which Director Murray
motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading.
The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was passed unanimously in
a roll call vote of the Board. Following the second reading, a motion
to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final
reading was made by Director Noland and seconded by Director Murray.
The motion was unanimously approved by the Board.
138.6 In discussion, Director Carlson expressed her opinion that she did
tna°rm roloercet s 6y UVULA
Wn% o' s mance t}�a ungiie�eiAfii8 'd idnL@lseof
made n the form of -a franchise that wouEd Iitd1l4 e regulation of the RME*.
138.7 Following discussion, Director Noland made a motion to amend the
Ordinance to cause it to read: "...a non-profit Farmer's Market
Corporation composed of area non-commercial agricultural producers and
area native craftsman..." Noland's motion was seconded by Director Orton
and was passed in a recorded roll call vote of seven "Ayes".
138.8 Mayor Purdy then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. In
a roll call vote of the Board, six Directors voted "Aye" and one, Director
Carlson, abstained. Mayor Purdy declared the ordinance passes.
ORDINANCE NO. 2040 APPEARS ON PAGE 17(bF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
138.9 The Resolution, read by the City Attorney, would authorize the Mayor
and City Clerk to execute an agreement with the Economic Development
Administration of the United States Department of Commerce. In the
agreement, the City of Fayetteville would agree to retain, for forty
138
*RME-Rural Mountain Exchange
i
years, the title to the project facilities and real property designated
in EDA Project Number 08-01-00760 (Industrial Park) and to devote the
project facilities to public purposes only.
There being no discussion, Director Utley made a motion to adopt
the Resolution. The motion was seconded by Director Stanton and was
passed in a roll call vote of the Board in which six Directors voted
"Aye" and one, Director Carlson, abstained.
RESOLUTION NO. 62-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 76 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
139
139.1
RESOLUTION COMMENDING ALEX SMITH
The City Attorney read a Resolution commending Mr. Alex Smith for 139.2
his efforts in constructing an addition to the Animal Shelter and the
construction of a bath house at the City Pool. Mr. Smith's efforts
resulted in a savings to the City in excess of $20,000.
Director Noland made a motion to adopt the R ?olution and Directors 139.3
Orton and Murray seconded the motion. In a roll call vote of the Board
the Resolution was unanimously approved by the Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 63-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 77 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV
The City Manager called to the Board's attention correspondence
from the Washington County Historical Society in regard to the Ridge
House He said the Community Development Legislation apparently would
be passed soon and the Ridge House was one of the priorities stated in
the application filed jointly by Fayetteville and Springdale.
ADJOURNMENT
139.4
There being no further business, Director Stanton motioned to adjourn 139.5
the meeting. -Director Murray seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved by the Board. Mayor Purdy then declared the meeting adjourned.
ATTEST:
arlene Westbrook, City Clerk
APPROVED:
Russell T Purdy, Mayor
Mg
c