Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1974-09-03 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS September 3, 1974 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on Tuesday, September 3, 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. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES After the call to order by Mayor Russell T. Purdy and a brief moment of respectful silence, the Mayor asked if there be any corrections or addi- tions to the minutes of the August 20, 1974 Board meeting. Copies of the minutes had been distributed to each Board member prior to the meeting. Director Carlson requested amendment of paragraph 138.6 to reflect that she objected to an ordinance that would restrict the sale of farm products by one organized body of sellers and suggested the ordinance be made in the form of a franchise that would include regulation of the Rural Mountain Exchange. Another amendment was requested by Director Carlson to cause the last sentence of paragraph 135.4 to read: "in his opinion he said he felt the method used by Mr. Gabel...". City Attorney McCord requested amending the first sentence of para- graph 135.8 to cause it to read: "City Attorney McCord then read a Resolution listing the approximate assessments for each lot as being $1,739.14." McCord also requested the deletion of the words "or attached" appearing in the first sentence of paragraph 131.6. There being no further amendments or additions, the Mayor declared the minutes approved as amended. OFF-STREET PARKING IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT A petition had been filed with the City Clerk requesting the Board of Directors to establish an off-street parking improvement district for the purpose of constructing a multi-level parking garage facility to be located at Center and Church Streets. The City Manager announced to the Board and the audience that the hearing scheduled for this meeting should be postponed because Arkansas statutes require that a proposal for the construction of any public improve- ment must be submitted to the Planning Commission for their recommendation tp the Board of Directors. 141 141" 141.1 141.2 141.3 141.4 141.5 141.6 142 142.1 Director Orton made a motion to refer the item to the Planning Commis- sion for their consideration and recommendation. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board. ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE TO PROVIDE IMPROVED ANIMAL CONTROL REGULATIONS 142.2 The proposed ordinance, after being amended by the Board and• left on second reading at the August 20, 1974 meeting, was again considered by the Board. Mayor Purdy asked the Board if further amendments were necessary before comments from the audience were invited. 142.3 Director Murray made a motion to amend the last paragraph of Section 4-17(a) to cause the first sentence to read: "Should a dog or cat be brought into the City, or obtain the age of three months after the first day of February..." 142.4 Director Orton suggested amending the second sentence of Section 4-17(a) to cause it to read: "Said tax shall be paid to the City Controller, Animal Control Officer or a licensed veterinarian..." The animal shelter, Orton commented, currently collects the tax at the time an animal is adopted and she felt the ordinance should specifically state that the animal shelter is authorized to collect the tax. Director Orton withdrew her suggestion following discussion in which it was determined that the animal shelter employee was an agent of the City Controller. 142.5 Director Orton then seconded Murray's motion to amend Section 4-17(a), and in roll call vote of the Board the motion was unanimously approved. 142.6 Director Carlson made a motion to amend Section 4-22(2)(c) to cause it to read: "...except a person who is bitten by a dog while trespassing on the premises of the owner or keeper of said dog..." Director Carlson said the only time the owner should not be liable for confinement expenses would be when the person bitten was a trespasser at the time of the biting incident. Director Stanton was in agreement with Carlson and suggested further amending the section to include a provision that the owner would not be responsible for the expenses if the person bitten had baited, teased, or molested the dog. The amended motion was seconded by Director Stanton and was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board. 142.7 Director Orton motioned that sections 4-24 and 4-25 be amended to apply to all animals and not just dogs and also that the sections be in- cluded in Article I. The motion was seconded by Director Stanton and was unanimously approved during roll call vote of the Board. 142.8 A motion was made by Director Orton to amend Section 4-26(b) to cause the section to read. "...impounding any animal...". The motion, seconded by Director Carlson, was unanimously passed by the Board. 142.9 In regard to the animal being accompanied by its owner if the animal is in the owner's yard but not leashed, the City Attorney said that, in his opinion, the word "accompanied" means that the owner would have to be physically present and able to subdue the animal if necessary. 142.10 There being no further amendments to the ordinance, Mayor Purdy opened the meeting to discussion from the audience. 142.11 Among those members of the audience opposing a leash law for cats were Mr. and Mrs. Eldon Janzen, Pauline Smith, and Mr. Bob Storey.. Thbse.opposing the leash law for cats based.their opposition on the fact that a leash would endanger a cat's life It was also their opinion,that cats did not create enough of a problem to warrant having to be leashed. 142 • e • 143 Mr. Robert Ellis, speaking in favor of the ordinance, was of the 143.1 opinion that the ordinance involved the rights of minorities as well as those of the majority. In view of the fact that many diseases can be transmitted by pets, he felt it was each pet owner's responsibility to keep their pet under control. He also considered cats, as well as dogs, to be a nuisance to City residents. Mr. Ellis commended the Board for taking the responsibility of making the decision as to whether the ordinance would be. adopted rather than submitting the ordinance to a vote of the people. Also speaking in favor of the ordinance was Mr. Tom Bercher, Humane Society President, who encouraged the Board to pass the ordinance since it was, in his opinion, the best ordinance presented. In order to provide better animal control, Mrs. Donna Russell thought 143.2 more effort should be made to control dogs running at large in other areas of the city besides the residential areas. Mr. Truman Smith, City Prosecutor, said he receives many complaints 143.3 concerning existing problems regarding animals but that most complaints were of dogs running at large and very few complaints concerned cats. He was of the opinion that certain portions of the ordinance were greatly needed for better animal control but that cats did not seem to pose much of a problem. Mayor Purdy reminded the audience that before the animal control 143.4 officer apprtehentle_tl a. cat, the person calling in the complaint had to capture the cat. Director Stanton stated that the ordinance could always be amended 143.5 should it prove to be unenforceable. Director Carlson said if sufficient opposition existed, a petition containing 1,500 signatures could be filed with the City Clerk; and, if that petition were found to be sufficient, the Mayor and Board of Directors could call a special election to place the ordinance before the people to be voted upon Mrs)) Ann Storey was concerned that people's rights would be violated 143.6 if the animal control officer were authorized to pick up unaccompanied, unleashed animals when the animals were on their owner's property. Mr. Ted Wylie was of the opinion that it would be illegal for a dog catcher to come into a person's yard to pick up an animal and felt enforcement of the ordinance could be executed in a more acceptable manner. Director Carlson felt the dog catcher would be justified in going into 143.7 the yard to pick up the animal if several complaints had been received that the animal had been out of its yard or if the dog catcher had observed the animal running at large. Mr. Grimes said an enforcement .problem existed with animals running 143.8 at large while not accompanied by their owner and was of the opinion that the ordinance should require some member of the family to be outside with the animal if the animal were not confined in some manner. Mr. Robert Ellis, commenting from the audience, did not think the 143.9 dog catcher should be "shackled" with the responsibility of having to determine which yard an animal belongs in. The issue at hand, Director Utley felt, was the individual property 143.10 owner and citizens' rights in respect to othprcpeople;§eprppepty'and that. animal's rights were secondary to human rights. Director Murray expressed his concern that a person,whose animal 143.11 had been the subject of complaints,would not know his accuser. He felt it was an individual's right to know his accuser. Director milt.on Director Noland said that Section 4-16 concerned him as being an 143.12 infringement upon rights but thought the section was necessary for the en- forcement of the ordinance. 143 144 144.1 Following discussion, Director Carlson moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion, seconded by Director Utley, received a unanimous vote of the Board. The City Attorney then read the ordinance for the third and final time after which Mayor Purdy asked, "Shall the ordinance pass as amended?" In a roll call vote of the Board the recorded vote was six "Ayes", no "Nays", and one abstaining vote cast by Director Murray. The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2041 APPEARS ON PAGE 172-178 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV REQUEST'FOR WAIVER OF MASTER STREET PLAN 144.2 The petitioner, Mr. T. L. Nelms,•had requested the waiver ofctheri4aster Street Plan so that he might apply for a building permit for the construction of a canopy over the street right-of-way at his property located at 248 West Dickson. 144.3 The City Attorney told the Board that the Board of Adjustment had granted the maximum waiver for the construction of the canopy and that the Board, if it decided to grant the waiver, would have to pass an ordinance waiving the requirements but that the waiver would apply only to the property at 248 West Dickson. 144.4 The City Attorney, upon the Mayor's request, read the ordinance for the first time. Director Stanton motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Murray and was passed by a unanimous vote of the Board. The second reading completed, Director Stanton again motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. After the motion had been seconded by Director Murray, the Board voted unani- mously to allow the third and final reading. Following the final reading, the Mayor asked for discussion. 144.5 Director Carlson moved the ordinance be amended to specifically state that the Board grants the waiver to pegmit'the construction -of; an awning to prevent rain water from entering the building. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and was unanimously approved by the Board. 144.6 During discussion, Mr. Nelms said the awning would be constructed in a manner that would allow it to be dismantled if necessary. Director Orton expressed her favor of the waiver and cited the existence of awnings at other locations along Dickson Street. Director Utley, who stated he had never requested a permit for construction of awnings, felt the building inspector's office should be supplied with a definition of an awning. 144.7 Discussion being completed, the Mayor asked.if the ordinance should pass as amended. During roll call vote of the Board, six Directors voted "Aye" and one, Director Utley, abstained. ORDINANCE NO. 2042 APPEARS ON PAGE 179-180 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS 144.8 For the purpose of drafting a proposed ordinance, City Manager Grimes said he and the the City Attorney would like to have an indication from 144 14-5- the 45 the Board as to how they felt street improvement districts should be organized and administrated. Under the current system the City Board of Directors, after preliminary petitions have been presented, authorises feasibility studies and cost estimates to be made. If an ordinance :is passed to organize the district, the Board of Directors acts as commis- sioners for the district. The City Manager said he favored a return to the old method whereby 145.1 the peopieasubm t&thetripetition'torform thetdistrict, the Board determines whether the petition is sufficient, and if it is, the Board would then appoint commissioners for the district. After the Board has appointed the commissioners, Mr. Grimes said the district would be responsible for hiring the contractor, obtaining the funds, and tending the financial matters of the district. Mr. Grimes said the City had to assume many of the expenses for 145.2 feasibility studies and cost estimates for proposedmstreeteimprovement'districts that were never organized. Another reason for returning to the method of establishing street improvement districts provided for in Arkansas Statute 20-101, Mr. Grimes said, is that the city does not have the machinery for collecting the assessments. Director Orton said that, since city streetscbenefit•everyone,sshe 145.3 would favor a method that would result in the establishment of more districts. Director Carlson felt the old statuatory method of hstabtishing the 145.4 districts was more compatible with the way in which the City is now managed. The desire to entourage more districts was, she felt, commendable but was not compatible because of the lack of City engineering personnel available to work with the projects. She said any future City Board would be well-advised to look into how much the City pays for contracted engineering fees and felt the City could have an adequate engineering staff if the fees paid for contracted engineering consultants were used to hire more engineering personnel for the City. Mayor Purdy then declared Director Carlson out of order and asked 145.5 her to confine her opinions to which method of establishing street improve- ment districts she preferred. In a roll call vote, the seven members of the Board favored a return 145.6 to the method of establishing street improvement districts as prescribed for by Tdt1e.sZ0,5Chapiters?u0ndlthrough Four of the Arkansas Statutes. In a final comment, Director Carlson said the people should be advised 145.7 at the time they present petitions that the cost of the feasibility stddies and cost estimates would be assessed against their property whether or not the paving project is completed. ORDINANCE TERMINATING ASSESSMENTS IN SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 Property owners in Sewer Improvement District No. 2 were still being assessed for the improvements made even though the bonds issued by the district had been paid and discharged. The district was established by Ordinance No. 1063 adopted May 3, 1954. Resolution No. 43-71 was adopted by the Board of Directors on June 7, 1971 which approved the final audit report of the district and discharged the district's commissioners from their duties. 'However, an ordinance to formally dissolve the district apparently was never passed. Therefore, the proposed ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney in order to formally termihate the assessments. 145 145.8 146 146.1 Following the first reading of the ordinance, Director Murray moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Noland, was unanimously approved by the Board. Director Murray then motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Director Orton seconded the motion which passed unanimously in a roll call vote of the Board. The third reading being completed, the Mayor asked for discussion. 146.2 The responsibility for refunding any surplus funds is placed with the district's commissioners; however, the City Attorney said, in view of the fact that the commissioners had been dischared, the Board could request him to petition the court to determine the most equitable formula whereby the funds could be refunded. 146.3 Director Carlson was in favor of refunding each taxpayer the actual amount the taxpayer had paid. Director Stanton said that would not be possible in each case since some properties in the district might have changed hands. 146.4 There being no further discussion, Mayor Purdy asked if the ordinance should pass. Upon roll call vote, six Directors voted "Aye" and one, Director Orton (who resides within the improvement district) abstained. ORDINANCE NO. 2043 APPEARS ON PAGE 181-182 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS 146.5 Bid No. 267: Tires and Tubes - Administrative Assistant David McWethy recommended the bid_ be awarded to the low bidder on each item except in cases where a bid for larger tires was -recommended to be awarded to a-higher:bidder if the bid included installation charges. The bid award would constitue an annual contract renewal to be effective September 3, 1974 until September 3, 1975. 146.6 Director Noland motioned that the bid be awarded as recommended and Director Murray seconded the motion. In roll call vote of the Board the motion was unanimously approved. CORRESPONDENCE AND OTHER BUSINESS RESOLUTION STATING THE POSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REGARDING THE OLD POST OFFICE BUILDING 146.7 Mayor Purdy reported that a group of interested citizens had met with Representative Hammerschmidt to discuss the possibilities of saving the Old Post Office building which is scheduled for demolition under the Urban Renewal Plan. Mr. Hammerschmidt had indicated a desire for the Board to express its wish to retain the building. 146.8 Mayor Purdy said the statement would not commit the City in anyway but would only express the City's desire to have the building to be used for a public purpose. 146.9 Director Orton made a motion to adopt a Resolution expressing the City's desire to acquire the Old Post Office building and authorizing the Mayor to write letters expressing this desire to be sent to Congressman Hammerschmidt and Senators Fulbright and McClelland. The motion was seconded by Director Stanton and was unanimously approved by the Board. RESOLUTION NO. 64-74 APPEARS ON PAGE 78 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV 146 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business adjourn the meeting. Upon unanimous declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: leAti-Vitagtaa, Darlene Wbstbrook,.City Clerk 147 , Director Stanton made a motion to approval by the Board, the Mayor APPROVED: J_ Russell T. Purdy, Mayor 147 147.1