Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-01-07 Minutes210 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 7, 1975 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on Tuesday, January 7, 1975 at 7:30 p.m. in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building. Present: City Manager Donald L. Grimes, Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk; and Directors Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul Noland, Al Hughes, Marion Orton, Russell Purdy, and Morris Collier. Absent: None Others Present: Members of the audience, representatives of the news media, Pat Tobin, City Controller; and Sturman Mackey, Budget Officer. CALL TO ORDER AND SELECTION OF MAYOR AND VICE -MAYOR 216.1 In the absence of a presiding Mayor, the meeting was called to order by City Attorney McCord who explained the state statute governing the selec- tion of a Mayor by a city board of directors. He also explained that he had advised the Board that an executive session could be held for the purpose of discussing the selection of a Mayor but that any final vote would have to be cast in a public meeting. 216.2 The City Attorney then asked for nominations for the position of Mayor whereupon Director Collier nominated Director Orton. There being no other nominations, the City Attorney asked that the roll call vote be taken. The recorded vote of the Board was six "Ayes" and one "Abstain" which was cast by Director Orton. City Attorney McCord then turned the meeting over to Mayor Orton for the selection of a vice -mayor and other items of the agenda. 216.3 Mayor Orton asked for nominations for the position of Vice -Mayor whereupon Director Hughes nominated Director Lancaster. There being no further nominations, the Mayor requested a roll call vote of the Board. The recorded vote of the Board was six "Ayes" and one "Abstain" which was cast by Director Lancaster. 216.4 Before proceding with other items of the agenda, Mayor Orton expressed appreciation of retiring Mayor Russell Purdy's service and dedication to the position of Mayor for the past two years. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 216.5 The minutes of the December 17, 1974 meeting were considered for approval. Mayor Orton requested that the results of the Board's vote appearing in para- graph 209.4 be amended to reflect the correct voting result by changing the sentence to read. "Upon roll call vote of the Board, six directors voted "Aye" and one, Director Carlson, voted "Nay". There being no further amendments necessary, Mayor Orton declared the December 17 minutes approved as amended. 216.6 Minutes of the Special Meeting held December 23, 1974 were then considered for approval. Mayor Orton cited an error in the number of "Aye" votes reported in paragraph 214.7 and requested that the minutes be amended to reflect the 216 1 correct vote result of six "Ayes" and one "Nay" which was cast by Director Carlson. There being no further amendments necessary, Mayor Orton declared the minutes of the special meeting approved as amended. PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE 2074 AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF WATER AND SEWER BONDS City Attorney McCord prefaced the hearing by stating the purpose of the hearing as being to hear all persons either in favor of or opposed to the pro- posed issuance of $4 million in revenue bonds for water and sewer improve- ments inside the city and water improvements in the Growth Area. He advised the Board that, following the hearing, it could either refer the ordinance to a vote of the people or it could proceed with the issuance of the bonds. Should the Board choose to refer the ordinance to a referendum, he said the Board would have to have a two-thirds majority vote of its members in order to place the ordinance on the ballot. Mayor Orton then opened the hearing and invited comments in favor of the proposed projects. Mr. Charles Fowler, of the Baldwin community, was present in the audience and expressed his opinion that the proposed inside city water and sewer project would be particularly beneficial to those living in the Baldwin area. Mr Lionel Barton, a rural resident, spoke in support of the city's proposal to furnish water to the Growth Area and felt the project to be a logical step towards orderly growth. Also present in the audience was Mr. Robert Ellis, 1441 Meadowcliff, who expressed his favor of the inside water and sewer projects but was con- cerned that the citizens of Fayetteville would be subsidizing people in the Growth Area.aHd felt that the ordinance should be put to a vote of the citizens of Fayetteville and a more detailed explanation of the financing aspects of the project given to the citizens. Director Purdy explained that it was intended for the system to be self-supporting but that it would not be self-supporting immediately. He said that residents and future residents of the Growth Area would pay for the entire system. City Manager Grimes explained that a survey of potential customers would be made following receipt of bond and construction bids for the purpose of establishing a rate schedule. He said bids would not be awarded until such information had been compiled.and"The Board indicated that bids would not be let unless enough potential customers were found. Director Purdy, a member of the Board Water and Sewer Committee, stated that the most important vote he had cast for the long-term interests of the City was his vote favoring the Growth Area improvement project. . There being no further comments, Mayor Orton declared the hearing con- cluded. 217 217.1 217.2 217.3 217.4 217.5 217.6 217.7 ORDINANCE ACCEPTING AND CONFIRMING THE DEDICATION OF'STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY - Stearns Road The City Attorney informedltilieiBoard that the necessary dedication had not been made by Mr. Duane Nelson for the proposed Stearns Road extension to the west from Highway 71. Speaking in his own behalf, Mr. Nelson explained to the Board that the dedication had hot been executed because part of the land in- volved is owned by someone else and he had not been able to contact the owner for a dedication. David Malone, representing General Growth, gave a brief history of the access problems in the Stearns Road area and how his client (General Growth) 217 217.8 217.9 218 had tried several ways to help alleviate the traffic problems involved. Since the last discussion of the Stearns extension on July 16, 1974, Mr. Malone said it had been learned that the proposed Stearns extension would have to have a low speed limit because of the curves it would have. He felt a low speed limit would not be desireabie because the road would be considered a major arterial street. He indicated that Mr. Nelson would receive much of the benefit of the road in that Mr. Nelson had plans for the location of a cemetery and had asked if the right-of-way requirements could be lowered along the front portion of the property because he had plans to lease a tract of land for a service station. Mr. Malone also stated that Mr. Nelson wished for the curve near his funeral home to be narrower because of his plans for the location of a florist shop near the funeral home. Mr. Malone said his client was still willing to pay for condemnation costs for the frontage road running parallel with Highway 71 and also for costs of constructing the road to meet city requirements and in conformity with the Master Street Plan. He said General Growth had no immediate plans for developments to the West of the shopping plaza and could not justify expending a large amount of money for paving the proposed Stearns extension. 218.1 Director Hughes moved that the matter be tabled since the dedication had not been executed and stated that if the dedication were accepted the city would be accepting only half of a road. The motion was seconded by Director Purdy Who cited the absence of any agreement to the dedication. 218.2 Mr. Herb Purvis, owner -manager of a newly constructed restaurant located on the frontage road, expressed his concern for his potential late-night customers travelling north who must negotiate a dangerous left turn to get to the 24-hour restaurant. He was most particularly concerned about intoxicated drivers who might patronize his establishment at late hours of the night. When questioned why he chose to locate his business at a loca- tion with dangerous access, Mr. Purvis stated that he had purchased the business without knowledge of the access problems. 218.3 Discussion concluded, Mayor Orton asked for the Board's vote on the motion to table the matter. The recorded vote of the Board was seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". Mayor Orton declared the matter tabled. 218.4 In continued discussion following the vote to table, Mr. Nelson requested that the City Manager notify him in writing at least two weeks in advance when the matter of the Stearns Road extension was again to be considered by the Board. 218.5 Mr. Malone was then yielded the floor and stated that if the Board was anticipating an agreement by General Growth for the paving of the Stearns extension that such an agreement would not be forthcoming. He requested that a proposal for the condemnation of the frontage road be placed on a future agenda and that new members of the Board have the opportunity to become acquainted with the complete history of the matter. 218.6 Believing that a final decision should be reached concerning the Stearns Road dedication, Director Purdy motioned that both the question of dedication and condemnation of the frontage road be placed on the February 18, 1975 meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Hughes and was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND CITY MANAGER 218.7 The proposed resolution, as explained by the City Attorney, would re- affirm Resolution 2-73 which outlined the duties of the Board of Directors and the City Manager toward one another. 218 1 219 The City Attorney then read the resolution which was moved for adoption by Director Noland. The motion was seconded by Director Hughes and was unanimously passed in roll call vote of the Board. RESOLUTION NO. 1-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 115 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IV RECOMMENDATION FROM BOARD SUBCOMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENTS The subcommittee was appointed at the December 3, 1974 meeting for the purpose of recommending procedures and criteria for selection of appointees to City boards, committees, and commissions as recommended by the Citizens Participation Committee. Director Todd, chairman of the committee, reported that the committee had agreed that the most important objectives are: 1. Provide a broad cross-section of qualified individuals for service on the appointed bodies. 2. Provide an opportunity for participation in city affairs by interested citizens. 3. Provide a means for full Board involvement in the selection process. 4. Public debate should be avoided that might result in embarass- tent of persons who have indicated willingness to be considered :for appointment. (A full report of the committee's findings were included with the agenda and is on file in the City Clerk's office) Director Todd said names of prospective nominees would be asked for sub- mission to the City Manager's office and that the policy statement sets out time tables and procedures for the selection of committee members. Director Purdy stated that a formal procedure seemed to have been discovered but that he was concerned the proposed procedures were too formal and formidable. He questioned what procedure would be followed should a board or commission find itself in immediate need of a member. Director Todd said that exceptions to the procedure could be anticipated but that the procedures being proposed should be followed as closely as possible. Director Hughes pointed out that a master file of nominees would be available should unexpected vacancies occur that needed to be filled immediately. Director Todd motioned that the subcommittee's recommendations be accepted. The motion was seconded by Director Hughes who stressed that a committee, perhaps the Board Nominating Committee, needed to continue working to update the policy and make improvements where necessary. In roll call vote of the Board, the motion passed unanimously. Director Hughes then moved that a committee continue working with the policy and the motion was seconded by Director Todd. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Orton informed Board members that lists of committee vacancies would be distributed to them for their consideration and preference and that the Board Nominating Committee would be appointed at the next regular meeting with other committee appointments being made at the following meeting. The Board agreed that current committee vacancies be published at the same time in the newspaper to allow interested persons to submit their names. 219 219.1 219.2 219.3 219.4 219.5 220 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMITTEES, AND COMMISSIONS 220.1 Mayor Orton submitted the following nominations for positions on the Community Development Committee: Mrs. Mona Donahue Community Development Committee Mrs. Virginia Ricks " " " Mrs. Pearl Blye Housing Assistance Committee Director Todd moved to accept the nominations and Director Hughes seconded the motion. In roll call vote of the Board, the motion carried unanimously. ORDINANCE REQUIRING UPKEEP OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO STREETS OR ALLEYS 20.2 The proposed ordinance would require that private property abutting a street or alley right-of-way be kept free from obstructions and would make it unlawful for persons to litter public streets,sidewalks, alleys or public thoroughfares, or any private or public property adjacent thereto. The ordinance provides for a $25 fine for violation of the ordinance. 20.3 The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney after which Director Purdy moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion, seconded by Director Hughes, was passed unanimously by the Board. Following the second reading, Director Hughes, seconded by Director Lancaster, motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote of the Board was seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" whereupon the Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2076 APPEARS ON PAGE 257 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK IV APPROVAL OF 1975 GENERAL BUDGET AND PAY PLAN 220.4 In discussion of the 1975 proposed pay plan, City Manager Grimes ex- plained that two pay plans had been distributed to the Board -- Pay Plan "A" and Pay Plan "B". The difference between the two, he explained, was that Pay Plan "A" was the same plan (except salary and wage proposals) as that of 1974 whereas Pay Plan "B" was drafted in compliance with recent Fair Labor Standards Act amendments which subjected municipalities to regulations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Since a recent court decision enjoined the federal government from applying the Act pending a decision of consti tutionality of the Act, Manager Grimes recommended that the Board adopt Pay Plan "A" with the understanding that should the Act be found consti- tutional, Pay Plan "B" would go into effect. 20.5 Pay Plan "A", as recommended by the City Manager, provided for an immediate ten percent increase in city employee salaries and a five percent merit increase upon each employee's anniversary date. Both increases would be based on salaries in effect December 31, 1974. 220.6 Director Todd expressed his concern that the city might not be able to handle a 15 percent increase in salaries since the city would have an un- balanced budget. He said there was no question that an increase was needed but felt that the percentage of the increase should be reduced to 12.5 percent. Should the city choose to award a 12.5 percent increase, he said it would result in a savings of $25,000. He also proposed a freeze on new 220 221- • positions to result in another $25,000 savings and that the budget be trimmed elsewhere to result in yet another $25,000 savings. Director Lancaster agreed with Todd about the city's financial bind and a freeze on new employment. However, he f di't that unless the employees were given a decent wage, they would be better to collect unemployment. He said he would have to agree with the recommended increase even if it meant cutting the budget in other ways. Director Hughes also agreed with the recommended increase citing that city employees' wages were frozen for two years. Director Collier, who termed the city's employees as its greatest asset, felt the recom- mended increase a justifiable one and suggested that the budget be cut in another area. Director Purdy, who opposed deficit spending, stated that he was inclined to favor the increase with the exception that "If there is not adequate re- financing in some.form -- I did not say taxes -- some revenue return; all of it, that next year as far as I am concerned there will be no raises; none period. There will be a cutback in services and with a cutback in services there will be a cutback in some jobs. I for one insist on a balanced budget next year," he said. Director Noland stated that he had heard for years about the city's low salary scale and realized some employees were living on poverty levels as defined by the federal government. He felt that the City Manager was closer to what the needs of the employees are and stated that he would concur with the increase prbvided.that if the city had no new income, cutback in services would have to be considered. The City AttorneysaItsIhelOt:.it the State Constitution prohibited muni- cipalities from annually expending more than: its. revenue.inuthe„current fiscal year,!theerecordyshould indieateifhatdeyet1nthoOghothe.-Board refersytp the budget as'acdefetit budgets, iitoisdnot...becauselthe cipyrcarries over surplus.funds from _pteuious yearsewhich are part of the revenues for the fiscal year. Following further discussion; Director Todd, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that the pay plan be amended to include a $2,000 increase in the City Manager's salary. Director Noland cited -that the increase would amount to less of an increase than that proposed for other employees. There being no further discussion on the motion, Mayor Orton called for a vote of the Board. The recorded vote of the Board was seven "Ayes” and no "Nays" whereupon the Mayor declared the motion passed. The City Attorney then read a resolution approving the 1975 Pay Plan "A" after which Director Purdy moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Director Noland 'and upon roll call vote of the Board seven "Ayes" and no "Nays" were recorded. Following the vote, Director Todd requested that his "Aye" vote be changed to a "Nay" vote. This met with approval of the Board and the record was amended to show six "Ayes" .and one "Nay" cast by Director Todd.* The Board then considered the proposed 1975 General Budget. City Manager Grimes, City Controller Pat Tobin, and Budget Officer Sturman Mackey, called the Board's attention to several corrections to the budget necessitated by action of the Board on Thursday January 2, 1975 diuring a quasi -executive meeting of that body. Director Todd stated that it was his understanding that the Board never intended to allocate Revenue Sharing funds for operational expenses. In refexeftt to -t e1-proposedt ttaii§fer of 1'58$570, vmeRe'venuegShar ngtfunds, ,to the&General Fund, Director Todd felt that such'a transfer would be a major decision for the Board and should not be mixed with the budget itself. *RESOLUTION NO. 2-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 116 OF ORDINANCE F, RESOLUTION BOOK IV 221 221.1 221.2 221.3 221.4 221.5 221.6 221.7 221.8 2 2 "2 222.1 Mr. Tobin said that the allocation of the funds would constitute some- what of a deviation from the Board's policy to expend the funds for capital improvements but that the funds could be legally expended for operating expenses. He said it would not be fair to say that the funds would all be expended for salaries and that the transfer would be on a monthly basis from the Revenue Sharing funds to the General Fund. In Mr. Tobin's esti- mation, a board deviation concerning the expenditure of revenue sharing funds was justified by the current economic situation. 722.2 Manager Grimes explained that there were no capital items left in the budget and that all capital expenditures were in the Revenue Sharing, Sani- tation, or Public Works funds. At this point, Mr. Grimes stated, the city could either utilize the revenue sharing funds for operations or could put the funds into reserves. 22.3 Mr. Todd was of the opinion that the fact that capital expenditures were not in the budget did not mean such expenditures should not be included, particularly capital expenditures for parks and recreation. Mr. Mackey cited large capital expenditures for parks and recreation over the past two years and said that current projects should be completed before new ones started so as not to increase operating expenses for new facilities over and above what has been accomplished over the past two years. 712.4 Mr. Todd felt that the city should not "take the easy way out" of the city's financial bind by allocating revenue sharing funds for operation expenses but should work to find new sources of revenue. The City Controller said that if a new source of revenue were found, the revenue sharing funds could be restored since the use of the funds would be an interim source df financing until new revenues could be found. He also reminded the Board that increased capital expenditures would create increased operating expenses. 222.5 Director Noland felt the use of revenue sharing funds was necessary in order to have a balanced budget. Director Hughes agreed, further stating that the Board would have to address itself to new sources of revenues; but for the meantime, he said, the budget should show where the money will come from until new revenues are acquired. 22.6 Director Todd proposed that a preliminary commitment of revenue sharing funds be made and funds budgeted for the needs. Then, if necessary, the Board could reverse its actions if the funds had to be transferred to the General Fund. He also proposed that the city operate on reserves for the next few months and address the question of transferring revenue sharing funds at that time. Mr. Tobin stated that he would be relunctant to operate on the basis suggested by Mr. Todd because of a future need for the reserve funds. 22.7 Following further discussion, City Manager Grimes proposed that his office prepare a list of the items of the budget that had to be excluded from the departmental budgets that would have been purchased with revenue sharing funds had the funds not been allocated for operation expenditures. 22.8 The Board then proceeded to review each departmental budget. Two new departments were proposed in the budget -- Personnel and Purchasing, and Data Processing. Mr. Todd said that even though he recognized the need for a Data Processing Department, he did not feel the city should expend the funds at this time for this purpose. 712.9 Following the review of the budget, Director Todd motioned that the budget not be approved at this meeting but revised to show a total General Fund expenditures of $1.6 million. Slight discussion followed Todd's motion in which some Board members did not feel the proposed $56,000 cut would be justified. The motion died for lack of a second. 222 There being no further discussion, City Attorney McCord read a resolution for the adoption of the 1975 General Budget. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved the resolution be adopted. Upon roll call vote of the Board six Directors voted "Aye" and one, Director Todd, voted "Nay". Mayor Orton declared the resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 3-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 117 OF ORDINANCE $RESOLUTION BOOK IV CORRESPONDENCE $ OTHER BUSINESS ORDINANCE ACCEPTING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT - Calvary Assembly of God Church City Attorney McCord informed the Board that the Calvary Assembly of God Church had executed the necessary street right-of-way dedications. The proposed ordinance would accept and confirm street and/or utility right-of-way dedications and would approve the large scale development plan. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time after which Director Purdy, seconded by Director Noland, motioned to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second -reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion passed unanimously whereupon the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Following the second reading, Director Purdy motioned to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and was passed unanimously by the Board. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. There being no discussion, Mayor Orton asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was seven "Ayes" and no "Nays". Mayor Orton declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2077 APPEARS ON PAGE 258 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV RESOLUTION COMMENDING BOARD MEMBERS Director Todd read a resolution commending former Directors Loris Stanton, Robert Utley, W. L. Murray, and Mrs. T. C. Carlson, Jr., for their service to the city during their terms. The resolution was moved for adoption by Director Todd and was seconded by Director Hughes. In roll call vote of the Board six "Ayes" and one "Abstain", cast by Director Purdy, were recorded. Mayor Orton declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 4-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 118 OF ORDINANCE $ RESOLUTION BOOK IV BOARD POLICY REGARDING SUBMISSION OF MATTERS FOR BOARD DECISION Director Hughes motioned that the Board adopt a policy of not considering major decisions unless the entire Board had received ample material on which to base their decision by noon on the day of the meeting. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and was passed unanimously by the Board. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board's consideration, Director Purdy motioned that the meeting be adjourned. The motion met with the Board's approval whereupon Mayor Orton declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: �yo ,' , .Litae/d.(D -ems APPROVED: 223 7247-1) Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk Marion R. Orton, Mayor 223 223.1 223.2 223.3 223.4 223.5 223.6 223.7