Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-10-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS October 7, 1975 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on October 7, 1975 at 7:30 p.m in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald L. Grimes; Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook, and Directors Marion Orton, Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul Noland, Al Hughes, Russell Purdy, and Morris Collier GCi ABSENT: None CO OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Mayor Orton. Following a brief moment of respectful silence, the Mayor asked if there be any corrections to the minutes of the meeting held September 16, 1975. Director Collier wished to clarify paragraph 11.6 by inserting: "Director Collier wished in no way to thwart the endeavors of the task force, but wanted the city staff to not be involved in pursuit of a solu- tion." City Manager Grimes mentioned that the recommendation adopted by the Board stated that the City Manager and staff should assist the task force in any way feasible. Director Todd thought that the statement was made in an effort to distinguish the task force from the City Board rather than the staff. Director Collier requested that the tapes of the meeting be referred to for clarification of the matter. There being no further amendments to the minutes, they were declared approved as amended. SOCIAL SERVICES FUNDING Washington County Judge Vol Lester was present in the audience and presented a request that the City Board contemplate allocations to social service programs within the county for the 1976 fiscal year. Judge Lester noted that many of the programs serve city residents as well as those of rural areas, and he felt that the social programs should be continued. Experiencing financial difficulties itself, he said the county could not continue to accept full responsibility for funding the programs. During slight discussion, Community Development Administrator Chuck Hoffman informed the Board that HUD's position concerning allocation of CD funds for social services had not altered in that they felt the funds should be allocated for "hardware" items. The Board deferred any action at this time but indicated that alloca- tions for social services would be contemplated at budget time. 13 13 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 ORDINANCE AMENDING SIGN ORDINANCE 14.1 The proposed ordinance would amend the sign ordinance by allowing larger free-standing and wall signs in Agriculture, Commercial and Indus- trial zones based upon the distance from the street right-of-way. Mort Gitelman, Chairman of the Planning Commission, presented a film produced by the American Institute of Architects dealing with the subject of signs and some of the problems they create. 14.2 The City Attorney explained the ordinance and how it would amend the present sign ordinance. He then read the ordinance the first time after which Director Collier, seconded by Director Hughes, moved to sus- pend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. 14.3 During discussion of how the ordinance would affect signs in residen- tial zones, the City Attorney stated that the ordinance would change only the size restrictions of on-site wall signs in "R" and "R-0" districts. Members of the Board who had helped draft the original sign ordinance were asked to comment. 14.4 Director Purdy stated that he felt the Board "sent far out of hand" and was hasty in adopting restrictions for wall signs. He stated that his agreement to restrict the wall signs was based upon the fact that the City Attorney had advised that it might not be legally sound to restrict free-standing signs and not wall signs. Director Purdy was interested in relieving wall sign restrictions considerably but felt that current free-standing sign regulations were adequate. He also felt that size regulations placed on free-standingsigns in agricultural districts and on-site wall signs in residential districts should not be amended. 14.5 Mayor Orton stated that as the sign ordinance is administered, some amendments are necessary to ease administration of the ordinance. She did not feel that amendments to the basic intent of the ordinance were ever made in haste and commented, "I personally feel that this was a long-term decision to have the present sign ordinance, and I don't like going in haste into a drastic change like this." 14.6 Director Lancaster stated that it had taken a great deal of time to draft the original sign ordinance and that many amendments had been made since its adoption. However, he believed that the proposed ordinance being considered would not change the on-site free-standing sign except to allow larger signs for larger parcels of property to be placed further from the street right-of-way. 14.7 Comments from the audience included those of Mr. Frank Sharp who saw no reason for amending the sign ordinance at this time. He did not believe that a sign had any bearing upon the success or failure of a business. Mrs. Sylvia Swartz, representing the American Association of University Women, presented the Mayor with a statement signed by the organization's members and expressing the organization's opposition to amending the sign ordinance. She stated that the AAUW felt that consider- able limitations should be placed upon signs. She personally felt that merchants should not have to depend upon large, offensive signs. 14.8 Another member of the audience, Frances Langham, stated her disagree- ment with the original sign ordinance and felt that the ordinance was a hindrance to establishment of new businesses. Mr. David Glass, represent- ing Consumer's Market; whose recent appeal for a larger free-standing sign had been denied; stated that businesses have a distinct identification problem and that the size of the sign does not determine whether or not the sign is offensive. 14 1 Mr. Fred Baker, a local radio station manager, told of an old sign his business had painted over then subsequently had to remove because it was then considered a new sign and in conflict with the ordinance. He stated that the experience with the sign ordinance had not altered his belief that bigger signs were not necessary. Mrs. Peg Anderson felt that wall signs should not be restricted but felt strongly that a sign ordinance to limit free-standing signs to 75 square feet was necessary. She believed that size limitations helped create a more equitable and competitive situation between small and large merchants. Commenting from the Board, Director Todd stated that the Board did not want to deprive businesses of identification; however, he felt that one problem is that identification signs often cease to identify and be- ll: come advertisement. He felt that the ordinance should provide some order Cg to the location of signs and not encourage them to be staggered. Director t+ Hughes cited the ordinance's lack of consideration for multi -occupancy buildings and their need for identification. Following further comment, Director Noland, seconded by Director AC Purdy, moved to delete Section I of the proposed ordinance so as to allow restrictions for signs in Agriculture districts to remain intact. The motion and second was withdrawn when Director Collier reminded that a motion and second to move the ordinance to second reading was still pending. The Mayor then asked foraroll call vote on the motion to sus- pend rules and move the ordinance to second reading. The vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Hughes, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": Noland, Orton, Todd The motion was declared failed. Director Noland, seconded by Director Purdy,again moved to delete Section I of the proposed ordinance. Director Purdy withdrew his second and Director Todd seconded the motion. The motion and second were once again withdrawn when the City Attorney advised that off-site free-standing signs were prohibited in A-1 districts. Director Noland then moved that Section 4(b) be amended to allow on-site wall signs in all districts except "R" and "R-0" The motion was seconded by Director Purdy and carried unanimously in roll call vote of the Board. Director Noland then moved that Section 4(b)(2) be amended to provide that display surface area shall not exceed 150 square feet, or 10 percent of the area of the wall, whichever is greater. Director Todd seconded the motion. During discussion, the consensus of the Board was that measurement of wall signs would be based upon the outline of the sign. Some Board members felt the provision suggested as a compro- mise by Director Noland would not be sufficient. In roll call vote of the Board, the recorded vote was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Todd "Nays": Hughes, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster The motion was declared failed. The City Attorney advised that he would redraft the ordinance to incorporate the amendments approved by the Board and would accept sugges- tions for other amendments. Believing that the Board's. actions'caus.ed undue delays in Consumer's plan to erect a sign„ Director Purdy stated', "This dust enforces what is said about us --that you can't get anything done in Fayetteville.') Director Cdilier echoed Purdy's sentiments. by_saying, "It's a disgrace and deplorable condition that Fayetteville would find itself in." Mayor Orton replied, "We 15 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 15.7 16 are not keeping anybody from putting up a sign as long as it is a sign that (conforms) with our sign ordinance." 16.1 Discussion completed, the ordinance was left on first reading. RECOMMENDATION FROM BOARD STREET COMMITTEE - North Street/Garland Avenue 16.2 Director Hughes, Chairman of the Board Street Committee, informed the Board of the committee's recommendation that the city proceed with the North Street/Garland Avenue intersection construction project at a cost to the city of approximately $210,000 plus utility relocation expenses. The committee also recommended that funds appropriated for deferred pro- jects be transferred to finance the project.* 16.3 Director Noland, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the recom- mendation be accepted. In roll call vote of the Board the following vote was recorded: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The recommendation was declared adopted. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT - Frontier Airlines 16.4 The City Manager recommended that a resolution be adopted to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Frontier Airlines for use of Drake Field Facilities for a term retroactive to March 1, 1975 and expiring February 25, 1977. Mr. Grimes advised the Board that he thought the agreement was "as good as we can do at this point." 16.5 Director Hughes felt that the City Manager should be instructed to give Frontier notice that subsequent to this agreement the airport will be operated on a break-even basis. 16.6 The City Attorney then read the resolution after which Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that the resolution be adopted. In roll call vote of the Board the recorded vote was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The resolution was declared adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 83-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 8 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V REPORT FROM BOARD NOMINATING COMMITTEE 16.7 Director Todd, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, informed the Board of the committee's recommendation to appoint Mr. Joe Hodges to fill the unexpired term of Ruth Rich to expire January 1, 1977. There being no nominations from the floor, Director Todd, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that the nomination be accepted. In roll call vote of the Board the following vote was recorded: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The nomination was declared accepted. 16.8 Director Todd reported that the committee did not have a recommendation for a nominee to fill the unexpired term of Ruby Bottoms to expire October 1, 1978. He therefore invited nominations from the floor. Director Collier, seconded by Director Lancaster, nominated Mr. J. D. Bradford. * The additional expenditure for the North Street/Garland Avenue project was necessary because of redesign and extension by the Highway Department to im- prove traffic flow and safety. 16 1 1 1 • •. h•• • 17 There being no further nominations from the floor, the Mayor asked if the nomination should be accepted. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The nomination was declared accepted. Director Todd then reported that the Board Nominating Committee 17.1 had adopted a recommendation that in order to be considered for appoint- ment by the City Board -of Directors to a city commission, committee, or board; a person's application for appointment must be filed by the deadline specified in the public request for applications that appear in the NORTHWEST ARKANSAS TIMES. He then moved the adoption of the recommendation and Director Noland seconded the motion. ut During discussion, Director Noland felt that last minute nominations 17.2 RC1 could be avoided if the recommendation were adopted, but that nominations or applications that had not met the deadline would be retained for con- = sideration for future vacancies. Director Collier opposed the recomnen- _=CO dation, believing that nominations should be accepted from the floor at any time. Director Hughes supported the recommendation as it would provide ample time for committee members to review and consider applications. When Director Purdy mentioned that qualified persons were often overlooked, Director Todd stated that he felt it to be each director's responsibility to contact qualified people and solicit their application. Following further slight discussion, the Mayor asked if the motion to adopt the recommendation should pass. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Todd "Nays": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster The recommendation was declared adopted. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT - Washington County The resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a lease agreement with Washington County for rental of the Old Post Office basement for use as a "PlTstop School" -- an alternative school for high school dropouts throughout Washington County to be operated by the Fayette- ville Public School system. The City Attorney read the resolution after which Board members dis- cussed liability insurance, janitorial services and payment of utilities with Mrs. Bettie Lancaster, a director of the school. Director Purdy wished to clarify for Mrs. Lancaster that the City was to assume no financial obligation for the school's operation. Mrs. Lancaster replied that it was not intended for the City to assume financial obligations, that the lease was strictly a business transaction. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved that the resolu- tion be adopted. In roll call, the following vote was recorded: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The resolution was declared adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 84-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 9 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY FIRE PROTECTION PLANNING PROGRAM The proposed resolution, read by the City Attorney, would authorize 17.7 Fayetteville's participation in a Community Fire Protection Planning Program 17 sponsored by the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration to test and evaluate a guide or manual on community fire protection master planning. 18.1 Fire Chief Charles McWhorter stated that the idea of the program is to promote fire prevention through better building construction. The first phase of the program would be for the cities involved to test the procedures to determine their usefulness and feasibility before embarking and adopting the total plan. Chief McWhorter said that the only cost for the first six months would be personnel time to complete paperwork and one-third of the travel expenses for one person to attend necessary meetings. 18.2 There being no further discussion, Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the resolution be adopted. Upon roll call, the recorded vote was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The resolution was declared adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 85-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 10 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SALE AND USE OF FIREWORKS 18.3 Left on second reading at the September 16, 1975 meeting, the pro- posed ordinance would prohibit the sale and use of fireworks. The pro- posed ordinance would, however, provide that public display of fireworks by "responsible organizations" would be permissable. 18.4 The City Attorney then read the ordinance the third time. He in- formed the Board that, in an effort to clarify the term "responsible organizations", he had drafted another ordinance incorporating language from an Illinois state statute which would allow use of fireworks by three or more adults upon approval of application to the Fire Chief. He stated that the Board could reject the proposed ordinance and consider the newly drafted document. 18.5 Director Collier did not feel it necessary to legislate against fire- works and felt that problems related to discharging of fireworks could be alleviated through parental guidance. Mr. Alan Beauchamp and Mr. Mort Gitelman, present in the audience, felt that legislation was needed since fireworks posed danger to others. Director Todd felt the Board might consider which zones fireworks could be discharged. 18.6 Discussion completed, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. In roll call vote of the Board the following vote was recorded: "Ayes": None "Nays": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd The ordinance was declared failed. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT - McClelland Engineers 18.7 The proposed resolution, read by the City Attorney, would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an engineering services agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers for the development of plans, specifications, and inspection of construction work on two tennis courts at Walker Park and a street and parking lot at the Youth Center. The proposed projects would be funded by the Community Development Program. There being no dis- cussion the Mayor asked if the resolution should pass. The recorded vote was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None RESOLUTION NO. 86-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 11 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V 18 1 ut I= The City Manager then requested Board authorization to advertise for bids for the two projects. Director Hughes so moved and Director Todd seconded the motion. The following vote was recorded: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. ORDINANCE NAMING STREETS - Velda Court, Hoot Owl Lane The ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would name an east/west dead-end street leading east from One Mile Road between Old Farmington Road and Highway 62 West "Velda Court"; and would name a north/south lane leading south from Smokehouse Trail to its intersection with Highway 62 West "Hoot Owl Lane". Director Noland, seconded by Director Collier, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Collier moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no discussion or opposition expressed, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The ordinance was declared passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2147 APPEARS ON PAGE 3 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE ACCEPTING RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION - Davidson Street/College Avenue The ordinance would accept and confirm the dedication of a 10' x 10' tract for street widening and turn radius improvements at the southeast corner of the intersection ofDavidson Street and North College Avenue. The City Manager recommended that the Board table the ordinance pending determination of the actual amount of dedication necessary. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Todd, so moved and in roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The ordinance was declared tabled. ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - C-4 Zoning District The ordinance would amend the zoning ordinance by establishing a C-4 "Downtown Zoning District" to accommodate commercial, office, govern- mental and related uses commonly found in the central downtown area. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland,moved to suspend rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion carried unanimously in roll call vote of the Board and the ordinance was read the second time. Mr. Mort Gitelman, Chairman of the Planning Commission, was present to explain the purpose and need for the new zoning classification. He said 19 1 9 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 0n s. that the ordinance was designed to save the downtown areas and surrounding blocks from financial decay. He reported that the Housing Authority had been experiencing difficulty in selling parcels of lan cleared for Urban Renewal because of restrictions of the C-3 zoning classification which would make redevelopment of some of the parcels economically un- feasible. He said that problems existed in the central square area which made it difficult to apply the C-3 requirements. Mr. Gitelman stated that the ordinance being considered would not rezone any property but would merely create the classification so that areas could be desig- nated C-4. A tentative C-4 district was outlined by Mr. Gitelman as being an area bounded on the east by Courthouse Street, on the south by Rock Street, on the north by Spring Street and on the West by either Church or Locust street. When asked by Director Collier if Dickson Street would be included in the C-4 classification, Mr. Gitelman replied that the possibility had not been envisioned. 20.1 Mr. Gitelman then cited some of the provisions of the ordinance and told the Board that the most basic difference would be found in setback and off-street parking requirements. In regard to the off-street parking requirements, the proposed ordinance would provide that the requirements could be waived in whole or in part upon appeal to the Planning Commission and approval, rejection, or modification by the Board of Directors and upon the following conditions: For each required parking space waived, the property owner or developer may (1) dedicate to the City an equivalent amount of property elsewhere in the C-4 district or within 1,000 feet of the property to be developed provided the Planning Commission finds the proposed dedication is suitable for off-street parking for the general public; (2) provide off-street parking facilities within 1,000 feet measured by the shortest distance from property line to property line, or (3) pay to the City $500 per space, such monies to be used for the purpose of assisting in providing off-street parking to serve the C-4 district. Mr. Gitleman suggested that the provision for approval by the Board of parking requirement waivers granted by the Planning Commission be omitted. Director Hughes moved that the provision be struck and Director Purdy seconded the motion. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": Noland The motion was declared passed. 20.2 Mr. Roy Clinton, member of the Fayetteville Housing Authority, was also present in the audience and stated that an improvement district would be the logical solution to the off-street parking problems of the down- town area and that the monies paid by property owners or developers in lieu of providing off-street parking could be deposited with the City to help finance the district. Mr. Gitelman stated that the payments would not obligate the City to build parking facilities but would provide financial resources should a bond issue become feasible. 20.3 Director Collier stated that he did not understand why a downtown business would not have to provide the same amount of parking as a business in any other location of the city and felt that the Parking Authority and Planning Commission should work together towards solving the parking problems in the downtown area. He eked reassurance from Mr. Gitleman that Dickson Street would also be designated as a C-4 district. Mr. Gitelman explained that he could not speak for the Planning Commission on that question but stated that the C-4 classification could be petitioned for. 20.4 Also discussed was amendment to the Master Street Plan. Mayor Orton was concerned about the effect an amendment would have on sidewalk widths 20 1 and stated that she would be opposed to any waivers of the Master Street Plan based upon anything Tress than 55 feet right-of-way in the downtown area. Mr. Gitelman stated that it was not envisioned that streets in the downtown area would be wider than they are now. Following further discussion, Director Noland, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes"• Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The ordinance was declared passed. CQ tr. ORDINANCE NO. 2148 APPEARS ON PAGE 4-5 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE AMENDING MASTER STREET PLAN The City Attorney read an ordinance amending the Master Street Plan to reflect the existing right-of-way of 55 feet for portions of Block, East, Center, and Mountain Streets. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The ordinance .was declared passed. r ORDINANCE NO. 2149 APPEARS ON PAGE 6 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V PETITION REQUESTING FORMATION OF SEWER IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - Zion Road/ Highway 71 North The City Attorney recommended that consideration of a petition request- ing formation of a sewer improvement district for a tract of land in the area of the Zion Road and Highway 71 North intersection be tabled pending advertisement of the filing of the petition. Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the matter be tabled. In roll call the following vote was recorded: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. PURCHASING ITEMS AND AWARD OF BIDS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT - Capwell Construction Sturman Mackey, Purchasing Director, recommended that a bid for re- location of utilities at the Highway 16 West/Highway 71 North intersection 21 21, 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 22 be awarded to Capwell Construction Company in the amount of $15,498.90 and that a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Capwell Construction be adopted. 22.1 The City Attorney read a resolution authorizing the contract with Capwell for the utilies relocation. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The resolution was declared passed. RESOLUTION NO. 87-75 APPEARS ON PAGE 12 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V 22.2 Bid 296: Tandem Axle Trailers - Water and Sewer Department The bid for two tandem axle trailers for the Water and Sewer Depart- ment was recommended by the Purchasing Director to be awarded to Dealers Truck Equipment Company of Little Rock in the amount of $4,476.00 each. Following slight discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that the bid be awarded as recommended. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The bid was declared awarded as recommended. 22,3 Bid 299: Police Van The bid for one police van to be used for educational displays and dissemination of crime prevention information was recommended to be awarded to Whit Chevrolet in the amount of $6,204.13 subject to concurrence of the Crime Commission. Funds for the purchase of the vehicle are in- cluded in Crime Commission Grant Number 75-153 in the amount of $22,674. The City's cash matching share is $1,134. Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the bid be awarded as recommended. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The bid was declared awarded as recommended. 22.4 Bid 301: Tapping Machine Air Motor - Water and Sewer Department The bid for an air motor for a water and sewer tapping machine was recommended to be awarded to Harry Cooper Supply Company of Springfield, Missouri in the amount of $1,398. Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the bid be awarded as recommended. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The bid was declared awarded as recommended. 22,5 Bid 302: Gravel Chip Spreaders - Street Department It was recommended that the bid for two twelve foot chip spreaders be awarded to the low bidder, Kraus Manufacturing Company, in the amount of $7,224. Purchase of the spreaders had been appropriated in the 1975 Revenue Sharing Budget Account Number 7515. When the necessity for cur- tailing public works fund expenditures was mentioned by Director Todd, Street Superintendent Clayton Powell stated that a prime reason for the purchase was for safety of street department personnel. Following further 22 discussion, Director Purdy, seconded by Director' Noland, moved that the bid be awarded as recommended. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None The bid was declared awarded as recommended. OTHER BUSINESS RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD STREET COMMITTEE Director Hughes, Chairman of the Board Street Committee, reported that the committee had recommended the City apply salt or sand to major city thoroughfares during winter snowfalls and that the State Ci Highway Department be requested to assume responsibility for removal of Cr snow and ice from state thoroughfares within the City. The committee's recommendation was represented on a map depicting those streets to be serviced by the City and those to be serviced by the state. Mr. Grimes CC explained that the City had assumed the responsibility of servicing many of the state highways within the City in past years but, due to lack of city funds, the state would be requested to service them this winter. Director Todd felt that the City could service more of the City streets than planned if the state assumed their responsibility for state thoroughfares. Director Hughes stated that money saved by not servicing state roads could be used for purchasing salt, thereby alleviat- ing much of the expensive clean-up work. Director Hughes recommended that the map showing which streets would be serviced be published in the local newspaper. Following slight further discussion, Director Purdy, seconded by Director Noland, moved that the recommendation be accepted. In roll call vote of the Board the vote was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": Todd The recommendation was declared accepted. ORDINANCE WAIVING FORMAL BID REQUIREMENTS Mr. Chuck Hoffman, administrator of the Community Development Program, explained to the Board that response to bid invitations for rehabilitation of housing in the City had been poor and that he would recommend waiver of formal bid requirements to allow negotiation of contracts. The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time after which Director Purdy, seconded by Director Noland, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. In roll call vote of the Board the motion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved to further sutpend rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. In roll call vote of the Board themotion carried unanimously and the ordinance was read the third and final time. Following slight discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None ORDINANCE NO. 2150 APPEARS ON PAGE 7 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK V 23 23 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 RECOMMENDATION FROM CITY MANAGER - Johnston v. City of Fayetteville 24.1 The City Manager recommended that the City not pursue further legal action in the case Donald W. Johnston v. City of Fayetteville concerning denial of rezoning property located on the east side of Garland Street south of Holly Street. The Chancery Court had ruled in Mr. Johnston's favor on the basis that the Board's decision to deny the request had been arbitrary and capricious. 24.2 After slight discussion, Director Collier, seconded by Director Hughes moved that the City not pursue further legal action. The motion carried unanimously upon roll call vote of the Board. ADJOURNMENT 24.3 There being no further business for the Board's consideration, the Mayor adjourned the meeting. ATTEST: /4 ¢4) i ,(.l �a..a � Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk APPROVED: Win, P O... 2.4) Marion R. Orton, Mayor 24 1