Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 6, 1976 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on January 6, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald 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. rt ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the Housing Assistance Plan Committee, 00 members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Marion Orton called the meeting to order and, following a brief moment of respectful silence, asked if there be any amendments to the minutes of the December 16, 1975 meeting. There being none, the Mayor declared the minutes approved as submitted. PUBLIC HEARING - Community Development Housing Assistance Plan The public hearing regarded the recommendations of the Housing Assistance Plan Committee for the expenditure of $197,000 of Community Development funds to be used for the rehabilitation of approximately 43 substandard houses during the 1976 program. Mrs. Lois Fry, Chairperson of the Committee, opened the public hearing. There being no comments from those members of the public present in the audience, Mrs. Fry asked for a brief progress report from Chuck Hoffman, Community Development Program Administrator. Mr. Hoffman reported that during the first several months the program was underway, progress was slow due to reluctance of contractors to bid on rehabilitation projects. However, following the approval of the Board of Directors for the negotiation of contracts, response from contractors was more favorable and the program progressed rapidly. He informed the Board that the 1976 program should be even more successful in that favorable reaction of contractors to the program had increased substantially and formal bidding procedures would be reinstated. Mr. Hoffman stated that Fayetteville's approach to the program was much in line with that of other cities in the nation. Mrs. Fry reported that almost all of the 1975 projects, averaging a cost of $4,600 each, had involved homes of the elderly and that the program had encouraged the participation of small contractors. She re- ported that the housing survey contradicted an earlier windshield survey and showed that approximately 600 homes remained in Fayetteville that needed rehabilitating. The committee, therefore, was requesting a 45% increase in funds to accommodate 43 rehabilitating projects at an estimated 77 7 7 77.1 77.2 77.3 77.4 77.5 average cost of $4,300 each. She said the committee wanted to encourage home owners involved in the project to make financial contribution for the cost in rehabilitating the owner's home. 78.1 Director Todd voiced considerable objection to the program's financing the projects 100% in the form of grants and felt that the practice was in direct conflict with criteria adopted by the Board of Directors which specified that projects would be financed on a cost-sharing basis in relation to the owner's income. 78.2 Mr. Hoffman and Mrs. Fry stated that the criteria mentioned by Todd were suggested to the Committee by the Board but not adopted by the Board. Mr. Hoffman stated that the discretion at the time was for the committee to operate the program either on a loan or grant basis. When the program began to progress, Mr. Hoffman reported, it was learned that the home- owners could not participate in the cost because of their low incomes. Director Todd replied, "I don't think this Board meant for it to be a question of discretion for you to waive the cost-sharing (principle). What this Board adopted was that people would make some investment in their own home." 78.3 Mr. Stanley Potts, member of the HAP Committee, stated that, even though he strongly favored cost-sharing, he did not believe the Committee had ever adopted the policy. And Mr. Claud Prewett, another Committee member, stated that it was his impression that the criteria were sugges- ted and left to the Committee's discretion. Mrs. Fry commented that the Committee had been of the opinion that the Board had approved the use of grants, loans, or a combination of both. She said that the Committee did not want the program continued on a grant basis as they did not feel it would be the best application of taxpayer's money. 78.4 Mr. Todd questioned if it were not time to make some change in the criteria so as to decrease the number of projects done on a grant basis to which Mr. Hoffman replied that the time for changes in criteria was when the need for changes was realized. Committee member Mark Doyle stated that the program was committing itself to fairly substantial in- vestments and that the program's dimension had diminished chances for smaller repair jobs that could be done on a cost-sharing basis. 78.5 In reply to question from Director Lancaster, Mr. Hoffman stated that the program does have criteria prescribing that a person's income be a qualifying factor for participation in the program but that the Committee has not attempted to verify the person's income. 78.6 Discussion then turned to the question of whether or not the pro- gram attempted to bring structures into compliance with the City's building code. Mr. Hoffman reported that the program tried to bring structures into compliance as much as possible in regard to structural requirements but not in regard to square footage requirements. He stated that the CD program purchases building permits for projects and that inspections were made by the City's inspection department. 78.7 Director Todd was of the opinion that the City could find itself in a peculiar situation in that it recognized housing and building problems yet expended money to rehabilitate homes that would not meet the codes when rehabilitation was completed. Mr. Prewitt reminded that structures being remodeled did not have to meet requirements of new structures. Todd mentioned the fact that the City would have to show tangible re- sults to federal auditors to which Mr. Hoffman replied that tangible results were present, yet the City could not afford to spend funds to increase the space of homes and could affect more housing by not 78 1 u N tr CZ CZ 79 attempting to increase footage. Director Lancaster stated that he was more interested in seeing greater participation in costs by home owners rather than trying to increase square footages of homes. Director Purdy called attention to the "desperate" situation the 79.1 City's solid waste problem is in and mentioned the fact that solid waste is in the purvey of the Community Development program. He indi- cated that he favored considering the use of CD funds to finance a solution to the problem of solid waste disposal, the cost of which might be as much as $2 million Mayor Orton concurred with Director Purdy but added that other sources for funds were being investigated with the hope that CD funds would not have to be used. There being no further questions or discussion, the public hearing 79.2 was concluded. ORDINANCE REGULATING GARAGE AND WRECKER SERVICES PREMISES The ordinance, which had been left on first reading at the December 16 meeting, would regulate garage and wrecker service premises with res- pect to appearance of premises and hazards they present. The City Attorney advised that, even though the Board might discuss the ordinance, the ordinance be tabled to allow further scrutiny and revision. He noted that the ordinance in its present form did not take into considera- tion existing operations, the effect of the ordinance upon car dealer- ships, and the fact that one section of the ordinance was in conflict with the zoning ordinance. Director Hughes moved that the ordinance be tabled. Attorney John Hawley, representing clients who would be affected by the ordinance, stated that his clients did not object to the intent of the ordinance; i.e., reducing eyesores and hazards; but that they objected to some of the specific prohibitions proposed in regard to dismantled vehicles and the requirement that fencing be erected. Director Hughes, who had motioned to table the ordinance, stated that he had received information pertaining to the ordinance only one-half hour before the meeting was to convene and was therefore refraining from discussing the ordinance. The City Attorney noted that the proposed ordinance had been on file in the City Clerk's office for two weeks. The motion to table was seconded by Director Lancaster. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance tabled. RECOMMENDATION OF NOMINATING COMMITTEE - Housing Authority Appointment Director Todd reported the recommendation for the appointment of Mr. Bill Underwood to the Housing Authority Board. There being no further nominations, Director Todd, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved that the nomination be accepted. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the nomination accepted. 79 79.3 79.4 79.5 79.6 79.7 ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE - Use Unit Interpretation 80.1 The proposed ordinance would amend the City Code by authorizing the Planning Administrator to decide whether or not a particular use is in- cluded in a particular Use Unit rather than requiring submission of the matter to the Planning Commission when the Use Unit did not specifically list a particular use. 80.2 Director Hughes expressed objection to trying to correct several problems of the ordinance with piecemeal legislation and favored making the necessary changes in one legislative effort. The City Attorney noted that it would be a monumental task to try to correct all of the problems of the zoning ordinance at one time. 80.3 The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time. In reply to question by Director Hughes, the City Attorney stated that anyone dis- agreeing with the Planning Administrator's interpretation had the right to appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment but that the Planning process would be expedited in that the interpretation would not have to be submitted to the Planning Commission. 80.4 Director Noland, seconded by Director Collier, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 80.5 Following slight further discussion and comment, Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 80.6 There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2181 APPEARS ON PAGE 46 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE CLOSING AND VACATING ALLEYS AND STREET RIGHTS-OF-WAY - Ferguson's Addition / Farm Service Co -Op et al., petitioners 80.7 The ordinance would close and vacate several unopened alleys and street rights-of-way in an area bounded by Government Avenue, South School Avenue, Sixth Street, and Eleventh Street, but would retain utility easements included therein. The alley closings had first been considered at the November 4, 1975 meeting, then again at the November 18, 1975 meeting at which time an ordinance to close alleys and rights-of-way encompassed by a larger area had failed to receive approval of the Board. This ordinance reflected the results of a meeting of City officials and representatives of the petitioners at which it was determined which closings could be made without detriment to the City's best interests. 80 1 81 The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time. During dis- 81.1 cussion, the City Manager stated that he felt the new proposal left more options for the City should improvements be made at the South School and Sixth Street intersection. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved that the ordinance be amended to coincide with the Master Street Plan in regard to an easement approaching Sixth Street and that vacations not extend beyond the north boundary of Eighth Street. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Orton, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": Todd Abstain: Purdy The motion was declared passed and the amendment adopted. kr.; Director Purdy stated that he was not convinced that the closing would 81.2 CO not be adverse to the City's best interests and that he could not vote Tr in favor of the closings. Director Todd was in agreement with Purdy. In reply to question from the audience, Mr. Wayne Ball, represent- 81.3 n ing the petition, explained that the action of the Board was being re- quested so that Farm Service Co -Op, planning to relocate its operations, could pass good title when the property is sold. Discussion completed, Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, 81.4 moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved that rules be 81.5 further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. The Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. The 81.6 recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Hughes, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": Todd, Orton, Purdy The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2182 APPEARS ON PAGE 47 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF LEASE - Old Post Office The resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a lease agreement with Ozark Guidance Center for a small portion of the Old Post Office. The City Manager stated that the amount of the rental payments are based on the same ratio as other agencies renting space at the building are paying and that the lease would be strictly on a monthly basis. Mr. Chuck Lester, representing Ozark Guidance Center, was present in the audience to present an amendment desirable to OGC which would provide that the agency would have the option of extending the lease to a maximum of six months at a rental rate not to exceed the rate charged other agencies. Mr. Lester stated that the reason for the requested 81 81.7 81.8 81.9 change was to ensure that OGC would not be evicted should the space be rented to someone willing to pay a higher rental fee. 82.1 Director Collier moved to table further consideration of the lease until all of the stipulations of the lease were finalized. The motion died for lack of a second. 82.2 The City Attorney read a resolution authorizing execution of the lease as originally written. Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Hughes, moved to adopt the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The Mayor declared the resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 1-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 31 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V RESOLUTION ENDORSING ADOPTION OF ENABLING LEGISLATION 82.3 The City Attorney read a resolution urging the Arkansas General Assembly to adopt enabling legislation to allow municipal corporations in Arkansas to solve their own financial problems. More specifically, the resolution would state the Board's endorsement for amendment to Act 990 of 1975 to grant all municipalities in the state the ability to submit the local sales tax to its voters for approval and an amend- ment to the local income tax law which would allow municipalities to im- pose a local income tax by majority vote of their governing bodies with the state being required to collect the income tax and turn it back to the Cit iQQ which it is levied. City Manager Grimes recommended adoption of 82.4 e r� in c or nTodd moved that the resolution be amended to delete the section referring to the income tax legislation. Director Noland agreed with Director Todd's amendment whereas DirectorPurdy felt the resolution would be weakened, as well as efforts of the other munici- palities seeking the legislation, if the resolution were amended. The City Manager informed the Board that the legislation endorsed by the resolution would not prohibit any municipality from calling an elec- tion on a proposed income tax. 82.5 Mayor Orton expressed her opinion that, if both pieces of legis- lation were enacted, an inconsistency would exist in that a municipality would be able to levy one tax without voter approval but not another. 82.6 Director Lancaster emphasized that whatever the results of the legislature pertaining to municipal finances, the City Board will have to make some final strong decision before too long. In response to a comment that perhaps the Board should not adopt a resolution at all, Director Lancaster was of the opinion it would be wiser to join other municipalities that are supporting and working for favorable legislation. 82.7 Discussion and comments completed, Director Collier, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved that the resolution be adopted. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The Mayor declared the resolution adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 2-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 32 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 82 1 1 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF QUITCLAIM DEED - Kaylor Investment As explained by the City Attorney, the resolution would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a quitclaim deed to Kaylor Investment which would correct a situation whereby Kaylor Investment had dedicated an excess amount of land in conjunction with their proposed large scale development on Highway 265. The City Attorney read the resolution after which Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 3-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 33 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2011 The proposed ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would amend Ordinance 2011 by correcting an erroneous legal description included in that ordinance. Director Noland, seconded by Director Hughes, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed 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. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2183 APPEARS ON PAGE 53 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board's consideration, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Se Westbrook, ty Clerk APPROVED: MarionTV Mayos 8 3 83.1 83.2 83.3 83.4 83.5 83 _ MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS January 20, 1976 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on January 20, 1976 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald Grimes; Administrative Assistant David McWethy; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook; and Directors Marion Orton, Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul Noland, Russell Purdy, and Morris Collier ABSENT: Director Al Hughes OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the Community Development Committee, members of the audience, and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES 84.1 Mayor Marion Orton called the meeting to order and, following a brief moment of respectful silence, asked if there be any amendments to the minutes of the January 6, 1976 meeting. 84.2 Director Todd requested the addition to paragraph 82.6 to reflect that the City Manager had recommended passage of a resolution endorsing enabling legislation. Director Todd stated that, in his opinion, the recommendation was the only good reason for voting in favor of the resolution. The addition met with approval of the Board. 84.3 There being no further additions or corrections, the Mayor declared the minutes approved as amended. PUBLIC HEARING - Community Development Committee 84.4 The public hearing regarded the Community Development Committee's pro- posed allocations of 1976 Community Development Block Grant funds. The Mayor opened the public hearing and yielded the floor to Mr. Lynn Wade, Chairman of the CD Committee. With a quorum present, the Committee approved a motion to utilize funds allocated for youth center roof repairs to replace the youth center heating and cooling system as recommended by engineers. Mr. Wade explained that the amount of funds allocated would remain the same for the youth center improvements. The Committee also approved a motion to include a $6,000 allocation for Ray Avenue sidewalks and an additional allocation of $2,500 for parks and recreation purposes. 84.5 Mr. Wade then introduced Mr. Chuck Hoffman, CD Administrator, who presented a report of the 1975 program. Mr. Hoffman reported the status of the programs scheduled in the 1975 program. In regard to an alloca- tion of $50,400 for the West Center Street sewer project, Mr. Hoffman re- ported that HUD now questioned the eligibility of the project and if they decided it was ineligible, the funds would have to be reallocated. 84.6 In regard to street projects, Mr. Hoffman stated that some projects had exceeded the estimated cost primarily due to the fact that the estimates were originally drawn up two to three years ago. When asked by Director 84 1