Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-01-20 MinutesMINUTES 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 1 5 Todd how the cost overruns would be absorbed, City Manager Grimes replied that some personnel and equipment costs could be absorbed in the Public Works program or they could be offset by using funds allocated for projects that might be deleted from the program. He expressed the need for remain- ing aware of the deficits and that they would have to be alleviated. He also indicated that cost estimates would be more accurate in the future. Mr. Wade then presented the Committee's proposal for the allocation of 1976 funds, noting that sewer and street project allocations were approved by the Committee upon recommendations of a subcommittee. During a question and answer period, Mr. Hoffman reported the activities and progress of the grantsperson. He cited the successful completion of an Urgent Needs Funds grant application, the drafting of an abstract for a solid waste Innovative Project, assisting in preparation of application for parks and recreation grants, and the grantsperson's investigation of possible matching funds for the United Fund. Director Todd then inquired about criteria used in determining which streets would be included in the 1976 plan. Committee member Monroe Harrison replied that factors involved were based upon need, use of the street, population of the area, whether the street was arterial. He said that the Committee had tried to tie all the projects in with the Master Street Plan in order to provide organization and that the Committee was careful not to give any one area of the City preference. Director Todd cited the Birch and Florene Street projects and expressed his concern that future projects might serve to benefit owners of apartments. He asked if a property owner's ability to share a portion of the costs was con- sidered as a criteria and whether incomes of property owners were veri- fied. Mr. Hoffman replied that neither was considered as a criteria. Director Todd, expressing his discontent with the lack of income criteria, felt strongly that street projects should benefit private citizens and should not be undertaken solely for the benefit of commercial invest- ments. He felt the program should include verification of property owners and their incomes so as to avoid subsidizing commercial ventures. Committee member Alice Ludwick did not feel that persons should have to endure poor streets due to the fact that rental property existed on a particular street. Mayor Orton expressed a desire for the formation of improvement districts, the costs of which would be shared by CD and the property owners. She felt that improvement districts would allow more extensive use of CD funds and would give property owners the opportunity to share in the expense. Director Todd then questioned if the sewer tap program was restricted to home owners and whether the home owners shared in the tap expense. Mr. Hoffman explained that, if the owner's income was sufficient, the expense was borne by the home owner. However, if the owner was in a low income bracket, the expense was borne by the CD program. Director Todd questioned the rationale of not requiring cost sharing for sewer taps if cost sharing were a basis for housing rehabilitation. Hoffman replied, "My approach to implementation of the plan is based on the fact that this is a federal grant and we can use the money as we wish. This is a point I have made some time ago and felt it is acceptable. If not, it is time to stop and reaffirm. When we belabored the question of what type of financing...we got to the point where the Committee felt it should be applied as a federal grant." 85 86.1 In discussion of administrative costs, Mr. Hoffman explained that the allocation reflected a 19 -month program. The City Manager felt that an allocation of $18,300 to reimburse expenses borne by the General Fund was deficient and reminded that the Board had instructed that the general staff was not to absorb CD administrative expenses. He suggested that 4 percent of the budgeted CD administrative allocation would reflect a more realistic allocation and was of the opinion that the allocation should be adjusted upward. Chairman Wade stated that the Committee did not have sufficient information necessary to make a decision concerning the adjustment of the allocation. Mr. Grimes stated that it would be acceptable to continue with the basic program as developed with adjustments being made at mid -year. The Committee was not receptive to a suggestion by Hoffman to delete a sewer project with the intent of using the allocated funds for administrative expenses. The Committee did agree to re-examine the program at mid -year to make any necessary adjustments, and also agreed to meet again on February 17, 1976 to consider increased administrative allocations. Mayor Orton requested that members of the Committee be present at the time the recommendation was presented to the Board. 86.2 Director Purdy mentioned the City's solid waste disposal problems and stated that one solution under consideration could cost as much as $3 million and that a portion of the cost could possibly be requested by the Board to come from CD funds. Mr. Wade replied that the concensus of the Committee was that sufficient information was not available to them to take any action that would include allocating funds for a solid waste disposal system. 86.3 Members of the Board praised the overall success of the CD program and expressed appreciation to all involved. There being no comments from either the audience or Board, the Mayor declared the hearing con- cluded. BID AWARD - Housing Rehabilitation 86.4 Purchasing Director Sturman Mackey reported that bids for seven housing rehabilitation projects were opened January 19. He recommended that the bids be awarded to the lowest bidder in each instance with projects at 1768 Woolsey, 217 South Block, 525 Lytton, and 820 South College to be awarded to T & S Construction; and, projects at 112 South West, 1008 South Washington, and 37 East South to be awarded to Nelson Construction. 86.5 Director Collier, seconded by Director Noland, moved that the recom- mendation be accepted and the bids awarded accordingly. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the bids awarded as recommended. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R75-32 / Gordon Houston 86.6 The proposed ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would rezone a 2.42 acre tract located at the southeast corner of the Porter Road/Deane Street intersection from R-1 Low Density Residential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. 86 1 .N. . 37 Following the first reading, the Mayor invited comments from oppos- 87.1 ing property owners who were present in the audience. Mr. Allan Bridges, spokesman for the group, presented the group's reasons for opposing the rezoning request. Prime concerns of the group were that the rezoning would not assure that only duplexes would be built, that no social benefit would be derived from the rezoning, that existing dangers at the Porter Road and Deane Street intersection would be compounded, that poor drainage for the area existed, that lack of adequate water flow for fire fighting purposes existed, that the introduction of as many as 120 additional children would result in further crowding of the neighborhood school, that the rezoning would constitute spot zoning in an area designated by the general land use plan to remain R-1, and that the rezoning request ►f: had been denied in April, 1974 and to this date circumstances had not GSI altered to justify granting the rezoning request at this time. d' Mr. Bridges stated that the group did not feel that problems of the 87.2 Ca area could be solved by granting the rezoning but rather by retaining the 'at rezoning classification as it is now until progress was made towards solving existing problems. The floor was then yielded to those favoring the petition. Attorney 87.3 David Horne, representing Mr. Houston, stated that the area was most ideal for a change to R-2 and explained that the area had a variety of housing uses in existence including what he termed "predominantly rental property." Mr. Horne stated that a buffer between the R-2 and R-1 would be provided to the south by the petitioner. He stated that they did not feel the R-2 would contribute to fire hazards; and, if the develop- ment seemed to contribute to traffic hazards, stated that his client would be willing to donate a portion of the northwest corner of the property to provide acceptable access if potential problems existed. He also informed that Mr. Houston would be willing to share as much as one-half the cost for paving Porter Road. Mr. Horne, noting that the first petition to rezone was denied partially because of lack of sewer facilities, stated that sewer lines would soon be installed in the area. He stated that Mr. Houston had told him that immediate plans for development of the property did not include anything except the construction of duplexes that would be well constructed, buffered, and set back so as to enhance the area. In closing comments, Mr. Horne reminded the Board that the City's Planning Consultant had recommended, and the Planning Commission had unanimously approved, the rezoning request. Director Noland noted that all contiguous land to the parcel in ques- 87.4 tion is R-1 and to the north is A-1 and that no R-2 zones existed near the parcel. Due to this fact, some of the Directors felt the rezoning would** Following slight further comment, Director Collier, seconded by 87.5 Director Todd, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Collier, seconded by Director Noland, moved that rules be 87.6 suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The record- ed roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. **constitute spot zoning. Also discussed by the Board was the fact that the rezoning would allow 12 duplexes to be constructed whereas -the present zoning classification would allow construction of 7 duplexes. r 88.1 The Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy "Nays": Noland, Orton, Collier, Lancaster, Todd Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance failed. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R75-33 / Homer McBroom, et al., petitioners 88.2 The proposed ordinance would rezone five parcels totaling 4.28 acres located on the west side of Happy Hollow Road between 15th Street and Hunts- ville Avenue from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time after which 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": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 88.3 Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be sus- pended and the ordinance read the third and final time. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 88.4 In discussion of whether the City could approve the rezoning with the condition that any future large scale development would include the entire tract, City Attorney McCord advised that a majority of other jurisdictions have held contract zoning to be ultra vires and illegal; and, he stated that he was not awareof any rulingof the Arkansas Supreme Court on the issue and could not assure that contract zoning would be upheld in Arkansas. 88.5 Director Purdy expressed concern that should a developer want to con- struct an LSD, some of the properties might not be big enough for other developments thereby creating friction between property owners; or, that a series of small developments might result. He indicated his preference for having assurance that the property would be developed as one tract. 88.6 Mr. Ken Lazenby, representing the petition, stated that he could not give assurance whether development would be large scale or individual, but that the owners of the property would be agreeable to sell it as one tract if a price could be negotiated. Mr. Lazenby reported that one lot contained a house and would be difficult to sell with the remaining lots. He stated that the owners requested that each lot be rezoned on its own merit. 88.7 Following slight further comment, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2184 APPEARS ON PAGE 54 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 88 1 ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R75-35 / Leo Peel, petitioner The ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would rezone 89.1 a 1.79 acre tract located between Highway 71B South and Grandview Apart- ments from 24th Street to 26th Street from C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial to R-2 Medium Density Residential. Director Collier, seconded by Director Noland, moved that rules be 89.2 suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes lip The Mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read the second 14 time. TrDirector Noland, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be further 89.3 a suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The record- ed roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes 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": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None ■ Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2185 APPEARS ON PAGE 55 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R75-36 / City of Fayetteville, petitioner The proposed ordinance would rezone parcels of 1and,on which are located several public schools,from R-1 Low Density Residential to P-1 Public Institutional. The parcels involved: Ramay Junior High School and Fayetteville High School West campuses, Asbell Elementary School campus, and future site of a school to be located east of Crossover Road and north of Mission Boulevard. The ordinance was read the first time by the City Attorney after which Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Collier, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 89 89.4 89.5 .. 89.6 90.1 There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2186 APPEARS ON PAGE 56 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Alan Beauchamp 90.2 The proposed ordinance would approve the LSD plan of Alan Beauchamp for property located north of Old Wire Road and West of Highway 265 North and would accept and confirm dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. 90.3 The City Attorney reported that a ten -foot dedication had been exe- cuted as required by the Planning Commission and that the ordinance would be conditioned upon the relocation of a proposed cul de sac and the provision of city water in a manner approved by the City Engineer. The City Attorney then read the ordinance the first time after which 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": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 90.4 Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be sus- pended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 90.5 There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2187 APPEARS ON PAGE 57 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Farm Service Cooperative 90.6 The ordinance would approve the LSD plan of Farm Service Cooperative for property located east of Beechwood Avenue, west of Razorback Road, and north of Fifteenth Street. The ordinance would also accept and confirm dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. The City Attorney reported that the required easements had been executed. He then read the ordinance the first time. 90 1 91 Director Noland, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved that rules be 91.1 suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll-' call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Noland, foved that rules be 91.2 further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes GQ The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. Director Purdy expressed concern that the developers were not being 91.3 a required at this time to dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way for street purposes and that the company might balk at making future dedications as developments occur. Attorney Jim Dickson, representing Farm Service Cooperative, stated, "Any further development will bring forth dedica- tions." There being no further comment or discussion, the Mayor asked if the 91.4 ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2188 APPEARS ON PAGE 58 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - J. B. Hays The ordinance would approve the LSD plan of Dr. J. B. Hays for property 91.5 located on the east side of North College Avenue between the Automotive and the Western Sizzlin' Steak House; and would accept and confirm dedica- tion of street right-of-way and/or utility easements. The ordinance was conditioned upon the developer providing proper drainage to divert drainage from North College Avenue. The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time after which 91.6 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": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be 91.7 further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 91 92.1 There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2189 APPEARS ON PAGE 59 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE REGULATING GARAGE AND WRECKER SERVICE PREMISES 92.2 The ordinance, left on first reading at the December 16, 1975 meet- ing and tabled at the January 6, 1976 meeting, would regulate garage and wrecker service premises with respect to appearance. City Attorney McCord informed the Board that he had redrafted the ordinance to include amendments to the ordinance previously considered by the Board. 92.3 The City Manager stated that the intent of the ordinance was to alleviate unsightly conditions of those businesses which cannibalize vehicles and allow them to be parked indefinitely along street right-of-way. 92.4 Attorney John Hawley, representing a client who would be affected by the ordinance, stated that there was no fundamental disagreement with the ordinance. After briefly reviewing the new draft, which he stated he had not had the opportunity to study, Mr. Hawley suggested two amend- ments -- one to substitute the word "wall" for the word "face" appearing in Section 3 of the ordinance; another to add to Section 2 the phrase "...notwithstanding any provision of Ordinance 1747..." 92.5 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved that the amend- ments, as drafted by the City Attorney, and amendments suggested by Mr. Hawley, be incorporated into the ordinance. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed. 92.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Todd, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 92.7 Director Collier, seconded by Director Lancaster, 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": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 92.8 Commenting from the audience was Mr. Richard Mayes, local garage operator, who stated that he personally could not see that the ordinance would affect his operation and that he would continue to operate his business as he had in the past. 92.9 The City Manager again stated the intent of the ordinance and added that the ordinance would be administered with discretion. 92 1 9 Q There being no further discussion or commeht, the Mayor asked if 93.1 the ordinance should pass as amended. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed as amended. ORDINANCE NO. 2190 APPEARS ON PAGE 60-61 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY PERSONNEL POLICY - Grievance Committee The proposed resolution would amend the City's Personnel Policy by 93.2 specifying a three-year term of office for members of the Employees Grievance rt Committee. The City Attorney read the resolution, and there being no dis- cussion, Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: 0.01 "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 4-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 34 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V- -- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION - Old Wire Road The City Attorney read a resolution authorizing the City Attorney to initiate eminent domain proceedings for the condemnation of a sewer easement - adjacent to Old Wire Road across property owned by Doris Ann Boyd. There being no discussion, Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 5-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 35 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V OTHER BUSINESS RESOLUTION EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO PLANNED ANNEXATION TO CITY OF FARMINGTON The resolution would express the Board's opposition to the plan of the City of Farmington to annex lands north of Farmington's city limits and included in the City of Fayetteville West Growth Area. Administrative Aide David McWethy noted the area of the proposed annexation and that the Farmington City Marshall had circulated petitions requesting the annexation. In reply to questions from theBoard, the City Manager explained that a contract for water services between the City of Farmington and the City of Fayetteville did not exist but that negotiations for the contract were being conducted. When asked by Director Collier what would prevent Fayetteville from "cutting off their (Farmington's) water", the City Manager replied, "Nothing." "Then we can negotiate," Collier commented. 93 93.3 93.4 93.5 94.1 The City Manager said that Fayetteville did not want to prohibit Farmington from growing but that Fayetteville did not want it's growth prohibited by the annexation of the Growth Area to the City of Farmington. He felt that the effect of the resolution would be to bring the two parites together for discussion of the issue. 94.2 There being no further discussion or comment, Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Noland, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Noland, Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd "Nays": None Absent: Hughes The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 7-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 37 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL 94.3 The City Manager informed the Board that an initial evaluation of the solid waste disposal incinerator proposal would be available for submission to the Pollution Control and Board Solid Waste Committees at a joint meeting to be held "within the next few days." YOUTH CENTER DONATION 94.4 The City Manager called the Board's attention to correspondence received from Dr. and Mrs. Spencer Albright in regard to a donation they made to the Youth Center and Boys' Club in honor of members of the Board of Directors and in appreciation for "What (the Directors) are doing to try to keep Fayetteville a strong city." FINANCIAL TASK FORCE 94.5 Director Todd inquired as to the next step involved regarding recommendations adopted by the task force studying the City's financial crisis. The City Manager stated that written recommendations will be pre- sented by the group. Director Noland stated that he would prefer a review and recommendation from the Board Finance Committee concerning the task force recommendations. Director Lancaster requested that information con- cerning which groups were represented and by whom when the recommendations were adopted. ADJOURNMENT 94.6 There being no further business for the Board's consideration, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk APPROVED: 94 %Ar45-eq P6 -421.J arson R. Orto , Mayor