Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-02-17 MinutesS.. MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS February 17, 1976 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas met in a regular session on February 17, 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 LO Westbrook; and Directors Marion Orton, Ernest Lancaster, 'Q John Todd, Paul Noland, Al Hughes, Russell Purdy, and Morris Tr Collier. ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Members of Community Development committees, members of the audience, and representatives of the news media. 103 CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Marion Orton called the meeting to order, and, following a 103.1 brief moment of respectful silence asked if there be any amendments to minutes of the February 3, 1976 meeting. Director Todd requested that paragraph 100.5 be amended to read: 103.2 "He (Mr. Gallman) explained that the rent due after destruction of the hangar would cover all Skyways operations at the airport except for use _ of the hangar." This amendment meeting with Board approval, the Mayor declared the 103.3 minutes approved as amended. ORDINANCE AMENDING SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS The ordinance would amend the City Code by providing street design 103.4 standards to be followed by developers of subdivisions in order to avoid creating traffic hazards. A more detailed ordinance was tabled by the Board at its February 3 meeting to allow consideration of a simplified ordinance. The City Attorney explained that simplified ordinance was based upon a Connecticut city ordinance which had been upheld in a Connecticut court ruling. He then read the ordinance the first time. Director Collier, seconded by Director Noland, moved to suspend rules 103.6 and place the ordinance on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 103.5 103 104 104.1 Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 104.2 Director Todd questioned the wording of Section E(1) of the proposed ordinance in that it provided that streets would be planned and designed to provide a "safe and convenient" system for traffic. He felt the ordinance should be concerned primarily with safety and not so much convenience as he stated he would be hard pressed to turn down a subdivision plat if it did not provide convenient access. Feeling the ordinance should not replace present design standards set forth in the Code, Director Todd moved that the ordinance be amended to include a third subsection to pro- vide for design standards. 104.3 Director Hughes did not feel the ordinance would be beneficial unless members of the Board could show expertise in traffic safety matters. 104.4 Todd's motion was seconded by Director Purdy. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland "Nays": Hughes The motion was declared passed. 104.5 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Todd, moved that Section D of the Code be amended to provide that safe and adequate vehicular and pedestrian access shall be provided to all parcels, and, that local streets and driveways shall not detract from the safety and efficiency of bordering arterial routes. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland "Nays": Hughes The motion was declared passed. 104.6 There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance as amended should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lnacaster, Todd, Noland "Nays": Hughes The Mayor declared the ordinance passed as amended. ORDINANCE NO. 2196 APPEARS ON PAGE 67 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R75-26 / H. L. Mathias, petitioner 104.7 Upon appeal from the Planning Commission, the petitioner requested that a .32 acre tract of land located on the west side of South Block Avenue, north of Archibald Yell Boulevard be changed from R-0 Residential Office to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial or C-3 Central Business District. 104.8 The City Attorney read an ordinance to rezone the property C-2. Attorney Marshall Carlisle, representing the petitioner, gave a brief history of the petition and assured the Board that the rezoning request was not made primarily to allow the petitioner to secure a sign variance. Mr. Carlisle contended that thefinal vote of the Planning Commission might have been different had not the Planning Commission membership been changed since the submission of the original request, and pointed out that only three members of the Planning Commission who had heard the original request were present for the final vote upon the request. 104.9 Mr. Carlisle informed the Board that the property was zoned commercial when purchased by Mr. Mathias approximately 25 years ago and showed the 104 1 i • 105 Board previous zoning maps to substantiate his statement. He indicated that Mr. Mathias was not aware the property had been rezoned R-0 through adoption of a 1971 Land Use Plan until he recently applied for a sign variance'; however, Mr. Carlisle again assured the Board that the requested rezoning was not merely for the purpose of securing a sign variance, but rather to allow Mathias to proceed with plans to construct a new business building. • Informing the Board that Mr. Mathias also owned two rental houses, 105.1 fronting Church Street and abutting the property, he stated that the re- zoning request should have included that property also since Mr. Mathias planned to utilize the property to expand and improve his business. Mr. Carlisle stated that the petitioner requested that the property in question be u restored to its original zoning classification to allow him to make planned improve - Ci ments at a future date. TrCarlislecited other parcels which were zoned commercial within the 105.2 2 area and contended that the use of property in the area for residential 4_ purposes would be the leat likely use since many of the residences were old and in disrepair. He stated that none of the property owners surround- ing the property complained of the request for rezoning and that one property owner strongly encouraged the rezoning. Director Purdy expressed concern that further commercial development 105.3 at the location would compound a traffic congestion problem. Mr. Carlisle told the Board that at the time Mr. Mathias plans his development, access might be provided on Church Street. Present in the audience was Mr. Ernest Jacks, Vice -Chairman of the 105.4 Planning Commission, who explained that at the time of the 1971 rezoning, the intent was to avoid stripping Archibald Yell with commercial zoning and that R-0 would provide a buffer to C-3 zones. Also taken into con- sideration at the time, Mr. Jacks stated, was the fact that the topography of the area was not conducive to heavy traffic. He said the Planning Commission was not particularly adverse to Mr. Mathias's request but felt that the request, if granted, would serve as a "crack in the dike". Mssrs. Ron Sherwood and Kenneth Lazenby were also present in the 105.5 audience and favored the request. Mr. Lazenby, a property owner in the area, felt the request should be granted and that a more positive attitude towards downtown commercial zoning should be adopted. Mr. Sherwood stated that he had no interest in the request before the Board but that he was interested in the growth of Fayetteville. He felt that an R-0 classification would deter development of the property and that the property would be unsuitable for residential office purposes. Mr. Sherwood was of the opinion that rezoning of the property might help bring about necessary changes in traffic accommodations. Upon completion of discussion, Director Collier moved that rules be 105.6 suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion was seconded by Director Hughes and the recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "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 105.7 suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the final time. 105 106 106.1 There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2197 APPEARS ON PAGE 68 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V PERMIT FEE INCREASES 106.2 During discussion of proposed increases in various permit fees, Director Hughes stressed that the fees were not set so as to be a profit- able revenue source. He contended, and expressed his objection, that the revenues derived from fees were not only defraying costs of the Building Inspection department but also those of the Planning Administration office. He objected to adopting fee schedules as suggested by the Southern Standard Building Code Congress since he did not feel that body should dictate local fees. 106.3 Mr. Harold Lieberenz, Building Inspect on Superintendent, was present during discussion to answer questions from the Board. He informed the Board that the current building permit fees had been in effect since 1953 and that they were based upon valuation of construction. Other permit fees had been adjusted through the years. 106.4 The Board then discussed with Mr. Lieberenz the number of inspections required, time consumed by each inspection, and how fee charges related to costs for performing inspections. Director Hughes expressed his opinion that operations of the Plannning Administration office should not be sub- sidized by persons buying or building a home. Director Todd, however, pointed out that the proposed fees would not be profitable even if expenses of the Planning Administration office were not considered. ORDINANCE INCREASING SIGN PERMIT FEES 106.5 The City Attorney read for the first time an ordinance to increase the current sign permit fees. 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 106.6 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 106.7 There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2198 APPEARS ON PAGE 69 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 106 • ORDINANCE INCREASING ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES The City Attorney read an ordinance the first time to increase electrical fees. Director Purdy, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: tf� "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes Cl "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. m During discussion, Mr. Lieberenz explained that fees were charged on a per, -item basis and that the fees had last been raised in 1965. He stated that he was not aware of how the proposed fees compared with those of other area cities. Mr. Tom Comley, present in the audience, stated that the fees would be the highest of surrounding cities and felt the higher fees would hurt Fayetteville's growth. Mr. Kerry Shultz, also present in the audience, believed the City should conduct an in-depth study to determine whether Fayetteville's inspection department was being operated efficiently and felt it would be premature to implement higher fees until such a study was completed. ' City Manager Grimes stated that a study of fees had been made but not for purposes of comparison with other cities. He did not feel it would be valid to compare fees of other cities since other cities had not experienced a loss of revenues as Fayetteville has. Director Noland cited a $19,000 deficit for operations of the Inspection Department for 1975 and felt the increased fees were badly needed to help offset the deficit. Mssrs. Ron Sherwood and Kerry Shultz, local realtors, shared opinions that more people would be inclined to build in other cities. They felt that a system of random inspections could be implemented to cut costs and provide more efficiency. Ms. Frances Langham questioned how the fee in- creases could offset the large deficit and felt that the City could find other areas in which to economize and avoid making the fee increases. Upon completion of discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2199 APPEARS ON PAGE 70 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE INCREASING BUILDING PERMIT FEES Director Todd felt that building permit fees should be adopted in accordance with Southern Standard Building Code schedules so that revi- sions could be made automatically as new codes are adopted. Director Hughes disagreed and stated his preference for eliminating some inspec- tions and accepting federal inspections. Mr. Tom Comley agreed with 107 107 107.1 107.2 107.3 107.4 107.5 107.6 107.7 107.8 08 Director Hughes but believed that federal inspections should not supersede city inspections 108.1 The City Attorney read for the first time an ordinance to increase building permit fees based upon Southern Standard Building Code schedules. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 108.2 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 108.3 Following slight further comment, the Mayor should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. asked if the ordinance Board was: Noland, Hughes ORDINANCE N0. 2200 APPEARS ON PAGE 71 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 108.4 The Board concurred with a suggestion by Director Noland that the Inspection Department consider suggestions for implementation of spot or random inspections and the possibilities of utilizing federal inspec- tion reports in lieu of conducting some city inspections. ORDINANCE INCREASING PLUMBING PERMIT FEES 108.5 The City Attorney read for the first time an ordinance to increase plumbing permit fees. 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the 108.6 Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 108.7 There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. second time. rules be reading. ORDINANCE NO. 2201 APPEARS ON PAGE 72-73 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 108 • • Y• . 109 ORDINANCE SIMPLIFYING PROCEDURES FOR LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL The City Attorney read for the first time an ordinance to simplify 109.1 procedures for large scale development approval and establish a Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission to consider and approve those large scale development plans which meet all requirements. During discussion, Directors Todd and Purdy expressed desire that 109.2 three members of the Subdivision Committee be members of the Planning Commission. Director Todd further believed that the members should be appointed by elected city officials. After slight discussion; Director Todd moved the ordinance be amended to provided that three or more members of the Subdivision Committee be appointed from the membership of the Planning Commission. Director Hughes seconded the motion and the recorded (,Q roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. Oat Believing that the requirement that the developer provide a legal 109.3 description of property located within. the large scale development which had been certified by an abstractor or surveyor would place an unnecessary expense upon the developer, Director Hughes moved that the ordinance be amended to require that legal descriptions only of street right-of-way dedications and easements be certified by an abstractor or surveyor. The motion was seconded by Director Collier and the recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland Hughes "Nays": None Abstain: Purdy Director Hughes expressed discontent with Section (3) in that he believed 109.4 the maximum time span of 14 days for approval or referral by the Subdivision Comittee and for approval or referral by the Planning Commission was ex- cessive. Hughes cited the purpose of the ordinance was to expedite approval and he felt the maximum time period should be 7 days. Mr. Lieberenz stated that the time limit would allow for holidays, weekends, etc. and that the 14 -day span would not detract -from the purpose of the ordinance. Director Todd then cited Section (6) pertaining to disapprovals by the 109.5 j Subdivision Committee, noting that the appeal procedures were limited to 1 appeals by developers. He felt the section should be written so as to allow appeal by others such as City officials. He also felt that appeal notices should be filed within seven days. Following further discussion, Director Todd, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that the ordinance be amended to provide appeal procedures for those other than developers and that appeal notices be made within 10 days of disapproval. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. There being no further discussion, Director Hughes moved that rules 109.6 be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 109 110 110.1 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 110.2 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed as amended. ORDINANCE NO. 2202 APPEARS ON PAGE 74-77 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V REPORT FROM BOARD FINANCE COMMITTEE 110.3 Director Lancaster presented a report from the Board Finance Committee regarding recommendations of the Citizens Advisory Task Force concerning sources of revenue with which to finance general fund operations. Upon request the Board of Directors had appointed the Task Force, comprised of representatives of various professional, industrial, and business groups in Fayetteville, to study and recommend possible interim sources of revenues. Lancaster reported that the Finance Committee had met February 17 with Mr. Hal Douglas, Chairman of the group, who briefed members of the committee of the group's recommendations. 110.4 Recommendations adopted by the Task Force, which would produce an estimated $244,981 in revenue, called for an increase in utility franchise taxes; implementation of professional, business and/or occupation taxes; and the consideration by the Board of specific capital improvements which would be financed through a four -mill capital improvements levy. They also adopted a motion to give full support to the Board of Directors in helping implement the proposals so long as measures adopted by the Board would result in new tax revenue not less than $235,000 and not more than $300,000 the first year. 110.5 The Mayor asked for individual comments from the Board. Director Todd felt the group had been consious of trying to make an equitable and balanced proposal which would be shared by a large spectrum of the community. Except for realizing the alternatives, Director Todd felt it was difficult to be enthusiastic about the recommendations. He stated he was inclined to favor final approval of revenue producing measures by the citizens but declined to make a premature committment at this time. 110.6 Director Noland felt the Board might want to conduct further study to be certain that no one sector of the community would have a greater proportionate burden than another and cited possible loss of the present fire rating should revenues not become available in the near future. Director Hughes questioned the legality of taxing university professors and was advised by the City Attorney that professors could be required to pay the tax but that the University would not be required to collect the tax for the City. 110 1 4 -1 Director Collier visualized that the 1977 and 1978 budget preparations 111.1 would be very "scary" unless sources of revenue became available. He stated that he had talked with several citizens about the recommendations and that they seemed to favor immediate implementation of a plan without voter approval. Mayor Orton stressed that the proposals would replace lost revenues 111.2 but would not be adequate for implementation of a good capital improvement program. City Manager Grimes suggested that the Board Finance Committee meet 111.3 at an early date to discuss possible recommendations, that negotiations with utility companies begin immediately, that a business and occupation tax ordinance be drafted, and that all Board members seek comments from the public. ut City Attorney McCord advised that the measures recommended by the 111.4 Task Force could be implemented by Board action without a vote of the citi- `y- zens but that any ordinance adopted by the Board could be referred to the people by the Board or upon sufficient petition for referendum. CZMr. B. I. Fouke, Southwestern Electric Power Company Division Manager, 111.5 was present in the audience and delivered a lengthy statement to the Board which reflected opposition to increased utility franchise taxes. Mr. Fouke cited the present franchise between his company and the City which is not to expire until 1978 and expressed concern that public reaction would not be favorable should another franchise increase be initiated before the balance of the franchise expired. Even though an increase of one percent on commercial and residential services would not require approval of the Public Service Commission, Mr. Fouke assumed that taxes proposed to be placed on industrial users (presently exempt from franchise ' tax) would have to be considered by the PSC. Should the proposed indus- trial taxes go before the PSC, Mr. Fouke was concerned that stiff opposi- tion to the tax would be presented. Mr. Fouke was of the opinion that the exemption of Fayetteville in- 111.6 dustries from paying the franchise tax for energy consumption placed Fayetteville in a more competitive position for industries and allowed them to pay higher wages and provide environmental protection. He was concerned that consumers would consider the increased tax to be a rate increase and did not favor placing the utilities in a position as tax assessor and collector. He cited a recent public opinion poll commissioned by the City which indicated that increased franchise taxes would be the least desireable revenue source. Director Hughes felt that any increase in franchise taxes or any 111.7 business or professional tax should be applicable to the University and its employees. The City Attorney, though not aware of any Arkansas case, felt the possibilities were good that the University would be required to pay utility franchise taxes. Director Lancaster informed that the University had been represented on the Task Force by Mr. Carl Whillock and that Mr. Whillock had voted in favor of the proposed revenue sources. Director Lancaster commented that any tax levied by the City would ul- timately be paid by the citizen and that most citizens would not under- stand that a utility franchise tax was imposed by the City and not the utility. Mayor Orton commented that the situation was a sad commentary on the 111.8 taxing abilities of the cities. And Mr. Ron Sherwood, present in the audience, stated that he felt the general public neglected a duty to it- self in voting down the sales tax since the action would probably result in them being taxed at several levels. The Board took no action following discussion . 111.9 111 112 ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R76-1 / Roger Seratt, petitioner 112.1 The ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would rezone a .30 acre tract located at the southwest corner of the South School Avenue/West Mountain Str-et intersection from R-0 Residential Office to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial. Director Hughes., 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 112.2 Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 112.3 There being no discussion either from the Board or those present in the audience, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE N0. 2203 APPEARS ON PAGE 78 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R76-2 / Fayetteville Planning Commission 112.4 The ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would re- zone four tracts of land upon which are located Bates Elementary School and Fayetteville High School, Fayetteville School Administration Building and adjacent property of the school system, from R-2 Medium Density Residential to P-1 (Public) Institutional. 112.5 Director Collier, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 112.6 Director Hughes, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 112.7 There being no discussion from either the Board or the audience, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2204 APPEARS ON PAGE 79-80 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 112 1 113 APPROVAL OF 1976 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The public hearing for the proposed 1976 Community Development Block 113.1 Grant program had been held January 20 with final review and approval of the program scheduled for this meeting. Mrs. Lois Fry, Chairman of the Housing Assistance Plan Committee, 113.2 briefly reported final actions of the Committee. Mrs. Fry reported that the Committee had decided not to consider landlord/tenant problems until later in the year and that concentrated efforts in one neighborhood to rehabilitate homes could not be a goal of the 1976 program. The Committee also concluded not to indicate the number of homes in each tract to be re- habilitated. 1.0 Efforts to firm plans for cost sharing were unsuccessful; however the 113.4 committee felt that cost sharing should be on a voluntary basis and that definite cost sharing guidelines could be considered during the year. She also informed the Board of three possible methods for verifying family incomes. Director Todd, staunch advocate for implementation of specific cost sharing criteria, submitted his proposal for cost sharing criteria as follows: A portion of the CDBG funds used for housing rehabilitation shall be repaid by recipients who are financially able to do so. Ability to pay will be defined on the following basis: Total Family Income Monthly Payment by Recipients $ 0-4,999 $ 0 $5,000-6,499 $ 5 $6,500-7,999 $10 $8,000 -up $15 These monthly payments represent the monthly payments by house owners over a five-year period. For smaller jobs, this amount will be collected over a shorter period so that total payments never exceed 25% of the total cost of the rehabilitation. Simple interest at 3% will be collected at the end of the loan. The upper limits of each range of household income will be in- creased by $500 for each household member over two. Household income will be verified if possible, or at least attested to by notarized affidavit of the house owner. 1 113.5 Director Todd felt the criteria were a necessary item for the 1976 program in view of the large amount of money allocated for housing rehabilitation and moved that the housing criteria be amended to include his proposal. CDBG Administrator Chuck Hoffman cited other cities which had administered 113.6 the Housing Assistance Program strictly on a grant basis. When asked what recourse the program would have should people default, Director Todd felt that a "hard line" should be taken to discourage defaulting. Director Purdy believed a cost sharing plan should be implemented but 113.7 was also concerned that participation in the program would be denied to persons not able to make the repayment. 113 114.1 Director Noland seconded Todd's motion to amend the housing criteria. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes". Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. 114.2 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Todd, then moved to accept the Housing Assistance Plan guidelines as amended. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. 114.3 Discussion then focused upon the Community Development with Mr. Lynn Wade, Community Development Committee Chairman,explaining alterations to the program made since the January 20 hearing. He reported that the Committee had adopted a motion requesting the Board of Directors to state measures and means for implementation and development of cost sharing criteria for street and sewer projects. He also reported that the committee had not approved any increase in administrative cost allocations for re- funding the City's general fund for administrative support; rather to re- affirm the allotment of $18,500 until the additional request could be justi- fied. 114.4 In discussion of possible means for implementing cost sharing, Mr. Wade suggested that the Board consider adoption of an ordinance which would permit the City to engage in construction of streets as well as maintenance of streets. 114.5 In consideration of the request for additional administrative cost allocations, the CD committee members present in the audience expressed considerable opposition to approval of the request. The City Manager distributed to Board members copies of a breakdown of projected administra- tive costs of the general fund. He believed that the total projected cost of $32,178 was realistic and justifiable. He reported that the general fund had not drawn the full amount budgeted in the 1975 program because of a misunderstanding of the fiscal year period. 114.6 Ms. Molly Wilson, member of the CD Committee, questioned Grimes ex- tensively as to the validity of the request and whether or not an increase in administrative allocation would be justified by an increase in services performed by the general fund staff. She suggested that the increase might have been requested of the CD fund to supplement general fund revenues. 114.7 As discussion progressed, Director Hughes expressed his discontent with what he felt was a lack of progress made by the grantsperson and felt that the CD Administrator had given a "snow job" when questioned on January 20 about the grantsperson's activities. He recalled that during consideration of the 1975 program, the grantsmanship position was established as a means of centralizing efforts for obtaining various grants with the intent that the grantsperson would become a permanent city employee. Director Todd stated that the issue might be the justification of $80,000 budgeted for CD administration rather than justification of an additional allocation for general fund staff support. 114.8 Mr. Hoffman, CD Administrator, stated that he was not in the habit of giving "snow jobs". He said the grantsmanship position was superimposed upon the CD program despite his objections, and that the grantsperson also 114 115 conducted housing surveys. He contended that the allocation for CD administration (6.7% of the total grant) was comparable with programs of other cities. Director Hughes contended that the original intent was to hire a 115.1 grantsperson who would also work with the housing survey on a temporary basis. He questioned the original $80,000 allocation for CD administration if there was no intention to have a full-time grantsperson. The Board and members of the CD Committee then attempted to locate 115.2 an area of the CD budget from which the additional requested allocation could be derived. The Committee objected to cutting funds for street or sewer projects since these projects were considered to be of more benefit to the community. After some discussion, Director Collier moved to accept the Committee's recommendation for the 1976 program as submitted with differences being resolved within the next few days. The motion was seconded by Director Noland; however, after Mr. Hoffman informed the Board of the approaching deadline for submission for the application, Oat both the motion and second were withdrawn. As a measure of compromise, Director Todd moved that the additional 115.3 administration allocation request be decreased to $10,850. The motion was seconded by Director Noland. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": Purdy, Collier The motion was declared passed. Director Todd then moved that $5,400 of the request be funded from 115.4 the Housing Assistance program, one-fourth of the total amount from the street program, and one-fourth of the total amount from the sewer program. The motion was seconded by Director Lancaster and the recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Noland, moved that the CD 115.5 plan be approved as amended. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. Mayor Orton then expressed appreciation to members of the CD committees 115.6 for their efforts and dedication to the program. ORDINANCE APPROVING LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - Walter S. Robinson The proposed ordinance, read the first time by the City Attorney, would approve the large scale development plan of Walter S. Robinson, Jr., for property located in the 1500 Block of North Leverett Street and would accept and confirm dedication of street right-of-way and/or utility ease- ments. Director Hughes, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 115 115.7 115.8 116.1 Director Collier, 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": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 116.2 There being no discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2205 APPEARS ON PAGE 81 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V STREET NAMING 116.3 A request had been submitted by Mr. Duane B. Nelson to name a bypass access road between Shepherd Lane and Stearns Road, "Nelson Lane". Director Hughes expressed his opposition to naming the road at this time since it is not fully extended and further that he did not believe access roads should be named. Director Todd agreed with Hughes saying that the road as it exists now is just a section of a potentially long road. 116.4 Mr. Larry Gates, manager of the Northwest Arkansas Plaza, was opposed to the request stating that he would like for it to be named anything but Nelson Lane. 116.5 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the request be denied. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the motion passed and the request denied. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS - Cecil T. Harris 116.6 The resolution, read by the City Attorney, would authorize the initia- tion of condemnation proceedings against property owned by Cecil T. Harris for an easement for a Lawson Street sewer project. 116.7 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Noland, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 9-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 39 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V SANITARY LANDFILL CONTRACT 116.8 The Board was to consider a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Sunray Sanitation Company of Spring- dale for the provision of sanitary landfill services commencing April 15, 1976. 116 117 City Manager Grimes reported to the Board that a current landfill 117.1 contract with C & L Land• Company would expire April 15, 1976 and that contract negotiations with that company had not been successful. C & L had first proposed a $100-110,000 contract for the coming year as opposed to the $65,000 contract of 1975. A second C & L proposal was for $90,692 plus $4,000 for road gravel and engineering costs, Grimes reported and could result in a total contract price of $97,000 or $5.00 per ton of solid waste. As an alternative to private landfill contract, Mr. Grimes stated 117.2 that a city -owned landfill would be prohibitive because of high equipment and maintenance costs. As another alternative, Sunray Sanitation had been contacted about the possibility of their accomodating the City's solid waste. As a result, Sunray had proposed a firm six-month contract in T4 the amount of $72,000 which would include the option of monthly renewal rt up to six months. Additional years renewal would be at the present price plus increases based upon the annual cost of living index. Feeling that the Sunray proposal was quite reasonable, the City Manager recommended CO that the Board approve the contract with Sunray Sanitation. Mr. Grimes stated that Sunray initially questioned the sincerity of Fayetteville's interest in Sunray facilities but that he had assured them that the City C &w,as_indeed serious and not using them as a means of securing a better proposal from The City Attorney advised the Board that legal issues existed con- 117.3 cerning the landfill issue. He reported that C & L (after learning of contract negotiations with Sunray) had raised the issue of competitive bidding and the City's obligation to comply with competitive bid require- ments. The City Attorney reported that in past years the contract had been negotiated with C & L without the question of competitive bidding being raised. He said it was possible for the Board to waive bidding requirements by ordinance if they deemed an exceptional situation existed that would not make competitive bidding feasible.. In determining whether an exceptional situation existed, he said_ the Board should consider (1) the fact that the_C & L state permit expires in April; (2) the C & L proposal was unacceptable; (3) the state permit for the Sunray operations has no expiration date; and, (4) the fact that a lawsuit against Sunray is currently pending in which neighboring landowners contend that the Sunray operations are a nuisance. Director Hughes raised the question that the City might have to 117.4 bear the expense of additional engineering should C & L seek renewal of their state permit. Mr. Gordon Cummings, representing C & L, stated that additional engineering would not be neededfor an extension of the permit since current engineering plans would be sufficient for the next three months. Attorneys Lewis Jones and Hugh Kincaid were both present in the 117.5 audience to represent plaintiffs of the lawsuit against Sunray and urged the Board to delay execution of a contract with Sunray until they had fully considered the effect the landfill had upon the environment of the area in which it is located. They cited a recent studyy conducted by the University of Arkansas which concluded that many water wells and streams were seriously affect by pollution in the area. The City Manager contended that the study had not concluded that the Sunray landfill was necessarily responsible for polluting the area. Discussion completed, Director Noland moved that competitive bids 117.6 be invited for a sanitary landfill contract for the period of April 15, 1976 117 to April 15, 1977; that those bidding have a satisfactory state permit for that period; and that the contract provide for an option to renew for the base bid as well as provision of an excalator clause based upon the consumer price index. The motion was seconded by Director Purdy and the recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. AWARD OF BID - Bid 308 / Electronic Scoreboard 118.1 Purchasing Officer Sturman Mackey recommended award of Bid 308 for one electronic scoreboard be awarded to Pearce's Collegiate Store of Fayetteville in the amount of $1,127.85. Funds for the purchase are appropriated within the 1975 Community Development program. 118.2 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that the bid be awarded as recommended. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. OTHER BUSINESS REPORT OF LITIGATION - Sign Ordinance 118.3 The City Attorney advised the Board that a recent Circuit Court ruling,rendered in conjunction with litigation involving the City's sign ordinance, had upheld restrictions on size, height, setback, and fluctuating signs as being constitutional as applied to any new signs that might be erected. However, he reported, the court ruled that, as applied to the plaintiff's existing signs, the requirement that they be made to conform to setback, size, height after the seven-year amortization period and that fluctuating signs be removed immmediately was unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs. 118.4 He said he would provide the Board with copies of the ruling so that they might consider whether to appeal a portion of the decision. He felt the Board should be aware that the decision might hinder future enforcement of the City's sign ordinance. BICENTENNIAL SYMBOLS - Downtown Fayetteville 118.5 The City Manager reported that Downtown Fayetteville Unlimited had requested permission to paint temporary Bicentennial symbols on streets at two locations. The Board indicated to Mr. Grimes that the painting would be permissable if done properly. SANITARY DIGESTOR UNITS 118.6 The City Manager requested permission to purchase two sanitary di- gestor units at $1,350 each to be placed on private property. He said one unit would be for the Water and Sewer Department and another for the Community Development program. Both units would be monitored and sampled, he said. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Noland, moved that the digestors be purchased. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Orton, Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes. "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. 118 1 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business for the Board's consideration, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. • APPROVED: La Marion R. Ort post) ayor nth 1 ATTEST: Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk 19 119.1