Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1976-06-01 Minutes175 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS June 1, 1976 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a regular session on June 1, 1976 at 7:30 p.m., in the Director's Room of the City Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald Grimes; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook; and Directors Marion Orton, Ernest Lancaster Paul Noland, Al Hughes, Russell Purdy, and Morris Collier (absent at roll call) ABSENT: None OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Mayor Marion Orton. Following a brief moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor asked if there be any amendments to the minutes of the May 18, 1976 minutes. The City Attorney requested an amendment to paragraph 169.6 to cause it to read: "...contract zoning has been declared illegal in other juris- dictions..." There being no further amendments, the Mayor declared the minutes approved as amended. REZONING REHEARING - R75-32/Dean Street & Porter Road/Gordon Houston, petitioner The petitioner had requested a rehearing on rezoning petition R75-32 to rezone a 2.42 acre tract of land located at the intersection of Porter Road and Deane Street. The requested change being from R-1 Low Density Residen- tial to R-2 Medium Density Residential. The Board had considered, and sub- sequently denied, the petition on January 20, 1976. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, moved the rehearing be granted. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None Absent: Collier The motion was declared passed. The Mayor asked for comments from the petitioner who was represented by Attorney David Horne. Mr. Horne stated that, since the Board's denial of the previsous re- quest, Mr. Houston had tried to redesign the proposed use of the property to satisfy objections which were presented at the January 20 meeting. To alleviate concern that an apartment complex would be constructed on the property, Mr. Horne said his client was proposing to execute a bill of assurance that the property would be developed into duplexes and in accordance with specific plans. In regard to claims by neighborhood resi- dents that adequate water pressure was lacking, Mr. Horne explained that at the time of a water pressure test, the results of which had been referred 175 175.1 175.2 175.3 175.4 175.5 175.6 to at the January 20 meeting, a valve had been turned off resulting in an abnormally low reading. He stated he had received a letter from the Fire Chief stating that the area had ample fire protection for single story structures. 176.1 In order to alleviate as much traffic congestion as possible, Mr. Horne stated that his client had agreed to redesign access to the property so that traffic would be routed from Deane Street and not Porter Road; and, that Mr. Houston had agreed to dedicate a portion of the property at the intersection of Deane Street and Porter Road for improvements to be made as the City deemed necessary. Mr. Horne said the maximum number of family units would be 26 and that a portion of the property would be reserved as a buffer to residential areas to the south. 176.2 Comments in oppostition to the rezoning included those of Mr. George Blackwell, Mr. Herman Johnson, and Mr. Alan Bridges. Mssrs. Blackwell and Johnson felt the City should be concerned with improving the City's present sewerage system rather than further burdening the system with the addition of another development. Mr. Bridges agreed that the bill of assurance would be a significant response to their concern of the type of develop- ment to occur on the parcel, but that the provision for access from Deane Street would not greatly alleviate additional traffic on Porter Road. He restated previous objections to the development based upon the increased burden that would be placed upon the neighborhood elementery school. He said those opposing the rezoning still believed approval of the request would constitute spot zoning since the parcel would be an island of R-2 surrounded by lesser uses. He cited that the land use plan indicated that future use of the property would be for uses under an R-1 zoning classification. He urged the Board to correct other problems of the area before approving the rezoning. 176.3 Director Collier, in regard to charges of inadequate water pressure in the area of Houston's property, said the lack of proper water pressure was not unique to that neighborhood. 176.4 In answer to question from the Mayor, Mr. Houston said he would not object to the formation of a street improvement district for Porter Road but that he did not want to be expected to share the full burden for the im- provement district. Following slight discussion, the City Attorney read an ordinance to rezone the property as requested. 176.5 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved rules be suspended and the oridnance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 176.6 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved rules be suspended and the ordiance read the third and final time. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 176.7 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2231 APPEARS ON PAGE 111 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 176 In clarifying his affirmative vote, Director Collier referred to a previous rezoning request for properties near the bypass which had recently been denied by the Board and which he had voted favorably. In fairness to the petitioner, and in view of the fact that the Board's position regarding multi -family dwellings being located near the bypass had apparently altered somewhat, he said he had contacted the petitioner and encouraged him to request reconsideration. "I believe multi -family dwellings should be further out of more densely populated areas of town and towards the west along the bypass. I voted in favor of the rezoning last meeting and I am voting in favor tonight. And if (the petitioner) comes in next week, I would be in favor of that also," Collier commented. REZONING APPEAL: R76-16/Government Avenue & Dunn Street/W. H. Bartholomew, petitioner The petitioner requested rezoning a 15 acre tract located east of Government Avenue and Dunn Street from R-2 Medium Density Residential, I-1 Heavy Commercial, and C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial to I-2 General Industrial. The parcel currently accommodates operations of the Washington County Sale Barn. Representing the petitioner was Mr. Bill Thurman who stated that the petition was the same as one considered in 1972 except that the appeal was only for that part of the property on which the sale barn was located and that the rezoning request was being made to allow improvements to be made to the 'barn to correct objectionable situations which exist. Mr. Thurman stated that possibilities existed for the barn to extend operations to more than one day per week, thereby making the operations more disagreeable if improvements were not made. He said the owners proposed to build new stock pens with concrete floors and to raise the roof of the building to provide better ventilation. Director Noland stated that the Board was facing a dilemma in that it had to consider the area property owners' objections and the intent of the petitioner to correct those things which are objectionable. Mr. Barker Adair, agricultural finance advisor for a local financial institution, stated he had numerous letters from agricultural people who support the rezoning. He said the sale barn was a vital function of the city and its economy and encouraged the Board to favorably consider the petitioner's request. Mr. Marshall Carlisle, representing opponents to the rezoning, made formal objection to the appeal contending that the appeal was vague, not of legal basis, and that it was captioned in terms that could not be under- stood by the opposition nor the Board. "I would like to point out that if the particular question of the rezoning as to the building were presented to the Planning Commission, opponents would have different means of objec- tion and different facts considered by the Planning Commission," Carlisle stated. He stated that the Board was charged with the responsibility of not only operating the City on a day-to-day basis but with the responsibility of planning its future. Carlisle quoted long-time planning commission member Ernest Jacks as saying: "This is one of those situations the City must face. When the rezoning plan of the City was developed it was with the anticipation at some point the sale barn would cease to exist in this location..." Mr. Carlisle believed the sale barn could not remain at its present location and that it must be put into an industrial area on the outskirts of the city away from the residential sections. 177 178.1 Others speaking in opposition to the rezoning were Mr. Bob Summers, 1310 South West; John Metzler, superintendent of the National Cemetery; and Herman Johnson, 601 Government Avenue. All cited offensive odors eminating from the sale barn, deterioration of neighborhood streets, and the fact that the rezoning would encourage the continuance of the opera- tions at the location in future years. Mr. Metzler stated oppositions in behalf of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and felt the continued or ex- panded operations of the sale barn would further detract from the opera- tions of the National Cemetery. He did not believe the construction of concrete floor pens would improve the situation since manure from the pens is stored a week at a time until it is disposed. Mr. Blackwell stated he had a copy of a letter written by the manager of Ozarks Electric which expressed favor of the rezoning. Citing Director Lancaster's employment by that company, Blackwell requested that Lancaster abstain from voting. 178.2 Director Purdy, moved that the appeal be denied. Director Todd, who believed the operations of the sale barn to be a viable industry but that other locations in Fayetteville were available, seconded the motion The Mayor agreed that the barn should relocate but that it should remain in Fayetteville. 178.3 The Mayor asked if the motion to deny the appeal should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None Abstain: Lancaster The motion was declared passed and the appeal denied. SIGN APPEAL - 405 North College/D-Sign Inc., petitioners 178.4 The petitioner requested an interpretation of the sign ordinance to allow a wall sign to extend above the wall of the IGA supermarket located at 405 North College. Mr. Jack Burge spoke in behalf of the petitioner and explained that a misunderstanding between the Inspection Department and the project engineer had necessitated the appeal. Mr. Burge requested a variance be granted to allow a sign to be centered on a new Mansord canopy even though the sign would extend above the actual wall line. 178.5 Mr. Freeman Wood of the Inspection Department explained that the ordi- nance provided that a wall sign which extended above the wall line would be considered a roof sign. He said the contractor misunderstood where the sign should be placed. 178.6 Director Hughes moved the variance be granted. The motion was seconded by Director Lancaster who stated he had never clearly understood the defini- tion of a roof sign and that he did not believe this particular sign was re- lated to the roof of the building. 178.7 In further discussion, the Board discussed the need forfurther clari- fication of the sign ordinance. The Mayor asked if the motion to grant the variance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the variance granted. 178 9. SIGN APPEAL - 1617 North College/Briar Patch Boutique/Guyton and Lafferty, petitioners Petitioners Jane Guyton and Colleen Lafferty requested a variance from 179.1 the sign ordinance to permit more than one wall sign to be located at 1617 North College. Mr. Rick Guyton, speaking in behalf of the petition, stated that the 179.2 business was a victim of the building's construction in that the building does not front North College. The only portion of the building fronting the street is the east end where the petitioners proposed to place a wall sign adjacent to an existing wall sign. A wall sign placed on the north side of the building was not clearly visible to passing motorists, Guyton u✓ claimed. Gd Director Todd felt the problem involved a tenant/Landlord relationship 179.3 d' and believed the tenants should try to negotiate with the landlord for the placement of only one sign on the wall. He said future tenants of the 010 __ building would be justified in requesting the same type of variance if this request were granted. Todd told Mr. Guyton that the Board had the responsi- bility to follow the expressed will of the citizens of Fayetteville to have a sign ordinance and sign regulations. Following discussion, Director Todd, seconded by Director Noland, moved 179.4 to deny the variance,. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Orton "Nays": Purdy, Collier, Hughes The motion was declared passed and the variance denied. SIGN APPEAL - 324 North College/Sherwood and Company/Ron Sherwood, petitioner The petitioner requested a variance from the sign ordinance to the set- 179.5 back requirements of the sign ordinance to allow the placement of a sign 20 feet from street right-of-way rather than the required 40 feet. Mr. Sherwood stated that the 40 foot setback would hamper visi- 179.6 bility of the sign. He noted that he planned to have rental space avail- able in the building in the future and that the marquee potion of the sign would serve for tenant advertising. In respect to the older sections of the city, Mr. Sherwood believed the 40 foot setback requirement was dis- agreeable and worked a hardship on the businesses and that the sign ordi- nance needed revision to relieve the hardship. Director Noland moved that the variance be granted. In further dis- 179.7 cussion, Mr. Sherwood stated that he would not advertise on the marquee portion of the sign but would reserve it for tenant use. At Director Todd's suggestion, Director Noland amended his motion by moving the variance be granted upon the condition that the sign not exceed 30 square feet. The motion was seconded by Director Todd and the Mayor asked if the motion should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the variance granted. The Mayor appointed Director Lancaster as new chairman of a sign ordi- 179.8 nance study committee to be composed of Director Todd and herself. Mr. Sherwood expressed a desire to serve on the committee to provide input from the business community. 179 APPOINTMENTS TO CITY BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS 180.1 Board of Adjustment: Director Todd, seconded by Chester D. House be appointed to the Board of Adj pired term of Suzanne Lighton expiring January 1, call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. Director Hughes, moved that ustment to fill the unex- 1981. The recorded roll Hughes, Orton 180.2 Community Development Committee: Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved that Peggy Adair, Annie Virginia Ricks, Frank Sharp, L. M. McGoodwin, and Paul D. Lewis be appointed to serve on the Community Develop- ment Committee for terms of three years to expire July 1, 1979; and that Robert L. Savage be appointed to fill the unexpired term of Monroe Harrison to expire July 1, 1978. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. 180.3 Housing Assistance Plan Committee: Director Collier, seconded by Director Purdy, moved that Stanley R. Potts, James A. Vizzier, and Claude Jones be appointed to the Housing Assistance Plan Committee for terms to expire July 1, 1979. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL CENSUS 180.4 The City Attorney read a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with the Bureau of the Census for a special census to be conducted during the fall of 1976. Director Collier, seconded by Director Todd, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The resolution was declared adopted. RESOLUTION NO. 22-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 53 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE PRESCRIBING OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL FLIGHT 180.5 Left on third reading at the May 4, 1976 meeting, the ordinance would prescribe the offense of unlawful flight from a law enforcement officer. 180.6 Following explanation by the City Attorney of revisions made to the ordinance, Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved that the ordinance be amended as recommended by the City Attorney, and, that Section B of the ordinance be amended to correct grammatical errors. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. 180 181 The Mayor then asked if the ordinance as amended should pass. The 181.1 recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2232 APPEARS ON PAGE 112 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DANCE HALL OPERATION HOURS Mssrs. Don Thronesberry and Cliff Mills were present to request that the operating hours of dance halls in the City be extended an extra hour ft° during the daylight savings time. Mr. Thronesberry stated that many GQ customers do not come to the establishments until after sundown, and, since ordinance requires that dance halls close at midnight, there is little time for the customers to enjoy entertainment. He contended that private on clubs benefitted from the short hours of operations prescribed for dance halls, particularly during the daylight savings time periods. The City Attorney advised the Board that, in order to extend the hours of operation for dance halls, the City's retail beer ordinance would have to be amended and that the ordinance applies to retail liquor stores as well as dance halls. The City Manager reported that the police chief had expressed opposition to the proposed change since retail beer establishments would also be allowed to remain open until 1 a.m. The Board expressed a concensus that any changes in hours of operation should apply to all es- tablishments selling beer at retail. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Collier, moved that the dance halls be allowed to remain open until 1 a.m. during daylight savings time. Director Lancaster pointed out that the Board could not pass a ruling for two businesses, and, if the Board wished to amend the retail liquor ordinance, it should not do so without hearing comments from the public. Director Hughes amended his motion to provide that all retail beer establishments be allowed to remain open until 1 a.m. during daylight savings time. Collier's second to the original motion stood. The Mayor asked if the motion should pass. Votes cast on the motion were retracted by Board members to consider a new motion by Director Hughes that the City Attorney prepare a proposed ordinance to extend the hours of operation for retail beer establishments to 1 a.m. and that the proposed ordinance appear on the next agenda. The motion was seconded by Director Noland. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE PAVING OF STREETS UNDER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM The proposed ordinance would provide that the City Board may waive certain street design standards for streets to be developed under the Community Development program and would provide a cost-sharing formula for areas where property is principally tenant occupied. Included with the Board agenda was a memo from the City Attorney re- garding the ordinance and sections of the ordinance which he believed to 181.2 181.3 181.4 , 181.5 181.6 181.7 be unconstitutional. He stressed that state law requires the consent of a majority in value of property owners owning property adjoining a street proposed for improvement before any costs for the improvement may be assessed against property owners and that such assessments must be ad valorem and uniform. He then read the ordinance the first time, excluding recommended sections which he felt were unconstitutional. 182.1 Lengthy discussion ensued following the reading during which the City Attorney said the problem with the cost-sharing formula was in making it mandatory, which he advised was unconstitutional. Director Noland felt a cost-sharing formula was needed, particularly in areas where the majority of property was rental property. Director Collier, however, did not think the need for street improvements were lessened when such improvements benefitted the City even though the majority of the property was owned by landlords. 182.2 Director Todd moved that Section iii of the ordinance be amended to read: "Owners of rental (landlord) property that is located on streets to be paved with Community Development funds under this ordinance will be expected..." and that the section be amended to delete the example of the cost sharing formula. The motion was seconded by Director Noland. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Orton "Nays": Collier, Hughes The motion was declared passed. 182.3 Director Noland, seconded by Director Purdy, moved rules be suspended and the ordinance read the second time. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 182.4 Director Noland, seconded by Director Purdy, moved rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The record- ed roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 182.5 Following further discussion and comment, the Mayor asked if the ordi- nance as amended should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Todd, Noland, Orton "Nays": Collier, Lancaster, Hughes Abstain: Purdy The Mayor declared the ordinance failed. The City Attorney advised that he would redraft the ordinance for consideration at a later date. ANNEXATION : Northwest Acres Subdivision 182.6 Mr. Randall Barnes, owner of the Northwest Acres Subdivision, had re- quested an indication from the Board as to their sentiment regarding the possible annexation into the City of the Northwest Acres Subdivision and adjacent land owned by Mr. Barnes. 182.7 Director Purdy, Chairman of the Board Water and Sewer Committee, stated that he did not particularly want more territory annexed because taxes received from the new homes would not support the cost of providing services to the subdivision. More important, he said the extension of the 182 water system into the growth areas was made with the understanding and promise to the citizens of Fayetteville that the system would pay for itself. If the subdivision were annexed, Purdy reasoned, then that portion would be able to pay the lower inside city water rates thereby bypassing its responsibility for sharing in the cost of the growth area water system and placing a burden upon those remaining outside city limits. He indicat- ed that the only circumstance under which he would consider such annexations would be to adopt an ordinance stipulating that residents of future annexed territories would be required to pay outside city water rates. In regard to sewer service, Mr. Barnes stated that the only way he could be served by Fayetteville sewer would be for the subdivision to be annexed. He said he would pay all costs to bring the sewer to the sub- division and there would be no cost to the City except for disposal of the Cd sewage. ** (insert, see below) QDirector Purdy moved that the annexation be favored conditional upon 183.2 the residents of the area paying the outside city water rates. Further, that m the motion was a general one to apply to all future annexed territories. Director Todd questioned if the motion applied to just the subdivision or all of Barnes' property. Barnes replied, "I want to annex every acre I have to the City." Purdy's motion was seconded by Director Noland. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF ENGINEERING CONTRACT - Lake Fayetteville Park and Asbell Park 183 183.1 1 The City Attorney read a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City 183.4 Clerk to execute an engineering contract with McClelland consulting engineers for preparation of plans and specifications for the installation of lighting facilities at the Lake Fayetteville ball diamond and the construction of a lighted softball field at Asbell Park; and authorizing the City Manager to advertise for bids for these projects. Director Purdy, seconded by Director Hughes, moved adoption of the reso- 183.5 lution. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The resolution was declaredadopted RESOLUTION NO. 23-76 APPEARS ON PAGE '54 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE EXTENDING GROWTH AREA WATER CONNECTION DEADLINE The proposed ordinance would extend until October 1, 1976 the deadline 183.6 for Growth Area water system connections without penalty for late connec- tions, and would defer until that date any monthly dry tap fees. The City Manager recommended the ordinance be adopted. He said several 183.7 misunderstandings had occurred regarding the dry tap fees. Refunds of dry tap fees would be made to those who have paid the fee thus far, he said. Director Collier questioned the City's ability to charge the dry tap 183.8 fee since subscriber contracts did not stipulate such a charge. The City Attorney advised that the City was under no obligation to provide service **The City Manager, in response to a question from DirectorTodd, stated the City could provide municipal services to the annexation area without excessive cost or penalty to the existing City area. 183 1 and could provide service under whatever conditions the City deemed proper. He said he would review the contracts to determine whether the dry tap fee is authorized. The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time. 184.1 Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 184.2 Director Todd, seconded by Director Purdy, moved rules be further sus- pended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the motion passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. The Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2232 APPEARS ON PAGE 113 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V OTHER BUSINESS ORDINANCE WAIVING BID REQUIREMENTS - Bid No. 321 / Sanitation Truck 184.3 Purchasing Officer Sturman Mackey reported that bids for one 56,000 GVW truck chassis were scheduled to be opened May 27, 1976 but that no bids were received. He reported that the bid specifications were for a 1976 model unit but that some bidders were not yet able to bid 1976 models. Therefore, he reported that he contacted prospective bidders and requested bids for either a 1975 or 1976 model. Consequently, two bids were received. He recommended award of the bid to Arkansas White for a 1975 model chassis in the amount of $27,300. He also recommended award of the bid for one packer body with 10,000 pound front end loader to be installed on the chassis to Solid Waste Management Equipment Company in the amount of $25,582.20. Funds for the purchase of the equipment would be derived from the Sanitation Depreciation Funds, he said. 184.4 The City Attorney read an ordinance to waive formal bid requirements and award the bid as recommended. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Purdy, moved rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 184.5 Director Purdy, seconded by Director Collier, moved rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 184 185 The Mayor then asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded 185.1 roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2234 APPEARS ON PAGE 114 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF CONTRACT - Collete Sewer The City Manager informed the Board that Capwell Construction Company had defaulted on a contract awarded to it March 2, 1976 for the construc- t° tion of sewer lines in the Collete Avenue area. He reported that the con - ,4 tract had been terminated and recommended that a new contract be authorized with Jerry D. Sweetser Company, next low bidder on the project, in the amount of $28,037.40. He also recommended adoption of a resolution to OM authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the contract. He told the Board that he preferred not to seek remedy from Capwell's bonding com- pany in order to avoid lengthy and costly legal procedures. The City Attorney read the resolution authorizing •execution of the 185.3 contract. Director Hughes, seconded by Director Noland, moved adoption of the resolution. The recorded roll call vote was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The Mayor declared the resolution passed. 185.2 1 RESOLUTION NO. 24-76 APPEARS ON PAGE 55 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ANIMAL CONTROL Director Collier proposed that the section of the animal control ordi- nance providing for issuance of citiations to those pet owners who allow animals to run at large be enforced rather than the animal being captured and placed in the pound. He felt stiffer penalties could be levied to discourage owners from allowing their pets to run at large. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BUDGET Director Hughes requested that sufficient back-up material be supplied each Board member before the budget comes up for consideration. Director Todd particularly requested that budget detail be provided for exceptional budgeted amounts. ZION ROAD IMPROVEMENTS The City Manager requested Board approval of a proposal by developers of a parcel of property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Zion Road and Highway 71 North to raise the elevation of Zion Road and widen the first 600 feet east of Highway 71. Developers proposed to furnish all materials for the construction with the City to provide labor and equipment. Director Noland, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the proposal be approved. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. 185 185.4 185.5 185.6 185.7 WARNER CABLE 186.1 The City Manager recommended that the Board indicate support of an application to secure Little Rock television signals which had been filed with the FCC by Warner Cable. Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Todd, moved that the application receive favorable support of the Board. The recorded roll call vote of the Board was: "Ayes": Purdy, Collier, Lancaster, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Orton "Nays": None The motion was declared passed. ADJOURNMENT 186.2 There being no further business for the Board's consideration, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: Darlene Westbrook, City Clerk 186 APPROVED: 2%t utln .ojy Marion . Orton, Mayor