Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-02-15 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Board of Directors of the session on February 15, 1977, Administration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald Grimes; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook, and Directors Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Al Hughes, David Malone, Philip Colwell, and Marion Orton. FEBRUARY 15, 1977 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a regular at 7:30 p.m., in the Directors Room of the City tcs cq ABSENT: Director Paul Noland OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and the Community Development Committee, m and representatives of the news media. CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Mayor Ernest Lancaster. In consideration of approval of the minutes of the February 1, 1977 meeting, Director Orton re- quested the word "parcel" appearing in paragraph 329.4, second sentence, be changed to "possible" and that the record of the vote appearing in paragraph 331.1 be amended to correctly reflect the "nay" vote of Director Hughes. The City Attorney requested that paragraph 327.4 be amended to read: "The City Attorney advised that in the absence of a specified time, the courts have required evidence of intention to abandon and other jurisdictions had up- held the 60 -day discontinuance time limitation." There being no further amendment necessary, the minutes were approved as amended. 335 335.1 335.2 335.3 PUBLIC HEARING - Hotel, Motel, Restaurant One Percent Gross Receipts Tax The public hearing was scheduled to hear citizens regarding a proposed one 335.4 percent tax levy upon gross receipts of hotels, motels, and restaurants to generate revenue with which to finance a proposed Continuing Education Center in the down- town area. The Mayor declared the hearing open and invited those in favor and in opposition to the.tax levy to voice their opinion. Mr. Kirk McClelland, operator of the Farmer's Daughter Restaurant, felt the tax would enable construction of facilities which were badly needed. He said he had discussed the issue with many Fayetteville restaurant owners and that they felt the tax would do more good than harm since it would be used to provide facilities which would attract a fair share of the tourism industry to Fayetteville. He believed the revenues generated by the levy would be a "boon" to the city and would assist in abating the lack of cultural facilities in the city. Mr. Ben Winborn, representing the Fayetteville school district, expressed 335.6. the interest and support of the district for the tax levy. He believed the pro- posed tax, and subsequent construction of the Continuing Education Center, would aid in the development of Fayetteville and would enable an increased tax base which would result in increased financial support of the Fayetteville schools. 335.5 335 rt 336.1 Mr. Gene Burson, owner of Red Bird Cafe, expressed mixed emotion concerning the issue. Although he favored the development and revitalization of the down- town district, he questioned the method proposed to fund the project and was not sure the tax should be restricted to hotels, motels, and restaurants. The City Attorney advised Mr. Burson that state law limited the taxing abilities of muni- cipalities and that state law prescribed that this particular tax be levied on gross receipts of hotels, motels, and restaurants. McCord further informed that the tax would be collected in the same manner as the state sales tax under regu- lations and guidelines promulgated by the State Commissioner of Revenues with reporting forms to be prepared and supplied by the City. 336.2 Mrs. Edith Olivera, operator of Edee's Restaurant, believed the downtown area should be revived but that the establishments should not have to bear the tax burden. Mrs. Linda Welch, President of the Alliance of Visual Artists, spoke in support of the proposed project and tax and emphasized that the center could provide facilities for advancement and development of cultural activities which would attract tourists to Fayetteville. She believed the use of any surplus tax revenuefor providing performance and exhibit space would generate additional revenue for the establishments being taxed. 336.3 Mrs. Margaret Whillock, representing the Northwest Arkansas Symphony Guild, also emphasized that an arts facilitiy would generate revenue and would be an asset to the revitalization of the downtown area. She cited lack of adequate facilities to accommodate concerts and encouraged providing the facilities which could be financed with surplus tax revenues. 336.4 Mr. Rick Beckendorf, owner of The Last Great American Hot Dog Stand, spoke in opposition to the proposed tax levy and resented the fact that the tax was limited to hotels, restaurants, and motels because of what he considered a legal loophole. Stating that many people move to Fayetteville to enjoy its environ- ment, he questioned the wisdom of promoting tourism which would contribute to the growth of the city and possible adverse effect upon the environment. 336.5 Mr. Gene Sauls, University professor and business proprietor, opposed the proposed tax and education center for "philosophical, environmental, and economic reasons." He opposed use of tax money to take care of businesses which are not able to handle their own affairs and are not able to survive in a competitive world. Preferring that Fayetteville remain in its present state and not grow to any great size, he could see no reason to encourage an influx of additional people and commerce which would further strain the supply of resources and overcrowd exist- ing facilities. Sauls felt there was a total disregard for other areas of the city that are more viable and active than the downtown business sector. He be- lieved the University would sustain a substantial financial loss as a tenant of the proposed center and questioned where the University would obtain the funds necessary to pay utility and maintenance costs. Estimating that the structure could cost as much as $2 million, he did not believe the rental payments would be sufficient to prevent further financial strain upon the city. Although the project was anticipated to increase property values in the downtown area, Sauls noted that the center itself and the property on which it would be located would be exempt from taxes, thereby reducing the property tax base. He also cited lack of adequate parking and transportation facilities and the expense of providing the facilities to accommodate additional traffic. Rather than benefitting the ordinary citizen of Fayetteville, he contended the center would serve to further benefit the wealthy business interests. 336.6 Mr. Herb Purvis, owner of Sambo's Restaurant, objected to the fact that he had not received more timely notice of the proposed tax. He indicated that he believed the City should encourage more activity in the Industrial Park which would provide higher based incomes rather than promoting the proposed project which he felt would only create minimum wage jobs. 336 1 337 Mr. Ben Winborn again spoke and expressed his distress that the majority of 337.1 those speaking in opposition to the tax were short-term residents of Fayetteville as a contrast to the longer-term residents who supported the tax and had fought to retain the University in Fayetteville. He noted that improved services could not be provided without an increased tax base. Winborn contended that the educa- tion center would not be detrimental to any Fayetteville citizen but would be a vital force throughout the community. Mr. John Burroughs, manager of Restaurant on the Corner, felt that some of. 337.2 the arguments opposing the -tax were well taken but that those in favor of the the proposal sounded "very slick". Mr. Robert Albertson, teacher, stated he did not agree with the proposed location for the center and noted that most of those in support of the tax were business owners that would probably realize a gainas'a-r_esul:rof-the tax. Hefeltquality of life in Fayetteville would Sti,1 deteriorate as a result of the center and increased tourism. He also felt that a hasty decision should be avoided and a second, larger forum held to provide more people an opportunity to voice an opinion. Ms. Ginger Parker, student and housewife, supported a need for the revitali- 337.3 CZ zation of the downtown district but was concerned about the chosen location for the structure. She questioned whether older buildings should be razed to provide space for the new building and believed that existing vacant downtown property could be used. Mr. Fred Vorsanger, Vice President of the University of Arkansas, stated 337.4 that the University is most interested in renting a continuing education center and that the entire issue was a matter of economics for the University. He said there had been no plans to locate such a center on the campus and that the institution could not afford to construct such a facility. He told the audience that the method of funding the Continuing Education program would not change and that a per -person conference charge would help cover expenses of utilities and maintenance of the structure. Vorsanger reminded the audience that, 104 years ago, a similar discussion was held across the state which con- cluded when Fayetteville borrowed funds to provide land on which to locate the University of Arkansas. In response to allegations that a feasibility study concerning the center contained possible erroneous figures, Vorsanger admitted that the University officials did not agree with some of thefigures and that projected sales figures were conservative. He said the center would operate on a self-supporting basis and that he did not believe substantial losses would occur. Mr. Jerry Rephan contradicted part of Vorsanger's statement by saying that 337.5 the same professor Vorsanger said had termed projected sales figures too conser- vative had related to him (Rephan) that the figures were optimistic. He also said that, in conversations with Continuing Education personnel, a conference charge which would be sufficient to cover costs would -also be high enough to discourage attendance. He did not think the tax should be approved to finance construction of a continuing education center since he felt the tax should be applied to provide a cultural center. Since a downtown location for the proposed center would increase traffic congestion in the downtown area, he believed the center, if built, should be placed near the 71 Bypass so that increased traffic could be accommodated. Rephan encouraged appointment of a committee to meet jointly with citizens to determine how the downtown area should develop. Mr. David Knoll, local architect, expressed opposition to construction of 337.6 a center in accordance with preliminary drawings which had recently appeared in newspapers. He would, however, support construction of a center which would result in a positive effect on the total environment. There being no further comments, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. 337.7 337 51 5 at ORDINANCE INCREASING CABLE TELEVISION RATES AND FRANCHISE PAYMENT 338.1 The proposed ordinance would allow cable television rate increases and would provide for a franchise fee increase to four percent annually if and when the t Federal Communications Commission changes its rules and regu- lations to so permit. 338.2 Mr. Lynn Wade, representing Warner Cable, briefly explained the provisions of the ordinance and stated that the service rates represented a substantial compromise on the part of his client. He noted that the rates would be effective for a ten-month budget period. In regard to providing news coverage from Little Rock, Wade reported that Mr. Lee Reeves, Director of the Arkansas Edu- cational Television, had been pursuing two possibilities. One possibility is that local legislative representatives be encouraged to introduce a bill which would request funds to finance newscasts from Little Rock via the Educational Television network. The second possibility might be that a Little Rock television station could be contracted to tape their newscasts for distri- bution on the educational stations. 338.3 Director Malone noted that Warner Cable had requested a more substantial increase in their original request but that the original request was not a part of the ordinance being considered. The City Attorney then read the ordinance the first time. Director Malone, seconded by Hughes, moved rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Abstain: Lancaster Absent: Noland Mayor Lancaster cited his employment with another local utility company as his reason for abstention. The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. 338.4 Director Malone, seconded by Hughes, moved rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 338.5 Mr. Robert Ellis, 1441 Meadowcliff, questioned whether the Board had con- sidered two conflicting studies concerning rates of return for the cable system and whether the cable system should be allowed to earn a higher rate of return than other public utilities. He understood that the new rate would allow a 20 percent return while public utilities earned approximately 12 percent. 338.6 Mr. Wade responded by saying that the most recent study recommended a new rate increase of $1.75 in January, 1977, but that the rate increase being considered was half that amount. He stated that he believed the Board had adequate- ly studied all information made available. He re-emphasized that the rate increase reflected in the proposed ordinance was a considerable compromise from previous requests. Director Malone also assured Ellis that the Board had considered both studies as well as accounting information and that the new rates would allow an approximate 13 percent rate of return for a period of ten months. Mr. Wade assured the Board that, unless unforeseen events occur, Warner Cable would not appear before the Board on the rate issue for at least twelve months. 338.7 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. 338 1 CV Director Colwell, adopted. The recorded Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Nays: None Absent: Noland The Mayor declared seconded by Hughes, vote was: Lancaster, Colwell, the motion passed. moved that the emergency clause be Orton, Todd ORDINANCE NO. 2307 APPEARS ON PAGE 208 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V Director Malone, seconded by Orton, moved that the City Board request Mr. Lee Reeves, Arkansas Educational Television director, to continue his efforts to obtain newscasts originating from Little Rock for the Fayetteville area. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland 339 339.1 339.2 m APPROVAL OF 1977 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM The 1977 Community Development Block Grant Program and recommended alloca- 339.3 tions were before the Board for final approval. Director Malone reported that the Water and Sewer Committee had met on 339.4 February 10 to discuss an inflow -infiltration study of the City's sewerage system and the fact that local funds were necessary to match an EPA grant to finance the study. He informed the Board that the consulting engineer had advised that $187,500 of local money was needed to match the grant and that the committee recommended that $75,000 be obtained from the 1977 Community Development program with the remainder to come from Water and Sewer reserve funds. Community Development Committee Chairman Lynn Wade suggested that the 339.5 Senior Center line item be programmed over a longer period of time and that it be decreased by $75,000 for 1977 to provide funds for the study. Director Todd felt the Board had reached a point of trying to decide where 339.6 CD funds will have the greatest impact and that the Board should try to improve streets that would serve larger numbers of people. He contended that some of the street projects programmed are low useage streets and would not be as beneficial to most people as the improvement of Storer Street. Therefore, he urged the Board to amend the 1977 CD program with the addition of Storer Street improve- ments. Director Orton disagreed with Todd and noted that Storer Street would re- quire more money than two streets (Farmer and Sligo) which were in an area that had not had the benefit of street work in recent years. She did request that the 1978 CD program include Storer Street as a top -priority project. Todd did not think the project should be delayed when the Board realized the 339.7 need for improvement now. He cited congestion of the Storer Street vicinity and believed a unique opportunity existed to provide facilities to ease the congestion and to accommodate alternative means of travel. During further discussion, the CD Administrator informed the Board that an 339.8 additional $25,800 would be needed for administration of the program. Director Orton moved that the 1977 CD program be amended to reflect a total of $49,200 for the Senior Center line item; $91,700 for administration; and $75,000 for the inflow -infiltration study. Director Hughes, seconded by Todd, moved the motion be amended to reflect an allocation of $49,200 for the improvement of Storer Street. Director Orton opposed the suggestion since the allocation would deplete the Senior Center allocation. She reminded the Board that a study had been conducted regarding the Senior Center. Hughes informed the Board that 339 the Board Street Committee planned to ask the Board and CD Committee to con- sider, for the 1978 CD program, street projects which would provide through streets. 340.1 The Mayor asked if the motion to amend Orton's motion should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Todd Nays: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton Absent: Noland The motion was declared failed. 340.2 The Mayor then asked if the motion to amend the 1977 CD program should pass. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton Nays: Hughes, Todd Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed. 340.3 Director Todd then moved that Storer Street be substituted for East Farmers Street and that the funds be stretched as far as possible. The motion was seconded by Malone. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Todd Nays: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton Absent: Noland The motion was declared failed. 340.4 Director Orton, seconded by Colwell, moved the 1977 CD program be approved as amended. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton Nays: Hughes, Todd Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM 340.5 The City Attorney read a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a con- tract with Economic Opportunity Agency to assist in the weatherization program for the City and that $3,000 be allocated from CD account number 605-7056 for this purpose. Director Orton moved adoption of the resolution and Director Todd seconded. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton , Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed. RESOLUTION NO. 13-77 APPEARS ON PAGE 126 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V 340.6 Director Todd moved that, if the City is unable to obtain street or sidewalk rights-of-way for CD projects from property owners by mutually satisfactory agree- ment, that project should be reviewed immediately by the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville before further action by the City staff. The City Attorney advised that such a policy might violate HUD regulations and could possibly be con- strued as coersion,_He advised against such a policy until he had had opportunity to investigate possible ramifications. ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY - R76-42 / Peter G. and Louise Estes 340.7 The ordinance, left on first reading at the February 1, 1977 meeting, would rezone a five acre tract west of Highway 265, 300 feet south of Highway 45 East, from R-1 Low Density Residential to C-1 Neighborhood Commercial. 340 1 341 The City Attorney informed the Board that the petitioners had executed a Bill 341.1 of Assurance which assured that the land would not be developed until sewer facilities had been installed. He then read the ordinance the second time after which Director Malone, seconded by Hughes, moved rules be suspended and the ordi- nance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The recorded vote was: 341.2 Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None 14) Absent: Noland Ski The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. rt ORDINANCE NO. 2308 APPEARS ON PAGE 211 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V CY} ORDINANCE AMENDING SIGN ORDINANCE The ordinance would amend the sign ordinance to provide that signs erected on a mansard roof may project more than 18 inches from the roof surface to per- mit the sign to remain perpendicular to the ground. The ordinance was read the first time by the City Attorney. Director Orton moved the ordinance be amended to read: "...may project more than 18 inches so long as the sign is perpendicular to the ground and the lower edge is against the mansard roof surface." The motion died for lack of second. Considerable discussion ensued regarding proper wording of an amendment which would alleviate possibilities of signs projecting further than 18 inches from the lower edge of a mansard roof. Director Hughes moved that Section 1 be amended to read: "...so long as the sign is perpendicular to the ground and the base of the sign does not extend beyond the forward edge of the mansard." The motion died for lack of second. Director Orton, seconded by Todd, then moved the section be amended to read: "...provided, the upper edge of a wall sign mounted on a mansard roof may project more than 18 inchesso long as the sign is perpendicular to the ground." The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed. Director Hughes, seconded by Colwell, moved rules be suspended and the ordi- nance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the second time. Director Colwell, seconded by Hughes, moved rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. 341 341.3 341.4 341.5 341.6 341.7 342.1 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The Mayor declared the ordinance as amended passed. ORDINANCE NO. 2309 APPEARS ON PAGE 212 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY ELECTRICAL CODE 342.2 The City Electrical Examining Board had recommended amendments to the City's electrical code which would provide for safer electrical standards. Members of the Examining Board, chaired by Mr. Tom Tucker, were present to answer questions of the Board. 342.3 Director Hughes questioned the fate of a committee which had been appointed several years ago to determine why homes in Fayetteville could not be built in the $25-30 thousand range The City Manager informed that the committee had met and had concluded that Fayetteville's building codes were similar to those of other cities with a major difference being that the various codes were en- forced differently. 342.4 The City Attorney read the ordinance the first time followed by considerable discussion concerning the proposed amendments. Director Hughes stated his ob- jections to the recommendation that closet lights be controlled by wall switches and that electrical panels not be installed in clothes closets. Mr. Tom Tucker advised that closet lights controlled by some types of pull -chain switches presented a safety hazard since, under certain conditions, the string connected to the switch was capable of igniting. He stated that less hazardous pull -chains were available but that their cost was not comparable to wall switches. 342.5 Hughes contended that, to place an electrical panel in a location other than a clothes closet could require additional electrical work which could in- crease the cost of construction by as much as $500. Tucker advised that the National Electrical Code specified that panels would not be located in the vicinity of easily ignited or combustible materials. He called the Board's atten- tion to a written statement of the Fire Chief which suggested that new construction not permit location of panels in clothes closets or other hidden areas which might prevent firemen from locating the panel in case of fire. Hughes believed that closet lights should not be required to be controlled by wall switches and that electrical panels be permitted in closets so long as an outside disconnect is provided. Hughes requested that Mr. Tucker provide statistics regarding fires caused from ignition of pull -chain switches. Tucker advised that the suggested changes were meant to affect new construction and projects which require sub- stantial electrical work. 342.6 Director Malone, seconded by Orton, moved that the ordinance be amended to provide that lights in bathrooms, kitchens, closets, open porches, and utility rooms shall be controlled by switches approved by the National Electrical Code. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed. 342 1 4 3 Director Orton, seconded by Colwell, moved suspension of rules to place 343.1 the ordinance on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Malone, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: Hughes Abstain: Lancaster Absent: Noland The motion was declared failed for lack of 2/3 majority. The ordinance remained on first reading. Director Todd stated he saw two issues of the proposed amendments in that, 343.2 while providing safer electrical standards, new construction would experience in- creased costs. He felt the city, while obligated to provide for the public's safety, was also obligated to consider the cost factor in relation to the necessity for the safety precautions. Mayor Lancaster believed, from a legal gig standpoint, it was important to comply with provisions of the National Electrical Code but that he would question the necessity for exceeding requirements of the Code. OTHER BUSINESS RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EPA GRANT - Infiltration Study The City Manager reported that the Board Water and Sewer Committee had 343.3 recommended he be authorized to apply for additional EPA funds for the detailed sewer system analysis study. David Malone, seconded by Colwell, moved to accept the recommendation. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The motion was declared passed. The City Attorney read a resolution to authorize the City Manager to apply 343.4 for additional EPA funds for the STEP I Sewerage Study. Director Orton, seconded by Colwell, moved the resolution be adopted. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Hughes, Malone, Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd Nays: None Absent: Noland The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION N0. 14-77 APPEARS ON PAGE 127 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V MISCELLANEOUS The Mayor instructed the Finance Committee to consider proposals for 343.5 architectural services in conjunction with the proposed Community Education Center construction and subsequentselection of the project architect. The Board approved the City Manager's recommmendation to designate the 343.6 Pollution Control Committee as the Pollution Control and Energy Commission with the expansion of their duties to include energy-related matters. Director Hughes requested that the March 15 agenda include a review of all 343.7 street construction specifications. 343 ) 344.1 The City Manager reported that, although the business was a non -conforming use for the current zoning classification, a change of ownership of the Duncan Liquor Store (East Huntsville Avenue) would not entitle the City to revoke their city permits. ADJOURNMENT 344.2 There being no further business for the Board's consideration, and upon approval of the Board, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: DARLENE BROOK, City Clerk' APPROVED: &,..„"'1`( "''Set ERNEST E. LANCASTER, Mayor 344