Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-15 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS March 15, 1977 The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, met in a regular session on March 15, 1977, at 7:30 p.m., in the Directors Room of the City Ad- ministration Building. PRESENT: City Manager Donald Grimes; City Attorney Jim McCord; City Clerk Darlene Westbrook, and Directors Ernest Lancaster, John Todd, Paul Noland, David Malone, Philip Colwell, Marion Orton, and Al Hughes 1.0 cg ABSENT: None ed- OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media. coo 359 CALL TO ORDER AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES Mayor Ernest Lancaster called the meeting to order, and, following a moment of respectful silence, asked if there be any amendments to the minutes of the March 1, 1977 meeting. City Attorney McCord requested that paragraph 348.1 be amended by striking the word "since" appearing in the first sentence. Director Orton requested that paragraph 351.4 be amended to read: "...of its original $450,000 investment which represented 64 percent of the total investment." She also requested that paragraph 352.6 be amended to read: "...that the petitioner and building inspector would work out a legal solution." Director Todd requested that paragraph 355.4 be amended by striking the phrase"...and that bid requirements be waived to permit construction of the Sanitation addition." In regard to paragraph 347 concerning commencement of a referendum period for the tourist tax ordinance, the City Attorney reported he had researched the issue and had concluded that the referendum period would commence from date of publication of the ordinance. In regards to discussions of an effective four percent cable franchise fee, the City Attorney reported he had consulted Warner Cable's local legal counsel who advised that the company's house counsel will petition the FCC for authorization to voluntarily pay a four percent frachise. 359.1 359.2 359.3 REZONING REQUEST - R76-41 / Wade and Peggy Bishop The petitioners had requested rezoning of a .36 acre tract located on the 359.4 east side of Highway 45 East, north of Viewpoint Drive from R-1 Low Density Resi- dential to R-2 Medium Density Residential. The City Attorney informed the Board that the Planning Commission had requested a study of the area be conducted. As a result, the petitioner had requested his rezoning request be tabled pending completion of the study and subsequent action which might be taken. Director Orton, seconded by Colwell, moved the rezoning be tabled until com- 359.5 pletion of the study and the petitioner requests consideration of the rezoning request. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed and the rezoning tabled. 359 HOUSING ASSISTANCE POLICIES AND CRITERIA - 1977 Community Development Program 360.1 Mrs. Lois Fry was present to explain proposed housing assistance policies and criteria for the 1977 Community Development program. Mrs. Fry noted changes in the criteria which had been incorporated at the suggestion of the Board of Directors. One mayor inclusion was the requirement that the property owner agree not to sell, rent, or lease the property within 60 months of the housing assistance grant or loan. Director Hughes believed a legal instrument should be executed and filed of record in the Circuit Clerk's office which would stipulate conditions of the housing assistance grant to assure that conditions or restrictions of the grant would show up on the abstract. Malone agreed but wondered whether the city could legally prevent the owner from selling or renting his property once the rehabilitation work had been done. McCord opinioned that the grantee would not have to sign the contract if he did not want to agree to the restric- tions. 360.2 Mrs. Fry expressed her preference that the contracts be written so as not to discourage people from accepting assistance because a lien would be placed on the property. She informed the Board that contractors for the housing assistance projects were required to produce proof that they had secured the city occupation license. Although the criteria do not deal with the basics of how the loan process would work, she said the criteria would enable the Housing Assistance Plan committee to proceed with negotiations with lending institutions. 360.3 The Board discussed with Mrs. Fry and Community Development Administrator Chuck Hoffman, procedures used in determining priority of a project. Director Todd preferred the criteria eliminate reference to homes in the worst structural condition so that priority consideration, other things being equal, would be given to those families representing the elderly, handicapped, those on social security, and very large families. Director Malone favored adding the stipula- tion that where there are elderly families on Social Security or with large families, priority will be given to those homes in worst structural condition. 360.4 Mrs. Fry noted that persons receiving grants will be required to sign a con- tract to be recorded in which the owner will agree not to sell or rent the property within 60 months. Director Noland seconded by Orton, moved the housing assistance policies and criteria be adopted with the recommended changes. The re- corded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed. SECTION VIII RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REPORT 360.5 Mr. Wayne Williams, Rental Assistance Program director, was present to report the progress of the Section VIII Rental Assistance Program since its transfer from the Community Development Program to the Fayetteville Housing Authority in November, 1976. 360.6 Williams believed the program to be a success and said it was serving families who are definitely in need of assistance. Since transfer of the program, Williams said the number of familites participating in the program had more than doubled to a current total of 88. Of the 88 participants, 10% are minority groups, 20% are handicapped or disabled, and 24% have an elderly head of household. He said 74% of the families participating are categorized as very low income (less than $5,000) with 26% of the families classified as low income (below $8,000). 360 .. .• 1 1. 61 Williams reported that the.88 participating families represented only 32% 361.1 of the total applicants since June, 1975. The other applicants had been unable to find eligible housing, he said, due mainly to the fact that the housing cannot exceed fair market rent rates imposed by HUD. He also noted that Fayetteville experiences a very low vacancy rate. Although the program is not responsible for assisting applicants in locating eligible housing, the program, in some cases involving elderly or handicapped applicants, has helped locate eligible housing. Under the program landlords are required to execute a one-year lease with the tenant. This requirement, Williams believed, discouraged most landlords or low rental units from participating in the program since leases for low rent housing usually favors the tenant. Apartment complexes which had received federal aid were exempt from the program, Williams said. Mobile home rental units would be eligible for the program if they meet housing code requirements and were tied sCl down. The average rental supplement is $65.00 per month, Williams reported, d' and the program had a 20 -month budget of $268,000 to subsidize a maximum of 138 units. Mr. Chad Kumpe, Fayetteville Housing Authority Director, was present and em- 361.2 OhlO phasized the lack of low -rental units. Section VIII, he said, does not stimulate new construction. As a result, he reported that HUD was considering again persuing low-income housing and that the current administration would propose a program to provide an additional 100,000 units nationwide. Kumpe said he had contacted Representative John Paul Hammerschmidt who had assured Kumpe that he would assist Fayetteville in obtaining additional convential low-income housing provided he received the city's expressed wishes for the facilities. Director Todd believed the elderly were most needful of low-income conven- 361.3 tional housing and wanted the Board to express that emphasis be given to the needs of the elderly. Kumpe agreed but stated he would like opportunity to see what is available to the city and return to the Board with a report of his find- ings. At that time he said the Board might like to discuss priorities. Director Orton said whe would hot have favored additional low-income housing projects prior to the direction of the Housing Authority by Mr. Kumpe. The City Manager agreed with Orton and further commended Kumpe for his work. The City Attorney read a resolution to express Board endorsement for a request 361.4 for additional low-income conventional housing. Director Hughes moved adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded by Noland and the recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The Mayor declared the resolution passed. RESOLUTION NO. 23-77 APPEARS ON PAGE 137 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V ORDINANCE AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE - Sale of Mobile Home Park Lots The City Attorney explained that the proposed ordinance was a result of an issue which had been raised by the developers of Villa Mobile Home Park dealing with the possibility of selling individual lots within a mobile home park to private individuals. He said the approach was being explored so that persons could invest in a mobile home and lot for less than the conventional home. He said the zoning ordinance was not clear as to what minimum lot widths would be required if lots were sold to private individuals. The Planning Commission had held a public hearing to prescribe minimum requirements and had approved a proposed ordinance for consideration by the Board of Directors. McCord said the proposed ordinance 361 361.5 probably was not clear enough as to whether it was applicable only when the owner- ship of the lot is transferred and not when the individual lot was owned by the mobile home park owner. He advised the Board that the ordinance would need clari- fication if the ordinance were to apply only to individually owned lots. 362.1 Director Hughes was concerned that, if mobile home pads were allowed to be sold to individuals, the city would have no recourse in cases where the property owner has allowed unsightly or undesireable conditions to exist on his lot. Malone noted that other city ordinances could be applied in those cases. Orton was concerned that the lots were not proposed to be 60 feet wide. Director Malone was more concerned that a park developer would sell all lots and would allow the park developments to deteriorate. Mayor Lancaster also questioned who would be liable and obligated for the mobile home park once the lots were sold to individuals. The City Attorney responded that protective covenants could be executed at the time the lots were sold to indivdual buyers. Malone thought restrictions might be placed upon the developer regarding the number of lots he would be able to sell based upon a percentage of the park's total area. Mr. Marshall Carlisle was present in the audience and stated that he believed Malone's suggestion to limit the number of lots that could be sold would not be proper. He did feel that the developer should guarantee to the city that common use areas would be maintained by the developer. He supported the idea of sale of individual lots as a means for low-income groups to own their own lot and home. 362.2 The City Attorney suggested the proposed ordinance be tabled to allow him to make revisions. He told the Board that he thought the ordinance would be applicable to existing parks and that the proposed ordinance would make it possible for development of mobile home parks solely for the purpose of sale of individual lots. Director Malone noted that the park developer would have to develop the park in accordance with restrictions of the mobile home park ordinance. Director Noland believed that parks developed prior to adoption of the mobile home park ordinance should be excluded from the proposed ordinance. 362.3 Director Hughes, seconded by Noland, moved the ordinance be tabled for revision. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed. NON -UNIFORMED EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN 362.4 The City Manager informed the Board that, following meetings with city employees and individuals having specific questions concerning the proposed plan revisions, the employees indicated satisfaction with the proposed revised plan and encouraged that the plan beputintoeffect as soon as possible. He noted that the new plan would cost the city $8,000 less than the old plan and that it would provide benefits which would encourage employees to make proper utilization of the retirement benefits. 362.5 Dr. Bob Hall, pension plan consultant, was present to explain the newly re- vised plan. He said all provisions of the plan conform with federal requirements except that the city's plan contained a two-year employment requirement before an employee could join. He said this requirement was acceptable since it was not mandatory that the city comply with federal requirements. Dr. Hall enumerated deficiencies of the existing plan which had been formulated in 1958. He said the revised plan would allow an employee to withdraw from the plan but the employee would have to wait two years before re-entering the plan. He noted that the plan could provide employee withdrawal only as a result of death, termination of employment, or retirement. 362 363 Director Todd noted that the city had gone to considerable expense to increase 363.1 employee benefits and that anticipated savings effected by the new plan had been expended for employee benefits. While he did not think the city was going beyond the bounds of propriety in providing improved benefits, he did caution that other cities had found themselves in a financial bind because of liberal employee fringe benefits. The City Manager agreed that the city needed to be careful in increasing benefits but that the recent increase in benefits had been budgeted and that the increases put the city employees on a par with employees in the private sector. Director Todd noted that the revised plan stated that retirement benefits would be based upon average income. Todd suggested, and Dr. Hall agreed, that the plan should state that retirement benefits would be based upon average base income. Director Noland, seconded by Hughes, moved the revised plan be approved 363.2 provided the Board would make final approval of the bulletin to be distributed to employees. G REVIEW OF STREET CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS CM Director Hughes reported that the Board Street Committee had met on March 14. 363.3 He noted that the committee had not arrived at any conclusions but had discussed the possibility of paving some of the gravelled through streets. He said the Committee was hoping to propose. to the CD Committee that through street projects be accomplished rather than a selection of dead-end streets and streets which serve little through traffic. Hughes said the committee hoped to have a proposal formulated prior to cbnslderation of the 1978 Cbmmunity Development program so the CD Committee would have ample time to consider.the p'oposal for inclusion in the 1978 plan. *Hughes believed the city should proceed to pave streets where' residents are willing to participate in the cost. He also believed that require- ments for curb and gutter should be waived for streets in undeveloped areas but not in a manner that would preclude installation of curb and gutter at a future date. He reported that the Street Superintendent had stated that the paved streets would reduce maintenance costs by eliminating need for gravel and grading. Director Todd questioned how the Board would distinguish the streets from 363.4 those streets which had been improved as a result of resident participation in a street improvement district under which the residents paid for the improvements through assessments. Malone stated he would prefer to draft an ordinance in which the Board would deem certain streets, because of the fact they carry through traffic, as permitted to be paved without curb and gutter. Also, that additional streets other than those designated could be paved in a like manner only if they met the criteria established by the Board. He believed the Board should study the streets and specify which streets would be designated. Director Todd believed the criteria should be established prior to drafting of an ordinance. Malone believed the Board should also decide how the pavings would be financed and that the financing pro- posal should be considered as an overall policy applicable to all streets. Director Hughes said he was recommending that property owners pay for materials 363.5 and that the city perform construction work to assure the streets are constructed in accordance with city standards. Orton questioned why certain streets should be priviledged by not having to have curb and gutter when other streets paved under a street improvement district had been required to have curb and gutter. She agreed that it might be appropriate to waive curb and gutter, but to go beyond that to save expense would be, she believed, unfair. Malone stated he would favor criteria which would limit waivers to streets such as Joyce, Appleby and Porter Road. He also felt that developers should be required to install additional improvements to streets as undeveloped land is developed. 363 364.1 While Director Hughes believed right-of-way requirements could be waived in undeveloped areas, Mayor Lancaster believed the proper street width should be provided. Director Colwell believed that, in considering which streets would be paved, the Board should consider the number of residents along the street. 364.2 Director Orton pointed out that the present ordinance stipulates that costs for installation of concrete curb and gutters shall be assessed against the benefitting property. The City Attorney stated he did not think the city could summarily assess the cost of street improvements without prior consent of the property owner. He therefore recommended that the Board consider an ordinance which would delete that requirement. In regard to maintenance of sidewalks, the City Manager stated he would try to see that ordinances requiring maintenance of sidewalks by property owners were more strictly enforced. 364.3 The City Manager stated that the Street Superintendent and the City Attorney could draft a proposed ordinance for waiver of some street standards and that the ordinance could be considered by the Board Street Committee. APPOINTMENTS TO CITY ADVERTISING AND PROMOTION COMMISSION 364.4 Director Todd, chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, moved the following nominees: Kirk McClelland (Farmer's Daughter); Billie Schneider (Town Club); Ben Smith (Taco Hut); and Jim Lindsey (Western Sizzlin'). The motion was seconded by Director Hughes. 364.5 Mr. Christopher Lee, present in the audience, believed that a member of the general public should be appointed and that nominations should not be limited to hotel, motel, and restaurant representatives. The Board concurred but informed Mr. Lee that state statute stipulated that four of the seven commission members were to represent the hotel, motel, and restaurant industry. 364.6 There being no further nominations offered, the following vote was recorded: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed. 364.7 Mayor Lancaster then nominated Directors Malone and Colwell to serve on the commission as representatives of the Board of Directors. Director Todd moved that the nominations be accepted and Director Hughes seconded the motion. During dis- cussion, Director Orton raised the point that the statute provided that the Board of Directors shall select the members of the Board which would serve on the commission. She further noted that the nominations of the Mayor had not been con- sidered by the Board Nominating Committee. Director Todd stated he understood that the appointment of the two Directors was to be made by the Mayor and approved by the Board of Directors. The City Manager stated he had advised the Mayor that he (the Mayor) would make the appointmentst**(see insert below) 364.8 Director Orton placed her name in nomination since she believed more women should serve on the commission and since she believed she represented a number of groups not represented on the commission. Director Todd moved that Directors Hughes, Orton also be nominated for membership. The motion was seconded by Director Malone. The Board then proceeded to cast secret ballots to determine the two directors to serve on the commission. First ballot results were: Hughes, 1; Malone, 7; Orton, 3; Colwell, 3. Second ballot results were: Colwell, 4; Orton, 3. Directors Malone and Colwell were declared the appointees. 364.9 Director Orton then stated it was her understanding that, in a city manager form of government, appointments were made by the Board of Directors and not by the ***Insert: The City Attorney checked the state statue and the ordinance passed by the Board an reported that three of the members "shall be the Mayor of the city and two members of the Board of Directors of the city selected by the Board of Directors of the City". 364 1 sAseii 365 Mayor. Further, that it was ea policy of the Fayetteville Board that all nominees are first considered by the Board Nominating Committee. The City Attorney stated he did not think the Board had failed to follow the required procedure for the appointment of the City Advertising and Promotion Commission. OTHER BUSINESS ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE 2310 - Tourist Tax The City Manager recommended that the effective date of the tourist tax be 365.1 I changed from April 1 to May 1. The change was recommended, he said, in antici- pation that referendum petitions would be filed during the first week of April and an election not held until mid-April. The City Attorney read the ordinance tfJ the first time after which Director Malone, seconded by Hughes, moved rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The recorded vote was: Ct Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone QNays: None COD The motion was declared passed and the ordinance read the second time. Director Noland, seconded by Malone, moved rules be further suspended and 365.2 the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed and the ordinance was read the third and final time. In response to a question from the Board, the City Attorney stated he did not 365.3 think the amendment would affect the referendum period of Ordinance 2310. Follow- ing further discussion, Director Hughes, seconded by Malone, moved the date be changed to June 1. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed. Mayor Lancaster then asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. The 365.4 recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The Mayor declared the ordinance passed. 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2315 APPEARS ON PAGE 219 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK V MISCELLANEOUS 1. Director Hughes requested the City Manager present a progress report on the newly -hired occupation license enforcement agent. The City Manager requested, and the Board concurred, that he be able to make the report after the employee had been on the job for at least 90 days. 2. Director Orton commended the University of Arkansas student senate for ex- pressing its interest in city issues. The student representative body had adopted resolutions supporting the city's sign ordinance and to encourage establish- ment of bikeways in the city. 3. The City Manager recommended that eighteen feet of property be taken from city 365.7 property to the south of Lot 51, Methodist Assembly Plat, to provide required 70 feet street frontage for the lot prior to its sale by invited bids. Director Todd, seconded by Noland, moved the City Manager's recommendation. The recorded vote was: Ayes: Lancaster, Colwell, Orton, Todd, Noland, Hughes, Malone Nays: None The motion was declared passed. 365.5 365.6 365 366.1 4. The City Attorney informed he had filed for a rehearing before the Arkansas Supreme Court in the case City of Fayetteville vs. S & H, Inc. on the basis that evidence was not made of record regarding cost of replacing the non -conforming sign or for altering the sign to conform with the city's Sign Ordinance. He stated that the court had replied that evidence was of record. He expected to be informed within the next week whether a rehearing had been granted. 366.2 5. Director Todd asked if bids would be invited for employee's group health insurance. ThP City Manager stated that it was not yet known if proposals would be invited and noted that Blue Cross -Blue Shield was to respond to complaints concerning the present plan. 366.3 6. The City Manager reported that, if negotiations for property acquisition fail, condemnations for the North Street and North Gregg projects would be presented to the Board at the April 5 meeting. ADJOURNMENT 366.4 There being no further business, and upon motion by Hughes and second by Malone, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. ATTEST: arlene Westbrook, APPROVED: ERNEST E. LANCASTER, MAYOR 366 1