HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-05-20 Minutes368
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, May 20, 1980, at 7:30 P.M.
in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Directors Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland;
City Manager Don Grimes, City Attorney Jim McCord, City Clerk Bonnie
Goering, and Administrative Assistant David McWethy.
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media.
CALL TO ORDER
368.1 Fallowing a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called the
meeting to order.
SIGN APPEAL/J D. FISHER BUICK COMPANY, INC.
368.2 An appeal from J.D. Fisher Buick Company, Inc., for a variance from the literal
provisions of the Sign Ordinance, for existing signs located at 2396 North College
Avenue, was tabled as requested by petitioners.
SIGN APPEAL/KH&T COMPANY (WALKER -STONE HOUSE)
368.3 Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from Kincaid, Horne & Trumbo, Attorneys at Law,
for a variance from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance, for a sign located
at 207 West Center Street. The ordinance requirement for this Zoning District (C-4
"Downtown Commercial") is a 15 ft. setback for a sign of this size (6.75 sq. ft.)
unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would cause practical diffi-
culties unique to the individual sign under consideration. The variance requested
was for either permission to leave a 6.75 sq. ft. free-standing sign at a point
6 ft. from the street right-of-way, or that "street right-of-way" be construed to
mean "street" so that the sign as presently located would be deemed conforming.
368.4 Hugh Kincaid, representing his company, noted his letter to the Board describ-
ing the Williamsburg -type sign which was designed by a restoration architect in
keeping with the style and period of the Walker -Stone House and presented letters
of support from Larry Brown, President of the Washington County Historical Society,
and adjacent property owners (Moore's Funeral Home, Ridge House Committee, and
Milholland Company); he said he had not yet received a letter from the Fire Station,
the other abutting property owner. He said that as Brown mentioned in his letter,
if the variance is not granted, the necessary relocation of the Historical Society's
marker on this property could result in irrepairable damage to the marker. He said
they had attempted to place the sign back far enough so that it would be visible
without creating serious practical and asthetic problems. He pointed out that the
sign is 18 ft. back from the edge of the curb and 6 ft. from the public sidewalk
which they believe is adequate depth to conform with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance; he noted that if the "street right-of-way" as used in the ordinance
would be construed to mean "street," that the sign would be conforming; that if it
were moved to conform with the ordinance, it would be 15 ft. south of the south edge
of the sidewalk and would be obscured from view by the historical marker on the east
and the pine trees on the west.
368.5 In response to Director Noland, Kincaid explained that the sign was erected
the day he filed the appeal so that people could find their offices. He said they
realized they had a problem with location, but had tried to do the best thing
with regard to the historical, aesthetic, and visibility aspects. City Attorney
1
1
5-20-80
McCord said that Kincaid had inquired about the interpretation of the ordinance 369
beforehand and was not trying to circumvent procedures as they had put the City
on notice as to what they were going to do, and Kincaid said his office felt this
was a classical case for a variance.
Director Colwell said he was not in favor of changing the interpretation of 369.1
the ordinance as it would set a precedent. Director Sharp noted that although the
building contributes to the quality of life in Fayetteville, he was still appre-
hensive about the location of the sign.
Kincaid said that not having a sign erected would have created serious problems 369.2
of identification as this building was previously a house. He noted the length of
time the procedure to obtain a permit takes and said that Sign Inspector John Dietzen
had suggested he put the sign up without a permit, but not contrary to the ordinance.
He said he tried to make the most practical decision possible under the circumstances,
CD as it would have been a problem for them not to have a sign during this period of
time.
0 In response to Director Colwell, Kincaid said to turn the sign 90o and move it 369.3
CO back 9 ft. would be contrary to the way those signs were designed to be shown, and
that the sign has created a lot of interest and has met with a great deal of approval,
Q especially from the adjacent land owners.. Director Colwell noted that there have
Q been other cases that have been turned clown even though adjacent land owners have
approved of the signs in question, and City Attorney McCord explained that no court
has ever indicated adjacent land owners to be a relevant factor --that the practical
difficulties unique to the property under consideration and factors relevant to that
should be considered.
Kincaid pointed out that this is a small directory or identification sign, 3 3/4 369.4
ft. under the limitation now, and if it were moved back it would be very difficult to
read, especially with the pine trees to the west.
Director Osborne noted that he disagreed with Director Colwell in that he felt 369.5
that no other sign appeals have been comparable to this one in that the sign fits
in with the area and is a discrete message -type sign with small lettering.
Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved to grant the variance, and the 369.6
recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Henry, Lancaster
Nays: Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Noland
The Mayor declared that the motion failed to pass.
Kincaid asked if the Board would reconsider the case after looking at the sign, 369.7
and Mayor Todd said the sign could be moved back 9 ft. and still be in front of the
maple tree --that this is basically a subjective judgment the Board must make.
Kincaid said that it should not be a subjective judgment, but an objective one
based on whether or not it presents a case for a variance.
SIGN APPEAL/KERR-McGEE
Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from Kerr-McGee, for a variance from the
literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance, for a sign to be located at 1348 West
Sixth Street. The ordinance requirement for this Zoning District (C-2 "Thorough-
fare Commercial") is for a 34 ft. setback for a sign of this size unless the Board
determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable. The variance requested
is for permission to move an existing 48 sq. ft. free-standing sign to a point that
is 9 ft. from the street right-of-way.
Noland Roper, representing Kerr-McGee, said they had surveyed the area and to
move the sign back to the north 40 ft. and to the east 30 ft. from the right-of-
way would put the sign right up to the building and cut visibility. He said they
would like to take a portion of the existing sign and weld it on top of the canopy
so that it would be within the height limitation. Sign Inspector Dietzen said
if the 'Board granted a variance on the setback, he could have the 30 ft. height
369.8
369.9
5-20-80
3 7 Qnder the regulations. In response to Director Sharp, Roper said the sign would
be 9 ft. above the canopy. Dietzen said that although the pole goes through the
canopy to ground level, it should be considered a roof sign in the proposed
position.
370.1 After some discussion of alternative locations, Director Noland pointed
out that the Board should not say where the sign should be located, but rather
approve or deny the requested variance, and he moved to deny the variance.
Director Sharp seconded the motion.
370.2 In response to Sharp, Dietzen said no variance would be needed if the sign
were located in the southwest corner with a maximum height of 30 ft.
370.3 The Mayor called for a vote on the motion and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
SIGN APPEAL/EDUCARE CENTERS OF ARKANSAS, INC.
370.4 Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from Educare Centers of Arkansas, Inc., d/b/a
Fayetteville Educare Center, for a variance from the literal provisions of the Sign
Ordinance, for a sign located at 2565 North College Avenue. The ordinance require-
ment for this Zoning District (C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial") is a 19 ft. setback
for a sign of this size (17.88 sq. ft.) from street right-of-way; the maximum size
allowed at the present location is 13 sq. ft., unless the Board determines that
strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties unique to the individual
sign under consideration. The variance requested is for permission to leave the
existing sign at a setback of 16 ft. 6 in. from the street right-of-way.
370.5 Don Elliott, representing Educare Centers of Arkansas, pointed out several
factors contributing to the uniqueness of the situation and the physical difficulties
involved and said that the sign would be useless if it were moved back 2; ft.
370.6 Director Colwell said he agreed with the difficulties presented and that
trying to locate the Center from Highway 71 can be dangerous due to the rapid
slope of the land and the size of the sign.
370.7 Director Osborne moved to grant the request. Director Henry seconded the
motion and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster
Nays: Noland
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
REZONING/EAST SIDE OF STEPHENS AVE. BETWEEN WEDINGTON DR & MT. COMFORT RD.
370.8 The City Attorney read an ordinance rezoning property, as requested in
rezoning petition R80-7 for eleven lots, located on the east side of Stephens Ave.
between Wedington Dr. and Mt. Comfort Rd. The petitioners are the owners of the
eleven lots of approximately 1/3 acre each. The change requested is from R-2
"Medium Density Residential" to R-1 "Low Density Residential." The petition had
been considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on May 12, 1980.
Planning Consultant Larry Wood reported to the Commissioners that the property was
recommended for an R-2 to R-1 zone change for three reasons: 1) The property is
already developed as single family; 2) The property faces other developed single-
family; and 3) To preserve the single-family property value and offer a better
land -use relationship the appropriate zoning division would be the east line of
the property under application. There was no public opposition expressed to the
zoning change, and a motion to recommend approval of the requested change passed
6-0, with Commissioners Hailey, Redfern, and Anderson absent.
370.9 Don Elliott, on behalf of the nine owners of the eleven lots, and several
of the property owners were present in support of the rezoning request. In
response to Mayor Todd they indicated their support by a unanimous show of hands.
1
.-.¢4,
5-20-80
Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be suspended and the 37;71.1
ordinance be placed on second reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and 371.2
the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the third and final time.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should 371.3
pass. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
0 Nays: None
The Mayor declared the ordinance passed.
o
ORDINANCE NO. 2632 APPEARS ON PAGE 356, OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK VIII.
Q PUD APPEAL/BUTTERFIELD PLAZA
In introducing an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission on May 12, 371.4
1980, regarding the conversion of Butterfield Plaza from a Large Scale Development
to a Planned Unit Development under Ordinance No. 2582, Mayor Todd asked City
Attorney McCord to clarify this procedure.
McCord said the PUD ordinance was drafted by a subcommittee of the Planning 371.5
Commission and then recommended by the full Commission to the Board --that there is
' language throughout the ordinance that refers to residential development. He said
Neal Albright, in trying to process his development through the Planning Office,
had contacted him to inquire as to whether it could be processed as a PUD and that
he could not say as a matter of law that Mr. Albright could not attempt to process
a commercial PUD, but that as he understood it there was no residential development
in connection with his project. He said that when it went before the Planning
Commission and the Subdivision Committee of the Planning Commission, some of the
people on the subcommittee who drafted the ordinance said that the intent of the
ordinance was for residential development and that the Planning Commission turned
it down on that basis. McCord suggested that in the future the Planning Commission
may want to recommend a commercial PUD ordinance, but that this is not the intent
of this PUD ordinance. He advised that the appeal be heard and that the issue is
not whether his development compl'es with the technical requirements of each section
of the ordinance, but rather if the ordinance applies to commercial developments
when there is no residential development involved. He said if the Board determines
that the ordinance applies solely to residential, then the appeal should be denied
and the ordinance clarified; if it is the Board's opinion that the intent in
adopting the ordinance was to allow commercial development in a PUD, then the
decision should be made on that basis.
Mayor Todd noted that the agenda contained Albright's original letter to the 371.6
Planning Commission, his letter of appeal to the Board, and a copy of the PUD
Ordinance No. 2582.
Steve Adams, representing Mr. Albright, said he was at the Planning Commission 371.7
meeting where the proposal was turned down and the reason was because it did not
fall within the provisions of the first section of the PUD ordinance where a PUD
is defined. He said the Planning Commission said that the development was not a
PUD because it does not have provisions for residential facilities. He said that
the ordinance allows PUD's to be developed in R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-0 zoning districts
372.1
372.2
372.3
372.4
372.5
372.6
372.7
372.8
5-20-80
372
and that this property is zoned R-0 with some restrictions, i.e., it can have no
more than one single-family residence and other uses such as a restaurant, cafe,
or retail sales are restricted. He said this development was originally started
three years ago in concept as a Large Scale Development to be built in four
phases and that phase one has been constructed and Mr. Albright has decided this
property could be developed effectively as a horizontal property regime, i.e.,
a business -condominium area so that when phase two is completed it can be leased
under long-term lease or sold to other individuals for office space or further
leasing to other businesses.
He said the proposal is to divide the property into four lots, request
particular variances, and then provide a set of mutual easements or covenants
running over all the lots to provide for common maintenance and parking areas, etc.
He said there would have to be a variance request for parking on one of the lots,
but that as a whole all the parking requirements are met; that the open space
requirements are met as this development is less than five acres.
Director Noland pointed out that 18,000 sq. ft. would be required for open
space whereas this development only has 14,662 sq. ft., and Mr. Adams said that the
14,662 sq. ft. is on property that is within the 1.38 acres, but there is another
8,000 sq. ft. that is currently being maintained on the right-of-way that is not
part of the development --that the green space is continuous. He said the problem
with this requirement is that the property has been reduced from 1.61 to 1.38 acres
because of the dedication of most of the street to the southwest, Oakcliff St.,
to the City for construction of the street. He said that as a Large Scale (single)
Development there are no problems with R-0 zoning setback requirements, but as four
separate units with common property there are some clearance setbacks between the
buildings that cannot be met.
Mr. Adams said they are trying to figure out how to develop this property
economically and that McCord is correct in saying that the discussion has been
that what is wanted is residential PUD's, but that they are well within the pro-
visions of the ordinance, e.g., building clustering, design flexibility, grouping
of open space (two areas are being developed), and public facility improvements
area. He said this area is fairly well developed already, with utilities in
existence all around the area.
Director Henry clarified that commercial and residential PUD's might be
written very differently and that the issue is whether or not the Board should
grant the conversion when the PUD ordinance was designed for primarily residential
with some service commercial allowed.
Director Noland said that the title of the ordinance is "Planned Unit Develop-
ment - Residential," not "residential - commercial;" that a commercial or office -
usage PUD would be a good idea, but Ordinance 2582 is a residential PUD.
McCord said that as a matter of statutory construction, the substance rather
than the title is considered, and that as a matter of law he could not say that
a commercial development would not be allowed under this ordinance.
Adams said that a Large Scale Development cannot be split into four lots
without several variances, and Henry noted that variances would be required no
matter which way they go. Adams said that only a setback variance from 150 ft.
to 50 ft. is requested. Todd noted that this is a very critical request as the
property is bordered by R-1 district.
In response to Director Colwell, McCord explained that if the request is
granted this would authorize the Planning Commission to grant variances on open
space requirements, setback requirements, and other zoning regulations --that
granting this request would not waive the requirement that they seek variances
from the Planning Commission. He said the first issue the Board should consider
is whether the ordinance was designed in intent to permit a commercial PUD; if
so, then the merits of the appeal should be addressed. If not, then that would
decide their appeal and the Board should 1) clarify the ordinance, and 2) ask
the Planning Commission to draft a commercial PUD ordinance.
5-20-80
Director Noland, seconded by Henry,, moved that Ordinance No. 2582 in the 3"K73.1
Board's opinion applies only to residential development and that the appeal be
denied on this basis The Mayor called for a vote on the motion and the recorded
vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
McCord said that it is apparent that the intent of the ordinance was residen- 373.2
tial --that the trouble is with the language of the definition. He said he had
been asked by the Chairman of the Planning Commission to draft an amendatory
ordinance to clarify the existing ordinance and that existing State law authorizes
this Board to pass this type of amendment without the Planning Commission holding
public hearings and going through the normal procedures.
The City Attorney read an ordinance amending Section 1, Paragraph 12.1.00 of 373.3
CD Ordinance No. 2582 to clarify the definition of Planned Unit Development; the
0 first sentence in said paragraph to read as follows: Planned Unit Development
CO is a comprehensively planned residential land development project in which the
standard requirements of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations are
varied to permit design flexibility, building clustering, grouping of open space,
increased density and alternatives to public facility improvements.
Q Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the 373.4
ordinance be placed on second reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and 373.5
the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the third and final time.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should 373.6
pass. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the ordinance passed..
rx
ORDINANCE NO. 2633 APPEARS ON PAGE 358 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK .
McCord said the Commissioners asked that the Board recommend to the Planning 373.7
Commission whether or not a commercial PUD ordinance is needed.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to ask the Planning Commission to 373.8
consider development of a commercial PUD ordinance. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
STREET CLOSING/COMPANY STREET BETWEEN ASSEMBLY DR. & VINSON ST.
The City Attorney read an ordinance abandoning and vacating a portion of
Company Street, between Assembly Drive and Vinson Street. The Planning Commission
recommended approval on May 12 provided that 1) Lot 7, Block 9 and Lot 7, Replat
are owned by owners of adjoining lots having public street frontage; and 2) that
the owners execute a Bill of Assurance' to the effect that they will not sell
them as land -locked parcels. In a Plat Review Committee Meeting on May 15
373.9
5-20-80
3 7 planning Administrator Bobbie Jones said 1) the property line would be moved to
the center of the street if vacated; 2) the City would need a utility easement
for another water line in the future; and 3) that Street Superintendent Powell
was requesting a drainage easement.
374.1 Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved the rules be suspended and the
ordinance be placed on second reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the second time.
374.2 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved the rules be further suspended and
the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the third and final time.
374.3 There being no further discussion, Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should
pass. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the ordinance passed.
ORDINANCE NO. 2634 APPEARS ON PAGE 34! OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
SX
BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS
374.4 City Manager Grimes explained that the recommendation that the City enter into
an agreement with the Chamber of Commerce for the implementation of a Keep America
Beautiful Clean Community Systems Program actually evolved over a period of time
in which Directors have expressed concern about the litter problem in Fayetteville.
He said that two years ago at a Municipal League Meeting Suzanne Patton from
Texarkana was on the program and was very enthusiastic about what they have done
to control litter in Texarkana, and that the City of Fayetteville has pursued a
similar program since that time. He said she was asked to come to Fayetteville
as she had received State funding under a grant to visit various municipalities
to explain Texarkana's program.
374.5 Director Henry explained that all Directors had been given an invitation to
attend her presentation and that Director Lancaster was present. She said there
was a slide presentation showing what Texarkana has done based on this Clean
Community Systems Program --that their program is primarily educational in con-
junction with the Sanitation Department. She said the reason the recommendation
came to the Board in its present form is because in Texarkana it is a joint venture
with the Chamber of Commerce furnishing space, telephone, typewriters, etc., which
appeals to her personally as there is a space problem in the City offices. She said
when it went through the Chamber Board they wanted a commitment from the City
without a time limitation of only a few months. She said this would require that
a person be trained which would require start-up money and that this is the first
concrete program that they felt they could go with and is, therefore, being
recommended at this time.
374.6 In response to Marion Orton, Director Henry explained that the recommendation
is to enter into a contractual arrangement whereby the Chamber of Commerce would
furnish space, etc., and the City would provide a certain amount of money for
salary and other administrative expenses. The person in charge of the program
would be responsible for getting community -wide representatives informed and
involved with the overall problems in Fayetteville which would hopefully result
in an attitudinal change for long-term results. She also noted that this program
1
5-20-80
has been adapted to college towns such as Fayetteville that experience problems 375
with fast-food litter and that Fort Smith, Magnolia, and El Dorado have adopted
similar programs recently.
Marion Orton expressed concern that the program involve recycling efforts, 375.1
and Director Henry pointed out that the program would probably involve recycling
as well as other programs for litter reduction --that eventually all efforts within
the City will have to be coordinated --but for now we should go with this program
that has worked elsewhere.
Marion Orton pointed out that the program should be an on-going city-wide 375.2
effort to include newspaper recycling and contributions from litter generators.
Director Lancaster said that little has been accomplished in the past few years
and he feels that to get a program off the ground it has to be a community -wide
effort and that is why Texarkana has been so successful.
Director Henry moved to accept the recommendation from the City Manager to 375.3
Q) enter into an agreement with the Chamber. of Commerce. City Manager Grimes said
Q the recommendation is that the Board make a commitment to use a portion of the
CIO $5,000 of uncommitted Bicentennial project funds to get the person trained and in
Q the meantime budget funds for the salary for this person as a new City position
with December as the start-up date. Director Osborne suggested that the City
Manager supervise this program.
Q In response to Noland, Henry explained that the Chamber's dollar contribution 375.4
would be in-kind expenses for office space, supplies, equipment, telephone,
and postage. She said there is a possibility of obtaining State grant money
from DLS with competition from other cities.
Director Osborne offered a substitute motion such that the City Manager is 375.5
authorized to enter into negotiations for a contract with the Chamber of Commerce
or other interested parties to implement a program. The motion was seconded by
' Director Lancaster and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed. Sharp said the cost of the campaign should be
borne by the businesses whose products have potential to become litter rather than the
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CONTRACT taxpayer.
City Manager Grimes recommended approval of a resolution authorizing the 375.6
execution of a contract with Comprehensive Planning Institute (CPI) for the pre-
paration of an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the City's
waste water treatment improvement program with the following amendments outlined
by City Attorney McCord and approved by Khan Husain, Director of CPI:
1) Under Section II, Basic Services, "Compensation for the scope of services 375.7
described in Section I of this contract is estimated not to exceed $...;
2) Section IV, deletion of the second paragraph which is contractual limitation of
liability; 3) Section V, second paragraph should contain a sentence that upon
termination, the CPI and its subcontract consultants shall submit to the City all
completed and uncompleted reports, studies, maps, data, etc.; and 4) The contract
has to be executed by the Mayor and City Clerk.
City Manager Grimes said that the City is not locked into overhead costs in 375.8
the subcontracts as the figures will be audited by EPA and expenses will be based
on documented costs only.
Todd pointed out that the total cost should be reduced by $50 because of a 375.9
typographical error in Item 9, out-of-town transportation, 14 trips @ $300/trip
= $4,200; he also noted an error on the reproduction costs, $230 x 8 = $1,840.
Director Noland, seconded by Henry,, moved to authorize the execution of the 375.10
contract as amended. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a
vote on the motion and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the resolution passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 44-80 APPEARS ON PAGE 1120F ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK +X
5-20-30
3 7 ENSIGN PLAN
376.1 Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from the Board Finance Committee
to adopt a Defined Contribution Money Purchase Pension Plan for City employees
which had been discussed at the previous Board meeting and deferred for final
action until review of the actual plan document.
376.2 Dr. Bob Hall pointed out that all employees have to have the option of
insurance, but as new people are enrolled and the advantages and disadvantages
explained to them, the program will eventually phase itself out.
376.3 City Manager Grimes said it is the staff's recommendation that the trustee
and administrator be separated; that Mcllroy Bank is the trustee; that he personally
recommends Bob Hall as the administrator.
376.4 Purchasing Officer Mackey said that several employees under age 25 requested
that the eligibility age for entry into the pension program be reduced from 25
to 20; the City's minimum hiring age is 18 and two years of service are required
before an employee is eligible to participate in the plan. Bob Hall indicated
that a realistic figure for first-year costs would be approximately $2,200.
376.5 Director Henry moved to approve the revisions to the employee's pension plan
as incorporated in the Defined Contribution Money Purchase Pension Plan document
presented to the Board and to authorize execution of a trust indenture with the
following changes: 1) Section 2.27 of the plan will be amended to separate the
plan administrator and the trustee; the plan administrator will be Dr. Bob Hall
and he shall be appointed by the City under contractual arrangement; Mcllroy Bank
will be the trustee; and 2) The age eligibility requirement will be reduced to 20.
376.6 The motion was seconded by Osborne. There being no further discussion, the
Mayor called for a vote on the motion and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the resolution passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 47-80 APPEARS ON PAGE Ia1$ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IA
NOMINATIONS
376.7 Director Henry reported that the Board Nominating Committee met May 19 and
made the following recommendations:
376.8 Energy Advisory Committee: For the unexpired term of Charles Springer, ending
January 1, 1983: Lonnie G. Bassett. For two newly -created positions, with terms
ending January 1, 1984: Coralie Cogswell and Art Hobson.
376.9 Electrical Licensing Board: For the unexpired term of Dale Cress, ending
October 1, 1981: Oscar D. Titus.
376.10 Northwest Arkansas Cultural Center Board of Trustees: For the unexpired terms
of June Level, ending April 1, 1981: Cindy Burns; and Ronald Bumpass, ending
April 1, 1982• Norman DeMarco.
376.11 Public Transit Planning Committee: For the newly -created positions, with
terms of indefinite length:
Representing•
Northwest Arkansas Plaza
Older Citizens
Chamber of Commerce
Downtown Merchants
U of A Transit
Industry
Fayetteville Citizens
Fayetteville Citizens
Fayetteville Citizens
City Board
City Board
David Malone
Genevieve Berg
Dale Cristy
John W. Cole
Frank Scott
Randall E. Cole
David B. Horne
Anne T. Hauser
Carol Claybaker
Frank Sharp
Ann Henry
1
1
1
5-20-80
Wastewater Treatment Committee: The unexpired terms, of indefinite length, 377 377.1
of Tom McKinney (representing the Sierra Club) and Alan McQueen (Audubon Society):
E. Meredith Long (Sierra Club) and Frank Don Petty (Audubon Society).
Board of Adjustment: For the unexpired term of Steve Nickles, ending 377.2
April 1, 1982: Readvertise the position.
Board Tour: That the Directors tentatively agree to schedule City Board tours 377.3
of agenda items for 2:00 p.m. on the Monday preceeding the Board meeting.
Director Henry, seconded by Colwell, moved to approve the nominations and the 377.4
recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
Q) CAR RENTAL CONTRACT/UNIFORM LEASE
City Manager Grimes asked the Board for blanket authorization for a uniform 377.5
0 lease for rent -a -car space at the new Airport Terminal Building_ so that the Mayor
CO and City Clerk can execute these agreements as they come back from the rental car
0 agencies.
Cr He said the form is similar to the one used previously. He pointed out that 377.6
Cr the square footage rented would be 108 sq. ft., more or less, with a base rate of
$300 per month; $6 per parking space per month for parking lot, plus $.07 per
enplaned passenger per month; and, the west half of the old Terminal lot will be
used for overflow parking at $2 per space per month.
McCord noted that he would be making some changes with regard to punctuation 377.7
and grammar to clarify the language,
Director Noland, seconded by Lancaster, moved to authorize the uniform lease 377.8
with clarification of language. There being no further discussion, the Mayor
III called for a vote on the motion and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None I
The Mayor declared the resolution passed. I
RESOLUTION NO. 46-80 APPEARS ON PAGE 1 d(\OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IX
BID WAIVER/WATER & SEWER DEPARTMENT
The City Attorney read an ordinance waiving the competitive bidding require-
ments for the purchase of pipe and related fittings for the Water & Sewer Dept.
for a period of one year. The main problem is that price structures of most
companies will not permit firm price guarantees except for only brief periods of
time and it is essential that the City be able to purchase needed supplies and
fittings for the maintenance of the water and sewer system from quotations which
may be received on very short notice.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the
ordinance be placed on second reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved the rules be further suspended
and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the third and final time.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should
pass. The recorded vote was:
377.9
377.10
377.11
377.12
5-20-80
"`Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the ordinance passed.
1X
ORDINANCE NO. 2635 APPEARS ON PAGE 352.. OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK1HHIbir,
BID AWARD/SANITATION UNIFORMS AND FLOOR MAT RENTAL
378.1 Director Henry made a motion to accept the overall low bids of Razorback
Uniform & Linen Service, Fayetteville, for floor mat rental and Industrial
Uniform & Towel Supply Springdale, for uniform rental. In response to Todd,
Purchasing Officer Mackey explained that the total cost of providing uniforms
varies from $5,400 to $6,500 due to employee vacations, sick leave, etc.
378.2 The motion was seconded by Noland and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
BID AWARD/MANHOLE FORMS - WATER & SEWER DEPT.
378.3 Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved to accept the low bid of
Products Company, Springdale, for one set of manhole forms as per speci
contained in Bid #423.
378.4 There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on
and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
Action
fications
the motion
BID AWARD/HIGHWAY 62 WATER & SEWER RELOCATIONS
378.5 Mayor Todd noted that the Board has recommendations from City Engineer
Don Bunn and the consulting engineers to award the Highway 62 (71 Bypass to
Garland Avenue) Water and Sewer Relocation to the low bidder, Jerry D. Sweetser,
Inc.
378.6 City Manager Grimes said that $205,000 has been budgeted in water and sewer
line budgets in the Water Department and that it is Bunn's projection that we are
$115,000 under the budget now in this capital expenditure category. He requested
authorization to expend funds from accounts #6291 (sewer) and #5791 (water) and
indicated that he was very pleased with this bid.
378.7 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved that the City Manager's recommenda-
tion be accepted and the low bid be awarded to Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc.
378.8 The Mayor called for a vote on the motion and the recorded vote was:
Ayes: , Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
Absent at Roll Call: Osborne
The Mayor declared the resolution passed.
RESOLUTION NO. 45-80 APPEARS ON PAGE II 1 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK ' )(
AECC RATE INCREASE APPLICATION
378.9 With reference to the Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corporation's case before
the Arkansas Public Service Commission to increase wholesale power rates to its
customers, City Attorney McCord said the hearing would be in June.
378.10 There being no further discussion, Director Henry moved to authorize the
City Manager and the City Attorney to pursue intervention along with Beaver
Water District. Director Noland seconded the motion and the vote at roll call was:
Ayes: , Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland
Nays: None
Absent at Roll Call: Osborne
The Mayor declared the motion passed.
1
1
5-20-80
3'79
ANNOUNCEMENTS
McCord said he has written to Bloomington, Minnesota requesting a copy of 379.1
their noise ordinance and to Little Rock and Jacksonville requesting copies of
their fair housing ordinances. He said he is also completing research on the
apparent authority HUD might have to require fair housing ordinances and that
the City of Little Rock said it was their opinion that HUD did not have this
authority.
Administrative Assistant McWethy said that revised City maps have been sent 379.2
to the printers which include all the new subdivisions and additions and will be
back in two weeks. He also announced that the Finance Department recently
approved a summer internship position through the Department of Local Services
for someone to work on a master sidewalk bikeway path.
MINUTES
OThe minutes of the May 6 meeting were approved as submitted. 379.3
CO ADJOURNMENT
0 There being no further business the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 379.4
10:40 P.M.
Q
1
1