Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-07-15 Minutes414 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, July 15, 1980, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Lancaster, Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell; City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Goering, and Administrative Assistant McWethy ABSENT: Director Henry and City Manager Grimes OTHERS PRESENT: Members of the audience and representatives of the news media CALL TO ORDER 414.1 Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called the meeting to order. 414.2 Mayor Todd welcomed Fayetteville Open Channel and said this is the first time that a Board meeting has been filmed as a public service. EMPLOYEE EVALUATION AND SUPERVISORY TRAINING 414.3 Administrative Assistant McWethy said that based on discussions with Paul Shaffer and the City management group it is proposed that we enter into a joint agreement to make improvements in the human resource management efforts for the City. Specifically, it is recommended that we initiate a preliminary pilot program effort to: 1) deter- mine the nature and extent of supervisory training needs; 2) determine the design and implementation strategy for a performance-based evaluation system for all City employees, and 3) prepare a request for Federal funding through available grants in order to finance these activities. The total cost of this pilot program, including an attitude questionnaire, were estimated not to exceed $2,000. In a letter to the City Manager, Dr. Shaffer pointed out that a demonstration of obvious progress through a pilot program would improve our chances for funding and that one of the potential funding sources may provide salary for new staff, such as a personnel officer for the first year. 414.4 Dr. Shaffer said that both items 1 and 2 above can be funded through the Inter- governmental Personnel Act (IPA), but that other funding sources are available. He said that the total amount of the grant would be approximately $75,000 with 50-50 cost sharing and that the City's match could be in-kind expenses. 414.5 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that this request to enter into an agreement be referred to the Finance Committee for a recommendation to be presented to the Board at their next regular meeting. 414.6 The Mayor called for a vote on the motion and it passed unanimously. STREET RENAMING/OAK BAILEY DRIVE TO WARWICK 414.7 Mr. and Mrs. Keith B. Garton were in attendance to request that the Board change the name of the portion of Oak Bailey Drive that turns west because of a new sub- division on the north whereby Oak Bailey Drive was extended north to Katherine (instead of making a turn west to their home). They requested that this portion to the west be renamed Garton Lane; however, Mrs. Alan Bailey was in attendance to protest the renaming of any portion of Oak Bailey Drive because when Jerry Bailey donated the street right- of-way from Old Wire Road to Garton's property they requested the City name the street Oak Bailey Drive; that the street was always from Old Wire Road to Mr. Garton's property; but when the subdivision came in they extended the street to Katherine and kept the name of the street as Oak Bailey Drive. She said if the name must be changed, they were requesting that the name be changed to Oak Bailey Lane, that they are opposed to a complete change of name for the street. 7-15-80 After a short discussion, it was determined that when the street right -of- 415 415.1 way was granted the Bailey property originally went to the Garton property, but that now the street extends past the Garton property so that the street to be renamed is approximately one-half the original Bailey property and one-half the Garton property. It was also determined that the street might be extended further to the west in the future and that renaming it Oak Bailey Lane might cause confusion in a police or fire emergency, and Police Chief Bob Jones agreed. After further discussion, Director Noland moved that the street be named Warwick 415.2 Drive which would be a continuation of the street to the east presently named Warwick Drive. The motion was seconded by Director Colwell, and upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. It was also agreed to get a new street sign for the street. 415.3 CD RESOLUTION NO. 74-80 APPEARS ON PAGECR3 O OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK Ix . 0 ANNEXATION/EAST OF HWY 112, NORTH OF HWY 71 NORTH 33 The City Attorney explained that the property owners had petitioned to have the 415.4 property annexed and that the appropriate proceedings have been held in Washington a County Court and the Court's Order of Annexation has been entered and the time for Q appeal has run without protest and that the matter is before the Board for annexation. The City Attorney read the annexation ordinance for the first time and Director 415.5 Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the 415.6. second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the rules be further sus- pended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the 415.7 third and final time. Mayor Todd noted this was discussed at length with Attorney Hugh Kincaid at an 415.8 earlier meeting and that this is the final step in the annexation process. Director Sharp pointed out that the Planning Commission recommended that the 415.9 Board approve a master sidewalk plan which would show sidewalks on both sides of Hwy 112, but that this was just in the planning stages when this annexation was first discussed. Mayor Todd recalled that when this annexation was discussed, Kincaid had pointed out that sidewalks would not be feasible because of the length of the property and the unlikelihood that people would he walking along Hwy 112 as there is very little residential property and no schools nearby. McWethy pointed out that the Planning Commission required sidewalks of the Arkansas Best Freight development across the street. Osborne said it would be unfair to change the requirements in midstream as we have not yet adopted the sidewalk ordinance and the Board agreed. The Mayor called for a vote, and the ordinance passed 5-1, with Director Sharp 415.10 voting against it. ORDINANCE NO. 2646 APPEARS ON PAGE 40/ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IX . i BALLFIELD CONTRACT Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved to authorize the execution of a contract for preliminary engineering services with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., in connection with the development of softball fields #2 and #3 at Lake Fayetteville Park with the deletion of items ld (transportation of principals and employees on trips to the project); and 3d (mileage will be charged at 25 cents per mile). The Mayor called for a vote on the resolution and it passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 72-80 APPEARS ON PAGE/! 1ttOF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK IX . 415.11 415.12 7-15-80 4 1 EZONING/EAST OF HWY 71 NORTH AND NORTH OF SHEPARD LANE 416.1 The City Attorney read an ordinance rezoning property, as requested in rezoning petition R80-13 for 1.9 acres located east of Highway 71 North and north of Shepard Lane by petitioner Kathryn B. Stout. The change requested is from A-1 "Agri- cultural" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial." This petition was considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 14. Planning Consultant Larry Wood had prepared a report on the request, and told the Commissioners that the requested rezoning was recommended for three reasons: 1) It is consistent with the General Land Use Plan recommendations; 2) Public facilities "are available to serve commercial development"; and 3) Commercial development of the property "is consistent with the development characteristics of the area". There was no public opposition expressed to the request, and a motion to recommend approval passed 9-0. 416.2 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 416.3 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time, and Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 416.4 There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass and the Board voted aye unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2651 APPEARS ON PAGE 9c6 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK =X . LOT SPLIT/N OF HWY 16 W & E OF DOUBLE SPRINGS RD. 416.5 A request from Conley and Virginia Worley to vary the 1.5 -acre minimum lot size requirement of Ordinance 2353 for subdivided property not having access to a public sewer was considered before the Planning Commission on July 14 and recommended for approval by an 8-1 vote, with Commissioner Crocker in the minority. The lot split in question involves a parceling into two tracts: Tract "A", of 4.93 acres of un- improved land (which cannot be further subdivided without submission of a sub- division plat); and Tract "B", of 0.87 acres, which has an existing home on a septic tank. 416.6 Mayor Todd explained that the only unoccupied land would be the 4.93 acres -- that the 0.87 acres already has a house built on it; therefore, it is unlike other requests in that the Board would not be approving the building of a house on less than 1.5 acres. He said that only one other house could be built on the 4.93 acres without a subdivision plat. 416.7 McCord said that the reason there cannot be another lot split is because the City Board amended the lot split regulations requiring a minimum size of 5 acres except for the first split which is 3 acres. The only way the remainder could be subdivided would be to file a subdivision plat, and then if the developer wanted to use septic tanks, each lot would have to be 1.5 acres. 416.8 Director Lancaster moved to approve the request and Director Colwell seconded the motion. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 416.9 Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance clarifying the improvement requirements for developments adjacent to substandard streets. Current City regulations require that when any kind of development takes place along a street which does not meet full City standards, "the developer, at his expense, shall install street paving, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks and shall provide any additional street width and street right-of-way where needed." City Attorney McCord said in his opinion this provision is overly broad and needs to be more narrowly drawn. He said this ordinance would only apply to commercial -industrial and multi -family development, clearly excluding single- family. He said it also sets a standard on the amount of participation the developer would be liable to incur, that standard being to the extent that the required improvements bear "a rational nexus to the needs created by the development." 1 7-15-80 In answer to Osborne, McCord said this is the same standard that is used in the requirement of off-site improvements for subdividers and large scale developers, and that this is the judicially approved standard from case law and other juris- dictions. He said that under the subdivision large scale development ordinance, the amount of participation of that standard is determined by the Planning Commission. Since this ordinance would apply to development that would not be subdivision or large scale development, the initial decision would have to be made by the Inspection Office at the time the building permit is applied for; if the applicant disagrees with the determination of the Inspection Office, they could appeal to the Subdivision Committee, then the Planning Commission, and then on to the City Board and Chancery Court. He said this ordinance is a clarification of a provision that has been in the Code of Ordinances for approximately two years and that it was originally recommended by the Street Committee, but has not been enforced. 417.1 McCord read the ordinance for the first time. In answer to a man in the audience who was concerned that a duplex would be considered "multi -family," McWethy explained that a rationally -based decision in the Planning Office would be made and that there were provisions for four appeals. Director Colwell, seconded by Sharp, moved to suspend the rules and place the 417.2 ordinance on second reading. The Mayor called for a vote and upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved that the ordinance be referred to 417.3 the Street Committee because the ordinance has not been enforced for the past two years. Director Lancaster reminded the Board that this was discussed at length at the last meeting. McCord said if it is referred, it should be referred to the Planning Commission, and Director Osborne withdrew his motion and made a new motion to refer the ordinance to the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Colwell, and the Mayor called for a vote on the motion which failed 2-4, with Directors Lancaster, Noland, Sharp, and Todd voting nay. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to suspend the rules and place the 417.4 ordinance on third and final reading, and the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. Director Osborne expressed concern about the administration of the ordinance and 417.5 McCord noted the appeal procedure. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the motion. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. 417 ORDINANCE NO. 2647 APPEARS ON PAGE 4O2. OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK rx . HMR PENALTY The City Attorney said an ordinance prescribing a penalty for non-payment of the City's hotel, motel and restaurant tax was requested by the Finance Director and the License Enforcement Officer to facilitate enforcement of the HMR tax. He said the ordinance would make failure to pay the tax a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $500 which is the maximum under state law that municipalities can impose for violation of local ordinances, or double that sum for each repetition of such offense. McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third reading. The motion passed unanimously and McCord read the ordinance for the third and final time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2648 APPEARS ON PAGE 403 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK YX . 417.6 417.7 417.8 417.9 7-15-80 41SUKE BOX LICENSE 418.1 The City Attorney read an ordinance prescribing a penalty for operating a "juke box or amusement device" without first obtaining a license from the City. The proposed penalty is a fine of not more than $500. 418.2 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The Mayor called for a vote an the motion and it passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 418.3 Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 418.4 After a short discussion, it was agreed that the wording should be "Any person who shall display for public patronage or operation any juke box or amusement device without first obtaining a license from the City shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500." 418.5 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass and upon roll call it passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2649 APPEARS ON PAGE ploy OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK -La' . NO PARKING 418.6 The City Attorney read an ordinance specifying that limited -time or "no parking" zones may be designated by either appropriate signs or by appropriate crub markings. 418.7 After a short discussion it was determined that limited -time zones must be designated by appropriate signs, and that "no parking" zones would be designated by curb markings with the words "no parking" and/or by appropriate signs. 418.8 Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 418.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 418.10 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass and upon roll call it passed unanimously. 418.11 Director Colwell, seconded by Osborne, moved the emergency clause, and the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2650 APPEARS ON PAGE NOS OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK = X . EQUALIZATION BOARD NOMINATION 418.12 Director Sharp moved a resolution nominating Ed Ferguson as the City of Fayette- ville's nominee for a position on the County Equalization Board. He said Ferguson has a masters degree in forestry and was with the US Forest Service for 36 years; and that he showed a willingness to volunteer his time to the City a few weeks ago when he found trees for the airport and supervised the planting of them. He said Ferguson has the talent and time and would do a good job. The motion was seconded by Director Lancaster. 418.13 There being no further nominations, the Mayor called for a vote on the motion and it passed unanimously. 418.14 Administrative Assistant McWethy said there would be a meeting of the Washington County Mayors to make the Cities' selection in the morning. RESOLUTION NO. 73-80 APPEARS ON PAGE a`19 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK I)( . MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN 418.15 Adoption of a proposed Master Sidewalk Plan and related ordinances were con- sidered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on July 14 and recommended for approval by an 8-0 vote, with Commissioner Anderson absent. 1 1 7-15-80 Mayor Todd said that he and Directors Colwell and Sharp attended the Planniny 419 419.1 Commission meeting where these ordinances were discussed and that there were questions, 11/ suggestions, and concerns expressed at this meeting; Ervan Wimberly was also at that meeting and was concerned about the costs involved. Todd said there were some suggestions that the Board may not be able to deal with at this meeting and urged the Board to review the Planning Commission minutes relative to other possible applications beyond what is being proposed, such as when property is rezoned to a "higher level," how does the .Board determine whether this property should be added to the Master Sidewalk Plan. McCord pointed out that by statute the City Board does have the authority to 419.2 amend a master sidewalk plan by the majority vote of the City Board without going through the public hearing procedure before the Planning Commission, so that when a rezoning ordinance is adopted the City Board could subsequently at the same meeting cn amend the Master Sidewalk Plan. Bob Nickle, a local property owner, said he is planning to build houses in 419.3 0 Fayetteville. With regard to the proposed ordinance requiring construction of side - 03 walks, he referred the Board to Section 1(c) (3) which states "On which a new structure is being built" and asked for clarification. Mayor Todd said that this means that Q the Board could require sidewalks on any lot whether or not there are sidewalks any- where else along that street as long as it is on the Master Sidewalk Plan, but this requirement could be waived by the City Board. Nickle said he thought it would be unfair to require a sidewalk in an area where there are no other sidewalks and there may never be, for instance in older neighborhoods. Mayor Todd pointed out that Section (d) does provide that the Board of Directors may waive the requirement that a property owner construct a sidewalk upon a showing of undue hardship or practical difficulty. City Attorney McCord pointed out that this is not a mandatory ordinance in that 419.4 it does not require the installation of a sidewalk every time the Master Sidewalk Plan shows a sidewalk, but rather "within three months from receipt of notice from the City Manager." He said that the notice is not mandatory and if the notice is not issued at the time a building permit for the property is issued, there would not be a need for an appeal --that there would be this administrative discretion. Mayor Todd pointed out that a decision could be given on any requirements for sidewalks before a piece of property is purchased for development. Ervan Wimberly said that he felt the citizens of Fayetteville had not been given 419.5 enough. time to make input on this ordinance and requested that the Board give the citizens more time to consider the full impact of this ordinance before it is adopted. He distributed a handout outlining his comments which are included as Exhibit A to these minutes. In answer to Wimberly, McCord said 1) the City does not have the legal authority 419.6 to require the property owner to install storm drainage; there is no enabling state legislation stating that the City can require storm drainage, but there is enabling legislation which can require property owners to install sidewalks; 2) the City cannot legally assess the property across the street to pay for the sidewalk(s) on the other side of the street unless the property owners have petitioned to form an improvement district and then the assessment is made by a board of assessors; and 3) the City Board passed an ordinance a few weeks ago which requires a sidewalk to be installed at the same time a driveway is installed. McWethy pointed out that since some of Wimberly's figures were based upon 419.7 Community Development projects, these figures were probably double what the going rate actually is because of the costs of labor. 419.8 there is generally a 2 -week period for public consideration which was not possible this time. Nickle said he would like to see this postponed until the next meeting because Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved to table this ordinance until the 419.9 next regular meeting of the Board. Upori roll call the motion passed unanimously. • 7-15-80 4 2 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN/HUD 420.1 Administrative Assistant McWethy reported that HUD is asking the City to do three things, one of which is to amend and update the Affirmative Action Plan regarding employment. He said that the Board should consider an amendment to the existing Personnel Policy (in agenda) to update the City's Affirmative Action Plan.II 420.2 The Affirmative Action Plan he presented to the Board included a Statement of Policy and Goals & Timetables, included as Exhibit B to these minutes. After con- siderable discussion, Director Osborne moved to adopt the Affirmative Action Plan. Director Sharp seconded the motion and upon roll call the motion passed 5-1, with Director Colwell voting nay. RESOLUTION NO. 75-80 APPEARS ON PAGE a g 1 O ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 1 X . ARKANSAS BEST FREIGHT 420.3 The City Attorney said that a few weeks ago Arkansas Best Freight (ABF) went to the Planning Commission with their Large Scale Development for their new terminal off Hwy 112, and as one of the conditions of approval the Planning Commission imposed the requirement that ABF improve to current City standards the abutting street to the south which is a dead-end street. The Planning Commission requirement is that ABF bring to full City standards the entire length of ABF's property which is a little over 400 ft. He said ABF has frontage on Hwy 112 with a driveway off Truckers Lane, 200 ft. west of Hwy 112. It is ABF's position that it is unreasonable to require them to pave all the way to the back of their property since it is a dead-end street and they won't be generating any traffic past their driveway. There is another business on the south side of Truckers Lane, Campbell Express, approximately 520 ft. on back. He said the Large Scale Development Ordinance provides for an appeal by the developer to the Board of Directors from any requirement imposed by the Planning Commission, and that because of a breakdown in communication ABF did not file their appeal within the l0 -day period. He asked if the Board would be willing to consider an appeal from ABF on the requirement that the street be paved the entire length of their property even though the time has expired. He said the City Manager thinks it is unreasonable to require them to pave the street for the full length of their property since their drive is only approximately 200 ft. back off Hwy 112 and their trucks will not go beyond that point. 420.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to consider the appeal by ABF of the Planning Commission's decision at the next Board meeting even though they are technically beyond the time limit for such an appeal. 420.5 McCord also pointed out that the Inspection Office has advised ABF that they will not conduct any inspections until the improvement requirement of the Planning Commission is installed and ABF, therefore, cannot proceed with their construction until resolution of this issue. McCord said that if the Board grants the appeal, then the City Manager's Office can handle the administration and instruct the Planning Office to permit construction in due course and make the inspections when they should be made pending resolution of the appeal. 420.6 The Mayor called for a vote on the motion and upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. MINUTES 420.7 The minutes of the July 1, 1980 meeting were approved with one correction: McCord pointed out that paragraph 405.5, second sentence, should read "McCord said the City would be ensured of sidewalks with any future development if a new ordinance which will be coming up for consideration at the next Board meeting is adopted." ADJOURNMENT 420.8 There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M. 1 1 • EXHIBIT A NORTHWEST ENGINEERS, INC. F. ERVAN WIMBERLY, P.E. HARRY G. GRAY, P.E. DATE: July 15, 1980 TO.: Board of Directors City of Fayetteville, Arkansas I am in favor of the construction of sidewalks and I believe the Master Sidewalk Plan is an excellent idea. I do have 'some reservation about the ordinance and its implementation. I would like to present these questions to the Board and furthermore, I would like to ask the Board to give the citizens of Fayetteville a little more time to consider the full impact of this ordinance before it is adopted. • 1. As I understand it, a property owner on one side of a street will have to pay the full cost of a sidewalk, whereas the property owner across the street is not subject to pay such cost. This seems a bit unfair. 2. With the construction of sidewalks along an existing street, storm drainage is often necessary. This can be two or three times the cost of the sidewalk itself. Again, .I..feel itis unfair for a property owner on one side of the street to -pay all this cost and a property owner across the street to pay nothing. ,,,It seemsto be accepted that the cost of sidewalks is about $5.00 per lineal foot. This, is wrong. The concrete side- walk only does cost about $5.00 per lineal foot ($1.25 per sq. ft.), but grading, bedding, clean-up and seeding adds to this cost. . We recently received bids for the construction of sidewalks for the City of Fayetteville and the bid prices averaged $13.94.per lineal foot for sidewalk without storm drainage and $27.44 per lineal foot for sidewalks with storm drainage. Fifty-five percent (55%) of the total length did require storm drainage. The overall average price for the entire project (excluding street widening) was $21.95 per lineal foot for 9020 lineal feet of sidewalk. Thisis considerably more than $5.00 per lineal foot. .A complete recap of the bids received is included for your perusal. 505 WEST ASH ST. - P. O. BOX 1173 Continued FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS 72701 (501) 443-4535 • Iq • EXHIBIT A Board of Directors July 15, J980 Fayetteville, Arkansas Page . . 2 4. With 210 miles of streets within the city limits of Fayetteville and assuming sidewalks are required on one side of one half of these, 105 miles of sidewalk need to be built. At the above average prices, this would cost $12,200,000. For a population of 35,000, this would be $350.00 for each man, woman and child. Are we, by adopting this policy, taxing the citizens of Fayetteville $350.00 each? The cost will certainly be passed on to the citizens and residents. 5 Would the citizens of Fayetteville vote for a $12,200.000 bond issue to pay for this? 6 Could we not achieve the same purpose with neighborhood im- provement districts and distribute the cost more equitably? 7 As stated earlier, I am in favor of sidewalks. I believe all new residential developments should have sidewalks. In fact, I feel our present policy of postponing construction for five years within new subdivisions should be discontinued and sidewalks be completed with other improvements. But on existing streets and smaller developments, I feel the pro- posed ordinance would be an unfair burden. Why should a few have to pay for an oversight of the past? Respectfully Submitted, F. Ervan Wimberly, P.E. FEW:ses Attachment +�YCtYe Kt_ • • -4--Ire:....;.,,tal RECAP OF SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION BIDS RECEIVED June 5, 1980 HUNTSVILLE g MILL STREETS - 1360 L.F. Sidewalk 740 L.F. Storm Drainage = 541 of Length $39,600 Total Bid - 2 400 Street Widening 357,-200 = 1360 L.F. = $27.35 per L.F. - 2 350 Pedestrian Bridge 3547850 = 1360 L.F. = $25.63 per L.F. -20 122 Storm Drainage = $14.80 per L.F. T14,728 -- 1360 L.F. = $10.83 per L.F. ROCK STREET - 385 L.F. Sidewalk 385 L.F. Storm Drainage = 100% of Length $13,250 Total Bid 840 Street Widening 31z,4170 = 385 L.F. = $32.23 per L.F. - 1,400 Pedestrian Bridge • 3L1,010 - 385 L.F. = $28.60 per L.F. - 5,570 Storm Drainage r 5,440 = 385 L.F. = $14.63 per L.F. WOOD AVENUE - 1145 L.F. Sidewalk 1145 L.F. Storm Drainage = 1005 of Length $35,900 Total Bid - 7 0 Street Widening 328:56340 = 1145 L.F. = $24.75 per L.F. -19 0 Storm Drainage 1-876-10 = 1145 L.F. _ $7.53 per L.F. mm WASHINGTON AVENUE -.2530 L.F. Sidewalk 2000 L.F. Storm Drainage = 79% of Length ,$79,385 Total Bid -14,085 Street Widening 365,300 = 2530 L.F. = $25.81 per L.F. -29,000 Storm Drainage '356,300 _ 2530 L.F. = $14.35 per L.F. EXHIBIT A GOVERNMENT fi NATIONAL STREETS - 1370 L.F. Sidewalk 330 L.F. Storm Drainage = 242 of Length • $24,824 Total Bid - 2,960 Street Widening $T1,864 f 1370 L.F. = $15.96 per L.F. - 0,1L14 Storm Drainage $T1,33'0 - 1370 L.F. = $9.14 per L.F. DUNCAN AVENUE - 2230 L.F. Sidewalk 420 L.F. Storm Drainage = 193 of Length $37,700 Total Bid - 1,040 Street Widening $36,660 - 2230 L.F. = $16.44 per L.F. - 2.2 100 Storm Drainage T 3SG3 = 2230 L.F. = $13.70 per L.F. Total Length of Sidewalk•Bids = 9020 Total Length of Storm Drainage = 5020 (55%) Average Cost w/o Storm Drainage= $13.94/L.F. Average Cost w/Storm Drainage = $27.44/L.F. Average Cost of Entire Project = $21.95/L.F. • r EXHIBIT B AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PLAN (An amendment to the existing Personnel Policy, presented to the Board) Statement of policy It shall be the policy of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, physical - handicap, age, or sex, from being a factor in any decision involving a personnel action. Such actions shall include but shall not be limited to the selection, hiring, promotion, transfer, termination, training, and provision of pay and benefits. The Personnel Officer shall be designated as the Equal Employment Officer. This person shall be responsible for monitoring the implemen- tation of the practices and procedures included in this Plan and to insure compliance with all laws and regulations regarding Affirmative Action. In addition, it shall be the responsibility of each employee with management responsibilities to insure strict compliance with the Plan and each employee will be expected to promote the efforts of this policy in spirit as well as in deed. Goals and timetables Fayetteville's city government currently employs a staff of 305 full-time and 6 part-time employees. Of these 311 positions, 48 are held by women (15. 4% of the total) while 8 positions are held by minority employees (2. 6% of the total). Within Fayetteville the numb er of females constitute 41. 7% of the total labor force, while racial minorities are 3. 6%. It shall be the goal of Fayetteville's city government to increase the number of female and minority employees so as to at least equal their incidence in the work force population within the city. To effect this expressed goal the following steps shall be taken: 1. From and after the adoption of this Plan, recruitment will be on a basis that encourages the employment application by qualified female and minority persons, including: A. Advertisement in newspapers serving the largest number of females and minority group members in the recruitment area; EXHIBIT B B. Recruiting through schools and universities in the area that have substantial proportions of minority students; and C. Encouraging, whenever the city government has job openings, the referral of interested female and minority applicants, who meet minimum training, experience, or educational qualifications. 2. To the extent that such does not adversely affect the overall efficiency of the organization, traditional job descriptions and duties may be restructured so as to enhance employment opportunities for females and minorities. 3. The Personnal Officer, Department Heads, and the City Manager shall, when making decisions affecting employment, promotion, demotion, disciplining, or termination, not discriminate on the basis of any of the factors mentioned above. 4. From the adoption of this amendment to the Personnel Policy, and until such time as the percentage of female and minority employees of the city government equals or exceeds the percentage of such persons in the general work force of the area, every diligent attempt will be . made to hire at least one qualified female or minority job applicant for each male non -minority hired. 1 1 1