Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-11-04 Minutes22 11-4-80 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, November 4, 1980, at 5:00 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Henry, Lancaster, Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell; City Attorney McCord, City Manager Grimes, Administrative Assistant MeWethy, and City Clerk Koettel. ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called the meeting to order. 22.1 NOISE ORDINANCE City Attorney McCord explained that the City of Fayetteville does presently have a noise ordinance, and that two alternatives to the ordinance had been considered earlier. City Attorney McCord stated that a third alternative was being introduced. The three alternatives were briefly outlined as: (1) An amendment to the existing ordinance which would allow the City Manager to issue a permit for a temporary variance from the time limitations presently prescribed for certain activities, but would not authorize the City Manager to issue a variance relieving the permitee from the general prohibition against excessive noise, (2) A new ordinance which would supersede the existing ordinance and is patterned after the Arkansas Disorderly Conduct Statute. Variances could be granted under certain circumstances. McCord stated that the City Manager would be able to impose conditions to safeguard the neighborhood, and (3) A new ordinance superseding the existing noise ordinance, which would allow the use of a decibel measuring meter to determine whether specified limits in the ordinance were being exceeded. 22.2 McCord informed the Board that the ordinance under consideration was patterned after the model Environmental Protection Agency Noise Control Ordinance, the Norman, Oklahoma Noise Ordinance, and the Oklahoma City Noise Ordinance. McCord told the Board that he and Police Chief Bob Jones had received feedback from Norman and Oklahoma City, and had been advised that the cities have had no difficulty in enforcing their ordinances. He stated that in most cases violations are handled administratively by a noise control officer. 22.3 City Attorney McCord explained that the ordinance does contain a variance provision whereby the City Manager could grant a variance under certain circumstances, one of which would be that the excessive sound would be of a temporary duration, and that the City Manager would be allowed to impose reasonable conditions to protect the neighborhood. 22.4 McCord stated that he did send a copy of the drafted ordinance to the Regional Noise Coordinator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. Michael Mendias, for his review and comments. McCord reported that he had visited by phone with Mr. Mendias and had been advised that the ordinance appeared to be a very workable and enforceable ordinance. 22.5 Mr. Lowrey Barnes, President of the Intrafraternity Council, addressed the Board and stated that this was the type of ordinance they had requested, and that they were satisfied with this third alternative. 22.6 Mr. Robert Davis, representing the resident halls on campus, also addressed the Board and stated that he had spoken with the Presidents of 1 1 11-4-80 thirteen resident halls, and that they had all advocated the decibel system. The question was raised by a member of the audience as why the decibel system was rejected last spring, but now seemed to be satisfactory to the Board. Director Osborne answered that it was not accepted last spring because the Board did not have a person with expertise to operate a decibel meter, and because it was thought that type ordinance might involve more expense than the City wanted to bear at that time. He stated the Board had been in hopes of passing an ordinance that would be fair and enforceable without having to have a noise enforcement officer. City Attorney McCord stated he had been advised by Mr. Mendias that the EPA does have an equipment loan program. He said they will loan the City one or more sound level meters for up to one year until the City has budgeted the necessary funds to purchase their own equipment. City Attorney 0 McCord told the Board that a sound level meter would cost approximately $300. 01 McCord stated there was an individual in town Who had attended a Noise 23.4 CD Counselor's Educational Program by the EPA and was trained to operate a sound level meter. He stated that her services could be utilized until such time Q as a uniformed officer, or other employee, is trained to operate the equipment. He said that a noise counselor had been successfully used Q by the City of Albuquerque. McCord informed the Board that of the two Oklahoma cities discussed, one has an enforcement agent who is a nonuniformed police officer, and the other has an enforcement agent who is an employee of another department. City Attorney McCord told the Board he was convinced that the expense to the City for this type of ordinance would be minimum, and that it would prescribe a definite standard. II/Director Lancaster asked if someone would be required to monitor all parties, meetings,etc. to see if there was a violation of the ordinance, and McCord answered that this was not correct. He explained that if a complaint was received, a person trained to operate the sound level meter would go take a reading and determine if there was a violation. If a violation existed, a notice of violation could be issued. However, if a person knew in advance they would exceed the noise level allowed, they could apply to the City Manager for a variance. McCord stated that definite standards were set out in the ordinance to guide the City Manager whether to grant a variance or not. Director Noland asked why P-1 should not be included with I-1 and I-2 in Table I of the ordinance (page 1.10 of Directors' agenda), since that would be the areas surrounding the schools. City Attorney McCord answered that it just seemed that most schools were located in residential neighborhoods, but that it could be moved. Mr. Barnes told the Board that he would also like the P-1 included with the I-1 and I-2 section of Table 1. Director Noland also questioned paragraph (d) of the ordinance (page 1.11 of Directors' agenda) concerning loud motor vehicles. He stated that this should apply to private property as well as public right-of-way. City Attorney McCord stated that this could be chanced to read "on public right-of-way or private property." Director Noland asked McCord if it would be possible to have more than one person trained to operate the sound level meter. _ McCord responded by stating he had visited with City Manager Grimes, and they agreed that more than one officer would need to be trained. He told the Board the EPA would be willing to come to Fayetteville around the first of the year and assist the City in implementing an enforcement program. Mayor Todd asked City Attorney McCord if "the" noise control officer in paragraph (i) (Page 1.12 of agenda) could be changed to read "a" noise control officer. McCord answered that this could be done. 23 23 1 23.2 23.3 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 23.9 23.10 23.11 23.12 23.13 23.14 11-4-80 24 24.1 City Attorney McCord explained that the decibel levels listed in the ordinance are based upon levels established by other communities in this area, and that the EPA does not purport to recommend the decibel levels. He stated the EPA does publish a chart that reflects noise levels of 24.2 certain activities. Director Lancaster asked if an officer would issue a citation if he 24 3 had taken a reading and found that there was a violation of the ordinance. City Attorney McCord answered that he would have the authority to issue a citation because the offense had been committed in his presence. McCord stated that if the officer had taken the reading, or observed the reading being taken, he would have the authority to issue a citation. 24.5 Director Lancaster asked what affect the gross vehicle weight rating 24.6 (GVWR) had on a noise ordinance. Mayor Todd answered that it referred back to Table II (page 1.11 of agenda) showing a larger vehicle would make more noise. 24.7 City Attorney McCord explained that the ordinance was patterned after the model EPA Noise Ordinance, and that the EPA had determined there was a direct relationship, and the language was simply in conformance with federal law. 24.8 Director Colwell stated that he disagreed on the suggestion of moving the P-1 down with the I-1 and I-2 in Table I, based on the fact that industrial zones are buffered and the institutional zones are not. He stated he would like to leave the institutional areas along with the residential areas. 24.9 Director Noland stated that Fayetteville High School is in a P-1 area, but that he felt they should be entitled to make more noise because of the football noise, the band, and other such activities. 24.10 City Attorney McCord pointed out that public assembly activities are exempted in paragraph (b) of the ordinance. 24 11 In reply to Director Colwell's question concerning paragraph (c) referring to "receiving land use," McCord clarified that this would be the area of the complaint, where the sound was heard, and not the exact location of the source of the sound. 24.12 Director Colwell asked if a noise control officer would have to be a graduate of the Police Academy in order to issue a summons. 24.13 City Attorney McCord answered that only a police officer with the authority to make an arrest could issue a citation. However, if a nosie counselor was used, or an employee of the City who was trained to operate the sound level meter, that individual could take a reading and if a violation was detected he could call an officer and take another reading in his presence, which would give the officer authority to issue a citation or make an arrest. 24.14 Director Colwell stated that he brought this up because of an editorial article in the local paper concerning the use of police officers for non- criminal activity. 24.15 City Attorney McCord pointed out that in other communities the ordinances are administered by a Code Enforcement Officer and not a Police Officer, and that the law enforcement department and prosecutor's office have been involved only on a minimum basis. 24 16 Mayor Todd asked City Attorney McCord if part (1) of paragraph (b) on page 1.10 of the agenda stating, "...(1) non-commercial public speaking and 24 17 public assembly activities conducted on any..." could refer to parties. City Attorney McCord stated that he did not feel the court would construe private parties as public assemblies. 24 18 Director Osborne stated that he was in agreement with the City Attorney, and that this section was geared toward the lawful right of people to gather together for public meetings. 1 11-4-80 Mrs. Compton, a member of the audience, presented a chart to the Board listing the number of decibels of certain activities. It was pointed out that a typing pool of nine persons measured 65 decibels, which is also the number of decibels allowed for the residential areas in Table I of the noise ordinance. Director Colwell questioned a band making less noise than a typing pool of nine persons, and Director Osborne stated that a variance could be obtained allowing the band to exceed the 65 decibel limit. Mr. Barnes asked how the time shown in Table I was set at 9:00 p.m. when at the last meeting the cut-off times of 11:00 p.m. on weekdays and 12:00 p.m. on weekends were discussed. Director Osborne stated that he thought the times shown in Table I should be changed to be in agreement with those cut-off times of the University, which are 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. CD City Attorney McCord stated that this could be changed, but that the 25.5 difference would only be a five decibel change. Q) Director Henry stated she did not think the time should necessarily be 25.6 changed to 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. Q City Manager Grimes stated that the limits set forth in the ordinance 25.7 are for everyday, normal operations, but that if a variance was issued it could impose the cut-off time and the decibel level. City Attorney McCord stated that the ordinance could be amended later if it was discovered the time limits needed to be changed. Director Henry stated that she felt the 9:00 p.m. limit was a little too early, but that she was not certain she wanted to agree to 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. for all year. Director Colwell pointed out that this would only be an 8% change. He said he doubted that most people could perceive an 8% change. Director Henry stated that she felt it was significant that the University had changed their cut-off times from 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and 12:00 p.m. in order to try and comply. Director Osborne said that he felt the University and the students had tried hard to get something worked out, and he would like to see something reasonable that could be agreed upon by everyone. Director Noland pointed out that if the present hours were left as proposed in the ordinance, and P -I was moved down to I-1, the standards for night and day would be the same. City Attorney McCord stated that if the ordinance passed, problems might arise that could not be foreseen at present, but that the ordinance could very easily be amended. Director Henry suggested changing the time in the ordinance from 9:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., and there was a consensus among the Board to do so. Director Osborne stated that he agreed with Director Noland and thought the P-1 should be moved down with the industrial zoning. McCord pointed out to the Board that they should consider that they were enacting an ordinance of public application, and not one just addressed to the University. He pointed out that on occasions where a party would be held with a band, a variance could be applied for with the City Manager. He told the Board that in his opinion this ordinance was more enforceable and more restrictive than anything else considered by the Board. Director Colwell pointed out that A-1 was not listed in Table I, and McCord answered that it could be placed with the I-1 and I-2 zoning. Jerry Sweetser, a member of the audience, stated that the number one problem in an apartment business was noise. He asked if a person could have a party any time they wanted, up until 11:00 p.m. and not be in violation of the proposed ordinance. City Attorney McCord answered that if a person did anything that created a noise above 60 decibels after 11:00 p.m. or 65 decibels before 11:00 p.m., that person would be in violation. 25 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.8 25.9 25.10 25.11 25.12 25.13 25.14 25.15 25.16 25.17 25.18 25.19 25.20 • 11-4-80 24) 26.1 A member of the audience, Mr. Blackwell, asked if there was a separate law pertaining to noise nuisance. He said that even something 20 decibels might be annoying, such as the tapping of a floor above you. 26.2 City Attorney McCord explained that this ordinance would not supersede the common law of nuisance, and that the Disorderly Conduct Statute includes a section on excessive noise. 26.3 Mayor Todd asked if there was a repealer clause in the ordinance, and McCord stated there was. 26.4 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time, incorporating the changes discussed by the Board. 26.5 Director Henry, seconded by Colwell, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 26.6 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further suspended, and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 26.7 There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the ordinance, which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2674 APPEARS ON PAGE 011 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . FAIR HOUSING 26.8 Mayor Todd introduced further discussion of a proposal to institute a Fair Housing Program as an alternative to the enactment of a local Fair Housing Ordinance. He explained to the audience that this was necessary in order to meet HUD's requirements, and to continue to receive community development funds. 26.9 Mayor Todd explained that the three phases of the program being considered by Fayetteville were: (1) an education program, (2) a complaint assistance program, and (3) a complaint follow-up program. 26.10 There being no discussion from the audience, Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that the staff be asked to prepare a Fair Housing Program similar to the Little Rock Fair Housing Program. 26.11 Director Colwell stated that he had planned to ask the Board to delay this until after election day to see if there would be any significant changes. However, he stated that after reading a letter dated October 30, 1980 from HUD, stating that the 1981 Block Grant Fund might be jeopardized if the Fair Housing Program was not passed, he felt it would be better to continue with this at the present time. 26.12 Mayor Todd asked Rick Mason of Community Development if this would be an eligible item for a community development grant. 26.13 Mr. Mason stated that this would be eligible, and the money would not have to come out of the General Fund Budget. 26.14 Mayor Todd pointed out to City Manager Grimes that he had received some feedback concerning a matter of wording in the Little Rock program, and asked him to be sure this was taken care of in Fayetteville's program. 26.15 Mayor Todd informed the audience that this would come back to the Board for final adoption, but that HUD wanted the negotiations and the program to be approved by them before the Board adopted the program. 26.16 The Mayor called for a vote on the motion, and the motion passed unanimously upon roll call. 1 1 11-4-80 27 WATER DEPOSITS . III Mayor Todd introduced amendments to the City Code sections dealing with 27.1 deposits and penalties for water service. City Attorney McCord pointed out a change in the proposal of the .Finance 27.2 Director 'cregardi.ng multifamily dwellings on a master meter. The deposit would be increased to $50.00 or up to 2.5 times the estimated maximum water bill, as determined by the City Water and Sewer Superintendent, based upon the customer's past practice regarding payment of his water bills. City Attorney McCord explained that for those persons who have 27.3 consistently paid their bills on time there would be a $50.00 deposit, but for those who have not paid their bill promptly, the deposit would be more. 0 Mr. Al Hughes addressed the Board and stated that he felt the 2.5 times 27.4 CD was somewhat out of line. He told the Board that if he purchased an apart- ment building from a person who had a bad payment history, his deposit could be 2.5 times the estimated maximum water bill of that apartment building. 7 He stated this did not seem fair for him to have to pay more because of the Q old owner's history. a City Attorney McCord stated that the deposit would be determined on 27.5 the past history of the customer in question, not the previous owner of the apartment building. Mr. Hughes told the Board that all the other utilities pay interest 27.6 on their deposits, but paragraph A of the proposed ordinance states that the service deposit would be retained by the City without interest. Mr. Hughes said that he felt like 5% or 6% interest should be paid on the deposit, since the City does invest the money into certificates of deposits III and earns interest. Mr.. Hughes stated that he had lived in other cities that refunded the 27.7 deposit after a certain period of time, such as five years. Mr. Hughes also questioned paragraph 4A of the proposed ordinance, 27.8 which would allow contractors and real estate agents to pay a deposit of $200 instead of putting up individual deposits. Mr. Hughes told the Board he felt like the deposit should be the same 27.9 for everyone in the same category, and that with the proposed ordinance the deposit would be up to the Water and Sewer Superintendent, or his authorized representative, to decide the amount of the deposit. Finance Director, Scott Linebaugh, explained the reason for paragraph 27.10 4A, allowing contractors and real estate agents to pay a cover deposit of $200. He said this was done to try and help those persons because they have so many different houses and apartments, and this way they would not have to put a deposit down on each individual house or apartment. It would reduce the paperwork and time for both the customer and the City. 27 11 City Attorney McCord stated that the language of the ordinance could be clarified by adding, "if the customer has a history of delinquent payment or non-payment of water bills," after the word Sewer Superintendent. This would clearly indicate that only those persons with a bad payment history would be required to pay the 2.5 times the estimated bill for deposit. Mr. Hughes asked if the ordinance would be retroactive and McCord 27.12 answered that it would not, but that the ordinance did contain an emergency clause and would be effective immediately. III Mr. Hughes told the Board that the cover deposit of .$200 was not 27.13 necessarily an advantage. He stated that in his case, the water was usually turned on for a clean up. McCord told Mr. Hughes that the $200 cover deposit was an option, 27.14 and that he could make individual deposits if he preferred. Director Henry pointed out that all contractors and real estate agents 27.15 would not be able to use the $200 deposit option, but that they would be screened and the decision based upon their past payment history. 11-4-80 28 28.1 Jerry Sweetser told the Board that this cover deposit would be an advantage to him. He said that at the present time he has to put up a deposit everytime he cleans an apartment, which usually only takes a few hours. 28.2 Mr. Hughes stated that the City has a policy now for a ten day clean up, and that you can sign an agreement with the City to have the water turned on without making a deposit. 28.3 Mr. Sweetser stated that it has been a nuisance for him, and that the 28 4 $200 cover deposit will help. Mr. Hughes stated that the $200 cover deposit would be satisfactory if the present clean up agreement could still be used, and David Hausam Assistant Finance Director, told him it could. 28.5 Mr. Sweetser asked the Board if the language could be changed to state that anyone with twelve consecutive months of prompt payment of his water bill would be eligible for the $50 deposit, or set a time limit stating that if someone made so many delinquent payments, he would not be eligible for the 28 6 $50.00 deposit. City Attorney McCord stated that this could be done. He told Mr. 28 7 Sweetser that this could be handled administratively as a matter of policy. Mr. Sweetser replied thatthis was still letting one person make the 28 8 decision, rather than making a rule. Mr. Hughes said that this would not necessarily have to be written into the ordinance, but it should be in a written form, and the City Attorney 29 9 agreed. Mr. Wade Bishop addressed the Board and stated he was very glad to have an option that allowed him to pay a $200 cover deposit, instead of coming in every time he takes out a building permit and putting up 28 10 individual deposits. Mr. Bishop stated that he felt a penalty should be imposed on those persons who are delinquent twice, requiring them to double their deposit 28 11 before the water could be turned on again. City Attorney McCord stated that the ordinance did address that problem 28 11 by increasing the reconnect charges and providing additional penalties. Mayor Todd asked if there was an increase in the deposit after the 28 13 water is disconnected. David Hausam explained that after seven days it becomes a forfeited deposit account. The deposit is applied after seven days, if they want to be reconnected, they must pay a $40 deposit, plus $10.00 for reconnection fee. 28 14 If more than one trip is required, $5.00 per additional trip will be charged. Ron Sherwood told the Board that he felt the persons not paying their bills, for the most part, would fall under the private sector or those persons using apartments that are separately metered. He stated he felt the 2.5 times the expected maximum water bill, at the discretion of someone, might not be right. He agreed that $50.00 deposit would be reasonable, but that the Board might be penalizing the wrong group of persons. He asked the Board why they needed the 2.5 penalty, and why they could not extract it and state the deposit would be $50.00. He suggested following the procedure of disconnecting the water of those persons who are late. 28.15 Mr. Linebaugh pointed out to Mr. Sherwood that the problem was not only apartment houses, but also involved the sororities and fraternities. He stated that the $50.00 would be a minimum, and that only those with a bad payment history would be charged more. 28.16 Ron Sherwood asked why the Board could not be consistent in both areas with some type of policy. He pointed out that in talking with Finance Director Linebaugh the single family dwellings were the major problems and they also should be charged for the 2.5 times rate for delinquency. 28.17 Director Osborne stated that he felt Mr. Sherwood had a good point, since the mayor problem was with single family dwellings. He said he felt the Water and Sewer Superintendent should be given the authority to charge $25.00, or up to 2.5 times the estimated maximum bill. • 1 1 11-4-80 Director Henry asked if the Water and Sewer Superintendent was the person who should be authorized to do this, and City Manager Grimes answered that probably this should be the responsibility of the Finance Director because the Water and Sewer Superintendent does not concern himself with the accounting function on a day-to-day basis. Mr. Blackwell told the Board he did not agree with the 2.5 phrase because it was vague. City Manager Grimes informed the Board that the possibility of paying back the deposits had been discussed. It was suggested that paying back deposits.could be done more easily and routinely after the City was on the computer, but that no final decision had been reached. Director Osborne stated that the City was not making money on the water. He said that if refunds of deposits were made the last bill might not be paid. O Director Sharp stated this had been brdught up at a finance committee meeting. He stated that after the Black & Veatch study, the City should break even, but at the present time it is operating at a deficit. He said 6) that after the City was on the computer the City should consider returning deposits. City Manager Grimes stated that this should be pointed out to Black & Q Veatch because they could be counting the interest received from the deposits as a part of the revenue. Director Osborne stated that the rates would have to be raised if deposits were refunded, and actually nothing would be gained. Mr. Sherwood told the Board that the time allowed to pay the water bill before paying a penaltyis not long enough. He pointed out that most utilities allow approximately 22 to 25 days to pay a bill, and the City only allows ten days. Mr. Sherwood stated that this would probably not be easily corrected; but perhaps after the Black & Veatch study something could be done. Director Colwell pointed out that a water bill would be approximately the same amount each month and that the City would draft that amount. Under this procedure a customer would never pay a penalty and would receive a notice when the draft was sent through. Mr. Sherwood stated that this would be an excellent system in some cases, but that not everyone's business is set up so that the draft system works well with the accounting system. Director Henry pointed out that if move time was allowed, the 2.5 factor discussed earlier would have to changed to allow for this. Mayor Todd asked what amount of time lag there is between the time the meter is read and the time the bill is sent out. David Hausam stated that this is usually about ten days. The Board asked City Attorney McCord to incorporate the change to authorize the 2.5 times factor if the customer has a bad payment history and apply it to all categories. Director Colwell stated that if a person has a $25.00 deposit, he will pay his water bill before he leaves town and have the deposit refunded. He stated he felt the performance record would be much different if a person did not have a deposit when he moved from town. Director Colwell asked why there was a difference between 4:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Finance Director Linebaugh stated the reason they requested the 4:00 p.m. time was because by the time the employee worked on the order he would have to be paid overtime. if the time was left at 5:00 p.m. Director Colwell questioned the amount of $10.00 for tampering with meters He stated that perhaps it should be much more than that amount. Finance Director Linebaugh stated that there is a clause in the proposed ordinance which would allow the Water and Sewer Superintendent to determine how much damage was done and charge the customer for that amount, and that the '$10.00 fee was for breaking just the coupling or lock. 1 29 29 1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 29.10 29.11 29.12 29.13 29.14 29.15 29.16 29.17 29.18 11-4-80 30 30.1 Assistant Finance Director Hausam explained that if a person breaks the coupling or lock and the water is turned back on, the City goes back to the previous meter reading and charges the customer for all that water in addition to the $10.00 fine. 30.2 Director Colwell asked Finance Director Linebaugh how nonsufficient checks were handled. 30.3 Mr. Linebaugh stated that at the present time a $5.00 fee is charged for an insufficient check. He told the Board that letters are sent, and if no answer is received the water is shut off. 30.4 Director Colwell suggested sending the insufficient check back with a note stating the account was delinquent, and that if payment was not made the service would be disconnected. 30.5 Mr. Hausam explained to Mr. Colwell the reason for not sending the check back. He pointed out that one account is set up at McIlroy and First National Banks for check returns. He stated that to return the check the City would have to write two checks from the Water and Sewer Fund and Sanitation Fund back to the returned check fund in order to cover the check. 30.6 Mr. Blackwell told the Board that he did not agree with Section 11 of the proposed ordinance, stating that the forfeiture of the deposit would take place if the customer had not paid the delinquent bill plus all applicable service charges within seven days after disconnection. He suggested that this should be thirty days instead of seven. 30.7 Mr. Blackwell asked the Board if there was a state law that made it illegal to disconnect service on a holiday or on a weekend. 30.8 City Attorney McCord stated that he knew of no such law. 30.9 There being no further discussion, the City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. 30.10 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 30.11 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 30.12 The Mayor asked if the ordinance should pass. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE 2675 APPEARS ON PAGE CIS OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK K . TAP FEES 30.13 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance increasing water & sewer tap fees. 30.14 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 30.15 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 30.16 Mayor Todd told the audience that this was the first increase since Janaury of 1967, which would explain why the increase was necessary. 30.17 Mr. Wade Bishop addressed the Board and asked when the increases would be effective. 30.18 City Attorney McCord stated the ordinance did contain an emergency clause, thus the new fees would be effective immediately after the ordinance passed. 30.19 Mr. Bishop stated that he felt something was wrong when prices had to be increased by 150o. He agreed tnat increases were necessary to keep up with 1 1 11-4-80 inflation. He stated, however, that he felt the fees should have been increased by 10% each year rather than 150% at one time. Mr. Bishop told the Board that in the past when there were price changes for permits obtained through the inspection office, a certain grace period was allowed. He stated that he felt those persons in the building business should be entitled to a grace period. Director Lancaster stated that he would be in agreement on eliminating the emergency clause, which would make the ordinance effective 30 days from date of publication. He pointed out that the Water and Sewer Committee had found that the water and sewer department was running at a deficit of $300,000. Mayor Todd stated that he agreed with Mr. Bishop on the point that the increases should be made on a periodic basis, rather than once every thirteen years. 0 Director Sharp agreed that the prices should be changed annually, but he said he did think the ordinance should be effective immediately. City Engineer,•Don Bunn, stated that something would need to be done to keep persons from taking out dry taps if the emergency clause was deleted from 7 the ordinance and persons were given a grace period of 30 days. He pointed out Q it would be impossible to determine whether persons requesting 30 or 40 taps Q were actually going to put in a development soon, or if they were simply taking advantage of the lower prices. Mr. Bunn did say that perhaps it would be an advantage to have a 30 day grace period because it might encourage persons to connect to the sewer system who are not presently on the system. Mayor Todd asked City Attorney McCord if there would be a way to administratively prevent a large number of taps being purchased at one time. City Attorney McCord stated that a time limit would have to be set stating the tap would have to made within a certain period of time. He told the Board this should be written into the ordinance. Director Henry pointed out that the City has been losing money for a number of years, and if a grace period was extended the City would lose a lot more money. City Manager Grimes stated that he had discussed the problem with David McWethy, Administrative Assistant. Mr. Grimes stated that a large subdivider could pass the cost on to the person who buys the lot. He suggested allowing a certain number of taps per individual for a specified number of days. Mr. Grimes said this would allow those wanting to be on the sewer system time to purchase their tap. He stated he did not think a person should be allowed 50 or 100 taps.at the old rate. Director Osborne suggested allowing one tap in the next 30 days at the old rate. City Attorney McCord answered that this could be incorporated into the ordinance. Mr. Bishop told the Board that usually he puts in the taps as the waterline is laid. He said he did not follow this procedure on the two phases he is working on now because Mr. Bunn, City Engineer, requested a PVC pipe put in under the street so the tap could be made at the City's convenience. Mr. Bishop told the Board that his taps would already have been installed if the City would have allowed the contractor to install his own taps. Don Bunn, City Engineer, told Mr. Bishop that the City does allow a contractor to install their own taps. City Manager Grimes pointed out that the ordinance is written so as to not allow developers to install their own. taps. However, due to the large number of water and sewer main breaks recently, the crews have been tied up and.a substantial backlog has occurred. Only under these circumstances are developers allowed to install their own taps. City Attorney McCord suggested adding the following to the proposed ordinance: 1 31 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 31.7 31.8 31.9 31.10 31.11 31.12 31.13 31.14 31.15 31.16 31 .17 11-4-80 32 32.1 "The tap fees prescribed herein shall apply to all water and sewer taps made after 30 days from the passage of this ordinance; provided, no more than one water tap and one sewer tap per family shall be allowed within said 30 day period at the tap fees in effect prior to passage of this ordi- nance." 32.2 Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved to amend the ordinance as stated above by the City Attorney. The amendment passed unanimously upon roll call, with Director Noland abstaining. 32.3 Mayor Todd called for further discussion on the amended ordinance. Mr. Bishop asked the Mayor if persons with special problems could come back to the Board. 32.4 After some discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that the ordinance be passed as amended, and that Mr. Bishop, Don Bunn, and Don Grimes be instructed to discuss Mr. Bishop's particular situation, after which City Manager Grimes would report back to the Board. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call with Director Noland abstaining. ORDINANCE 2676 APPEARS ON PAGE 0/9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X SEWER USE ORDINANCE 32.5 Mayor Todd introduced a proposed Sewer Use Ordinance regarding the use of public and private sewers and the discharge of waters and wastes into the public sewer system. 32.6 Mr. A. D. McAllister addressed the Board on behalf of Campbell Soup Company. He stated that Campbell Soup Company did wish to cooperate with the City of Fayetteville in attempting to solve the water treatment problems. Mr. McAllister told the Board that a meeting had been held with consultants from Campbell Soup and from the City of Fayetteville, at the request of Campbell Soup. Mr. McAllister told the Board it was agreed upon at that meeting that the City's sewage treatment facilities would be made available to Campbell Soup consultants for review and inspection, and that the Campbell Soup Plant operations would be made available to the City consultants for appropriate studies. 32.7 Mr. McAllister told the Board that Campbell Soup Company felt that the language in section D, with respect to 100 milligrams per million, is arbitrary and unreasonable, and that if the 100 parts per miligram were deleted that the ordinance would be in tune with current regulations of the Water Pollution Control Federation. Mr. McAllister asked that the ordinance be placed on the first reading only,to give those working on the ordinance an opportunity to explore that particular part of the ordinance. 32.8 Mayor Todd asked Mr. McAllister if the wording in the proposed ordinance was the same as the wording in the existing ordinance, and Mr. McAllister answered that was correct. 32.9 Mayor Todd asked City Manager Grimes if he felt the adoption of the ordinance should be delayed. 32.10 City Manager Grimes suggested that the Board adopt the ordinance so that the City could begin working on individual contracts, and that if a need was shown that the 100 parts per million should be modified that it could be done at a later time. 32.11 Mr. McAllister pointed out to the Board that Campbell Soup Company was asking for the deletion of the 100 parts per million and the addition of other considerations. 32.12 Director Osborne told Mr. McAllister this could be done by amendment, and that he also would like to get the ordinance on the books. A representative of Gold Kist was present and asked the Board where 32.13 individual contracts were referenced in the ordinance. • 1 11-4-80 Mr. Brannon of McGoodwin, Williams, & Yates Engineering Firm told the Gold Kist representative that this was found in Article 4, sections 3 and 4 of page 7 of the Directors' agenda. 33.2 Director Noland pointed out that this ordinance was first considered with somewhat different standards over fourteen months ago. He stated that the ordinance proposed had evolved from this and that it did have industry input. 33.3 Director Noland stated that the present ordinance does not have any specific standards for metals, and that is something new that is needed. He said he felt this would be onereason for moving ahead with the proposed ordinance. 33.4 Director Sharp stated that the ordinance did not only pertain to ten or twenty industries, but to everything except residential sewage. 0 City Attorney McCord told the Board that section 2 on page 6 should be 33.5 Q) amended by adding the following language: CD"No permit shall be issued for any lot which has a gross area of less 33.6 than 1.5 acres unless the final plat for the subdivision in which the lot is located was approved by the Fayetteville Planning Commission and filed for Q record prior to July 5, 1977. For a metes and bounds parcel no permit shall be issued if the parcel contains a gross area of less than 1.5 acres and was created by a. lot split which occurred after July 5, 1977." 33.7 Mr. McAllister asked the Board if it would consider amending the ordinance if that was the consensus among the consultants of the City and Campbell Soup Company. Mayor Todd answered that they were adopting the ordinance with an open 33.8 mind, and would consider further requests for amendments. ' City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. 33.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that Article VIII be deleted 33.10 and City Attorney McCord stated he would recommend the deletion because that part of the ordinance was contrary to the law. 33.11 Upon roll call the amendment passed unanimously. 33.12 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 33.13 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 33.14 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that an emergency clause be included in the ordinance. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass as amended, and the ordinance 33.15 passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE 2677 APPEARS ON PAGE 0.200F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . 33 33 1 AIRPORT RESOLUTION/ENGINEERING CONTRACT/MCCLELLAND ENGINEERS Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an engineering contract with McClelland Consulting Engineers for the grading of safety areas and for taxiway lighting at Drake Field. City Manager Chimes stated that the work might possibly be done for less than the amount shown in the agenda. He asked the engineers and the FFA to keep the costs at a minimum since both were extra items that the City had not planned on undertaking. Mr. Quinn of McClelland Engineers stated that it was his understanding with the people in Oklahoma City Office that if the City would conform to their suggestions, they would allow the City to proceed with things the City wanted to do with the money funded for the next fiscal year. 33.16 33.17 33.18 11-4-80 34 34.1 Mayor Todd asked Mr. Quinn if that agreement could be obtained in writing, and Mr. Quinn replied that his firm would try and do this. 34.2 Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, moved that the resolution pass. Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 111-80 APPEARS ON PAGE9-20OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK, AIRPORT RESTAURANT/WARD-POWER MANAGEMENT COMPANY 34.3 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a contract with Ward -Power Management Company for the operation of a restaurant at Drake Field Terminal Building. He pointed out that bids had been taken. 34.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the resolution pass. 34.5 Mayor Todd asked City Manager Grimes if there would be a provision in the contract to control the game machines, and City Manager Grimes stated that there would be such a provision. 34.6 Director Sharp questioned item number 4 under term on page 7.03 of the directors' agenda, and was informed by City Attorney McCord that this would not appear in the final contract. 34.7 Mayor Todd asked if the resolution should pass, and upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously. • RESOLUTION NO. 112-80 APPEARS ON PAGE LII-ECF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK/ SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY MEMBERSHIP OF ELKINS, GREENLAND, AND DECATUR 34.8 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance allowing the membership of Elkins, ' Greenland, and Decatur into the Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority. 34.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 34.10 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp moved the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed and the ordinance was read for the third time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.ORD. 2678 BID AWARD #441/POLICE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES T -_ .2.0n 34.11 Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved that bid #441 be awarded to Lewis Ford, low bidder, for three intermediate size vehicles at $7,976 each. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. FLUORIDATION BID 34.12 City Manager Grimes reported that the fluoridation bid would open at 2:00 p.m., November 22, 1980, at the Beaver Water Plant. STRUCTURAL STUDY OF CITY HALL 34.13 City Manager Grimes reported that the structural study of City Hall had been completed. He told the Board $380,000 was included in the budget for purchase or rennovation of a building. SILVER STOLEN 34.14 Director Henry reported that she had received phone calls about a number of people having silver stolen. After some discussion, it was agreed to ask the quorum court to pass a county -wide ordinance in an attempt to prevent some of the silver burglaries. 1 11-4-80 35 INOPERABLE CARS PARKED IN NEIGHBORHOOD Director Colwell asked Administrative Assistant, David McWethy, to prepare 35.1 an official notice to let people know that they do have recourse for inoperable cars parked in their neighborhoods. TRANSIT SYSTEM Director Sharp reported a Fayetteville Public Transit meeting was held November 3, and a management survey was given. He stated that 4,665 people 0 had ridden the bus and it cost Ozark Transit about $2.00 per person per trip. The average fare was twenty nine cents. Director Sharp stated that the fare would have to be increased, and that ridership needed to be increased. Q MINUTES Q 35.2 The minutes for the October 21, 1980 meeting were approved as submitted. 35.3 ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. 35.4