Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-02 Minutes1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, December 2, 1980, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster; City Manager Grimes, Administrative Assistant McWethy, City Attorney McCord, and City Clerk Koettel. 47 ABSENT: None O CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called the meeting to order. Q REZONING APPEAL/VILLA NORTH SUBDIVISION Q Mayor Todd explained that the actual issue addressed was whether or not 47.1 to initiate a rezoning. Mayor Todd stated that the Board did have the authority to ask the Planning Commission to call a Public Hearing to initiate a rezoning consideration. After that Public Hearing, the Planning Commission would make a recommendation to the Board, and the matter would come back to the Board for final action. City Attorney McCord further explained that the property owners in 47.2 question requested the Planning Commission to initiate a rezoning, but the Planning commission decided not to initiate the rezoning after hearing the arguments pro and con. McCord stated the property owners are now requesting the Board of Directors to initiate the rezoning. He clarified to the Board that the issue was whether or not the Board should request the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing on the rezoning of the property. McCord explained that if the Board decided to ask the Planning Commission 47.3 to pursue the possibility of rezoning the property, the procedure would be for the Board to pass a resolution to that effect. A notice of Public Hearing would be published, and the Planning Commission would then hold a Public Hearing on the rezoning and make a recommendation to the Board of Directors. Mayor Todd stated that the Board members did have copies of the minutes 47.4 of the Planning Commission meeting on November 10th. He also pointed out that the Board members had studied the petition presented by the residents of the subdivision. Mayor Todd called for comments from any member of the audience. 47.5 Mr. Jeff Slaton addressed the Board on behalf of toe petitioners and 47.6 distributed color -coded maps showing single-family dwellings and duplexes. Mr. Slaton told the Board that the petitioners bought single-family homes and relied upon oral representation of the original developer that the internal part of the subdivision would not have duplexes built on the property. He pointed out that there were no duplexes on the property until Washington Development Company took control of the property and started the construction. of duplexes. Mr. Slaton pointed out that in a transcript of the Subdivision Committee 47.8 meeting of March 27, 1978, Mr. Carlisle, representative of the original developer, stated that there would not be duplexes or apartments on the property. Mr. Slaton said thei:petitioners did rely upon the representation of the developer. He stated that Washington Development Company's 12-2-80 48 48.1 representative contends that the bank did not have knowledge of the oral agreement between the petitioners and the original developer. Mr. Slaton stated he felt they did have notice of the agreement since it was stated in the Subdivision Committee meeting minutes. 48.2 On behalf of the petitioners, Mr. Slaton requested the Board of Directors to rezone the internal blocks of the subdivision, Blocks 2, 3, 4, and 5 to R-1. He stated that there are six lots in these blocks that have duplexes already under construction, and that they were not asking for this construction to be stopped. He told the Board that there are 31 lots in the five blocks whichwere being requested to be zoned R-1. He stated that out of the 31 lots, 19 of them are under 7000 square feet, and duplexes cannot be built on this size lot. He pointed out that in order to have duplexes on these lots a variance would have to be obtained. 48.3 Mr. Slaton also requested the Board to stop all further building in the subdivision until Drake Street is completed. He pointed out that in the May 23, 1977 Subdivision Committee minutes it was stated that the south half of Drake Street would be constructed by Holley -Ogden enterprises when the City developed the north half of the road. Mr. Slaton stated that the east half of Drake has been developed for approximately two and a half years and thewest half is still undeveloped. He told the Board that the area was very congested, and it might be more financially feasible to the bank to leave the lots undeveloped rather than construct the other part of Drake Street. 48.4 Mayor Todd clarified to Mr. Slaton that the developer was only committed to build the south half of the western portion of the street. 48.5 Mr. Slaton told the Board that the developer who has the property now is Washington Development Company, and that many of the officers of Washington Development Company are officers of Mcllroy Bank & Trust. Mr. Slaton questioned whether or not a bank should be developing housing, when other developers are unable to obtain money for property development. 48.6 Mr. Slaton told the Board that the petitioners first filed their request to initiate action for rezoning on November 3, 1980. He stated that on November 10, 1980, two other building permits for the subdivision were issued. Mr. Slaton told the Board it was his understanding that when a petition is filed with the Planning Administrator, that no building permits will be issued for ninety days. 48.7 City Attorney McCord responded by explaining to Mr. Slaton that he had not filed a petition to rezone property owned by him, but tnat he had asked the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning of property owned by others. McCord stated that in his opinion, under state law and local ordinance, no law had been violated by issuing permits for the construction of dwellings that complied with the zoning ordinance in effect and with the applicable building code. 48.8 McCord stated that in the event the Board did ask the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing on the rezoning, the Board would have the authority to withhold issuance of building permits for any of the affected property until the final decision was reached. McCord pointed out that at the present time neither the Planning Commission nor the Board had made a decision to initiate a Public Hearing on the possibility of rezoning the property in question, and tnat it was his opinion that no law had been violated in issuing the permits. 48.9 Mr. Slaton stated that 22 single-family dwellings are going to be turned into rental property against the will of the property owners. He told the Board he felt it was in public interest for a hearing to be held on the rezoning of the property. 1 1 1 NW - 12 -2-80 Mr. Slaton presented copies of a petition which he said would be filed 49 9 with the Planning Administrator, asking that no variances be granted for the 19 lots which are under 7000 square feet. 49.2 Mayor Todd asked Mr. Slaton which lots he was requesting be rezoned'. Mr. Slaton answered Block 2, Lots 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15; Block 3, Lots 1, 3, 5, 7, 9; Block 4, Lots 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; and Block 5, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13. 49.3 Mr. Slaton said that foundations for duplexes have been started on some of the lots. He told the Board they were not requesting that these lots be rezoned since construction was already under way. Director Osborne asked Mr. Slaton why he was not requesting that the 49.4 lots with single-family dwellings be zoned R-1 also. He explained that these could be changed to apartments or duplexes unless rezoned. Mr. Slaton stated that it was agreeable to the petitioners to have 49.5 their lots rezoned to R-1 also. He stated they had simply not taken into 0') consideration that the single-family dwellings could be changed to multi- family. 49.6 Mayor Todd called for further comments from the audience, and Mr. Joseph Wilson of 214 Adobe Street addressed the Board. He stated that at the time he learned the property was being transferred to Washington Development Company, he tried several times to contact persons at Mcllroy Bank to inquire about purchasing the lot directly adjacent to hits -home in order to protect his property. He said the bank was unable to refer him to the right person, and he was finally informed the lot had been sold. Mr. Wilson contended that Mcllroy's claim that they contacted all the residents of the subdivision to see if they wanted to purchase the property was not the case. 49.7 Mr. Lamar Pettus, representative of Washington Development Company, addressed the Board. He stated that the residents wanted to buy the. lots owned by his clients for virtually nothing. Mr. Pettus stated that the lots are for sale, and that Mcllroy Bank & Trust now holds the mortgage on 41 lots in Villa North Subdivision. 49 8 Mr. Pettus asked how many of the residents had a title opinion done on their property before they purchased the property, and none of the petitioners responded that they had. 49.9 Mr. Pettus told the Board he was concerned about the historical significance of the questions raised. He said that from the very beginning a system had to be formed in dealing with real property, a system to allow someone to purchase property and know that there was some form of protection for that property. He explained that Arkansas has the constructive notice procedure. Mr. Pettus stated that zoning ordinances were established to protect the health and welfare in developing property and to give some form of development to properties in cities or urban areas. 49.10 Mr. Pettus told the Board the subdivision was originally scheduled to be a mobile home park and was subdivided in 1977. He stated that some of the petitioners had signeddocuments enabling Mr. Ogden to change the status of the subdivision. 49.11 Mr. Pettus stated that the petitioners represented 22 families, but that there are 105 lots in Villa North Subdivision. He stated that Mcllroy has title to 41 lots, but that is only a total of 63 lots. He expressed a concern about the other property owners who were not present. Mr. Pettus stated that these property owners probably knew when they purchased their Tots that they were zoned R-2. 49.12 Mr. Pettus told the Board that the petitioners were asking the City of Fayetteville to take away a property right from an organization which checked their ,property out at the courthouse and followed the correct procedures. He told the Board that the petitioners also had been given the right to find out about their property before they purchased it. Mr. Pettus asked what a buyer could depend on if he could not expect the City to stand behind a 12-2-80 50 commitment made years before by granting certain zones to certain property. Mr. Pettus stated they were not just talking about Villa North Subdivision, but any R-2 subdivision. 50.1 Mr. Pettus told the Board that Washington Development Company would not try to develop a duplex on each lot because the footage requirement would not allow them to do so. He did say that requests might be made to combine three lots and put two duplexes on them. 50.2 Mr. Pettus told the Board that Washington Development Company would pay for building half of the south part of the western portion of Drake Street anytime the City requested them to do so. He did point out that this section of street could not be completed even then unless the City was willing to pay for the other half. 50.3 Mr. Slaton addressed the Board and emphasized that it was in public interest for a resolution to be passed stopping any new construction in the subdivision, and for a resolution to be passed referring the matter to the Planning Commission for a Public Hearing. 50.4 Mr. Pettus told the Board that the City was actually better off because Mcllroy took over the property. He stated that before they did so, the property was in poor condition and the grass was grown up very high. 50.5 Mr. Pettus stated that if variances were requested to combine lots so duplexes could be built, public notice would be given. He told the Board that he could sympathize with the petitioners, but that if construction was held up until a Public Hearing was held, requests would be brought before the Board each time there was a single-family dwelling in an R-2 subdivision. 50.6 City Attorney McCord explained to the Board that the essential issue for the Board to determine was whether or not the decision made several years ago for the property to be zoned R-2 is still appropriate today, or if the circumstances have changed since that decision which would merit consideration of a zoning change. McCord stated he did not think the improvement of Drake Street nor oral representations which may have been made by developers were relative in reaching a decision on the issue. 50.7 Director Osborne told the petitioners that he had sympathy for them, but that he was a firm believer in the concept of constructive notice. He said he had problems supporting the rezoning of someone's property when that property owner was opposed to the rezoning. 50.8 Director Osborne stated he felt the people in society were entitled to rely upon something, and he thought this something should be the zoning ordinance. Director Osborne stated that he considered Mcllroy Bank & Trust a citizen of this community also. 50.9 City Attorney McCord told the Board that a property owner does not have a vested right in relying on zoning when he makes a purchase of property. He said the City Board of Directors was not precluded from rezoning property because a given piece of property was purchased with a certain zoning. He explained that the property owner acquires vested rights if substantial expenditures have been incurred after the purchase toward the development of the property. McCord stressed to the Board that the actual issue would )e whether or not the circumstances have changed enough to warrant rezoning or if perhaps the first zoning was done in error. 50.10 Director Colwell stated that he felt people should be able to rely on promises which had been made, and that there was an element of common decency involved. Director Colwell stated that Mr. Pettus' client might be legally right, but that morally and ethically he felt the situation was wrong. He stated that he felt that the petitioners of the subdivision had been hurt more financially than the owner of the remaining lots that have not been developed. Director Colwell told the Board that the value of 1 12-2-80 common decency should have a place in the decision, and that the people 51 should have the right to be heard. Director Colwell, seconded by Noland, moved that the Board of Directors 51.1 ask the Planning Commission to initiate rezoning procedures on the internal lots of Blocks 2, 3, 4, and 5 of Villa North Subdivision, and that no building permits be issued until the Board of Directors makes a final decision. Director Colwell stated that if the case was heard by the Planning Commission, consideration would be given to the lots already having duplexes on them, and to the lots on which construction had already begun. Director Lancaster stated that all the Board was actually voting on 51.2 was whether or not the Planning Commission would hold a Public Hearing on the matter and not the actual rezoning of the property. Director Noland stated that he had visited the subdivision, and that 51.3 the thing which bothered him most was the fact that a development project 0 was already in progress. He said that the statement made on March 27, 1978, 6) saying that no duplexes or apartments would be built on the lots also disturbed him, but that since the property is zoned R-2, it is legal to CD have duplexes. He concluded that he could see both sides of the situation. 7 Director Sharp stated that he thought the City was making progress 51.4 in its subdivisions, especially in the areas of sidewalks and green spaces. He said he did not think that the zoning should be changed on a subdivision which had met all the City's rules and regulations. He pointed out that the Planning Commission would have to look very carefully at granting variances for those lots too small for duplexes. Director Henry stated that she also had total sympathy for the 51.5 petitioners, but that persons are bound by what they sign. After further consideration, Mayor Todd called for a vote on the motion 51.6 to ask the Planning Commission to hold a Public Hearing and to stop the issuance of building permits until a final decision was reached by the Board. The motion failed by a vote of 2-5, with Directors Colwell and Lancaster voting in the minority. REZONING/EAST SIDE OF ONE MILE ROAD, 260' NORTH OF HIGHWAY 62 WEST Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in 51.7 petition R80-28 for 0.54 acres located on the east side of One Mile Road, 260' north of Highway 62 West, by petitioner Lois Stratton. The change requested was from A-1 "Agricultural" to R-0 "Residential Office" as considered in a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on November 24, 1980, and was recommended by a vote of 7-1. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the requested C-2 and 51.8 recommended approval of a change to R-0. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director 51.9 Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved to further suspend the 51.10 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. Mr. Charles Hanks, representative of Lois Stratton, addressed the Board. 51.11 Mr. Hanks explained that Ms. Stratton did not have an attorney representing her at the Planning Commission meeting. He said that she did not realize how severely limited she would be when she agreed to accept the R-0 zoning instead of the requested C-2, nor did she realize she could come before the Board with it. Mr. Hanks requested that the ordinance be changed back to the original C-2 request instead of R-0. After further discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved 51.12 to amend the ordinance to change from A-1 to C-2 rather than to R-0 and to 1 12-2-80 52 accept the Bill of Assurance offered by Ms. Stratton to construct a privacy fence between the property being rezoned and the property zoned A-1 which is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Fred Black, and stating that no alcoholic beverages be dispensed on the property being rezoned. 52.1 Mayor Todd called for comments from anyone opposing the amendment. 52.2 Mrs. Fred Black stated she did object to zoning the property C-2. She explained that her property is A-1 and is next to the property being considered for rezoning. She said that One Mile Road is an unimproved road, and that traffic would increase substantially if the zoning were changed. She also asked the Board if the road would be improved if the zoning was changed as requested by Ms. Stratton. 52.3 Mayor Todd answered that there was an agreement made stating that when Phase II was developed, the road would be improved at that time. Therefore, the rezoning being considered now would not affect the road. 52.4 Administrative Assistant McWethy explained that the development plan submitted showed no driveways from the shopping center to One Mile Road, but that all traffic would go out onto Highway 62 West. 52.5 Mayor Todd called for a vote on the amendment to change the rezoning request from R-0 back to C-2. The motion failed by a vote of 2-5, with Directors Osborne and Colwell voting in the minority. 52.6 After conferring with Ms. Stratton, Mr. Hanks asked that the zoning be left as is, which is A-1, and not be changed to R-0 as recommended by the Planning Commission. 52.7 Mayor Todd called for a vote on the ordinance changing the property from A-1 to R-0, which failed 0-7. SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY/MEMBERSHIP OF GARFIELD, ARKANSAS 52.8 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance allowing the membership of Garfield, Arkansas into the Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority. 52.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, 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. 52.10 Director Colwell, seconded by Henry, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 52.11 There being no further discussion, Mayor Todd called for a vote on the ordinance which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO.�7(&SCDAPPEARS ON PAGE,229 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X SEWER RATE INCREASE 52.12 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance increasing sewer rates. 52.13 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 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. 52.14 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, 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. 52.15 Mayor Todd explained that this sewer rate increase was recommended by Black & Veatch Consulting Engineers. He stated the proposed increase was reviewed by the Water & Sewer Committee, and he pointed out that this 1 12-2-80 53 would be the first increase since 1970. He stated this would probably be an interim measure and would probably be effective for approximately a year. Mayor Todd asked for comments from the audience, and Mr. C.C. Schaller 53.1 addressed the Board. He stated that Fayetteville was encouraging a beautiful city, yet he said if the water rate is increased people will not be able to afford to water their lawns and keep them looking green and nice. Mr. Schaller asked the Board not to raise the water bill so much. He suggested they might raise the sewer, but that the water and sewer were two separate items. Mayor Todd clarified for Mr. Schaller that only the sewer part of the 53.2 water bill would be affected, and that the Board was only condsidering a rate increase in the sewer. He explained that Black & Veatch's recommendation O was an across the board increase of 37% on just the sewer part of the water bill. CD Finance Director Scott Linebaugh explained that the monthly sewer charge 53.4 CD is figured on the amount of gallons of water used during the preceeding winter months when the least amount of water.'is used, because it is expected that 7 almost all water used goes into sewage. He clarified that the proposed Q increase is not for a water rate increase but was a sewer rate increase only. Q Director Colwell asked Mr. Linebaugh if all accounts are winter averaged, 53.5 or if it has to be requested. Mr. Linebaugh answered that all residential accounts are averaged. Director Noland explained that the City was trying to come up with 53.6 enough revenue in the next eight months to balance the budget. Mayor Todd pointed out that hundreds of thousandsof dollars were spent 53.7 this year on relocating sewer lines because of highway construction, and City'Engineer Don Bunn stated that there will be some other substantial relocations next year. Director Osborne stated he was concerned because the Water & Sewer Fund 53.8 reserves were so low. He stated he would rather ease into an increase rather than have an outstanding increase all at once. City Attorney McCord stated that the ordinance as read did not include 53.9 a recommended increase in the sewer charge on the unit charge for BOD and dollars per pound. The existing rate is .0135 and that would be increased to .0184. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the ordinance be amended 53.10 as stated above by City Attorney McCord. The amendment passed unanimously upon roll call. Director Lancaster pointed out that $300,000 surplus had been used the 53.11 past year. Director Sharp stated he felt it was outstanding that there had been no 53.12 increase in thn years., There being no further discussion, the Mayor asked if the ordinance 53.13 should pass as amended. The ordinance passed unanimously upon roll call. ORDINANCE N0. J'7APPEARS ON PAGE 2t'/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . AIRPORT RESTAURANT Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an 53.14 airport restaurant lease. Mayor Todd explained that this was in accordance with instructions given to the staff. Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved to authorize the 53.15 execution of the lease with Ward -Power Management, Inc. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the 53.16 motion which passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0.//3-C'CAPPEARS ON PAGE5CS OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ,X 1 12-2-80 54 LOT SIZE WAIVER 54.1 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance waiving the 1.5 acre minimum lot size requirements for subdivided property nothaving access to a public sewer. The parcel in question was a .5 acre tract with a house on an existing septic tank, located north of the airpprt property. The house and land was recently given to the City by Dr. Robert Hay, and the deed could not be filed until the lot split was approved. 54.2 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. 54.3 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 54.4 It was pointed out by Mayor Todd that this same procedure had been followed in the past when there was a house on an existing septic tank. He clarified that there would be no further development on the property and the density would not be increased. 54.5 Director Colwell asked if this could be done in the future under the same type circumstances. He asked if .5 acres containing a house with septic tank could be split off of a ten acre tract. 54.6 Administrative Assistant McWethy explained that before the rest of the ten acre tract was developed a large scale development plan would have to be approved. 54.7 Director Colwell stated that he only wanted to clarify that a set of double standards did not exist. 54.8 There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the ordinance which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO,.,)WMAPPEARS ON PAGE 243 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . ALLEY CLOSING/NORTH FROM 6TH STREET BETWEEN LOCUST AND CHURCH AVENUES 54.9 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance closing and vacating a north - south alley, running north from Sixth Street between Locust and Church Avenues. 54.10 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 54.11 Director Lancaster, 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. 54.12 Mayor Todd called for comments from the audience or Board. There being no discussion, Mayor Todd called for a vote on the ordinance wnich passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. y.2 APPEARS ON PAGE 215 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x . FAIR HOUSING 54.13 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution initiating a Fair Housing Program in the City by endorsing the purposes and provisions of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968; and directing the Community Development Department • 1 12-2-80 55 to institute a program to promote knowledge of the Act's provisions and to assist the filing of complaints regarding violations. Mayor Todd asked Rick Mason of Community Development if the equipment 55.1 mentioned on page 8.03 of the Directors' agenda, Section C, Item 2 (see attached) was the same equipment as the Community Development equipment. Mr. Mason answered that it was not the same equipment and that this 55.2 would be an additional cost. He stated there is a proposal in the 1981 CD budget for video equipment, which could possibly be used in the Fair Housing Program also. He did point out that the 1981 program has not been approved yet. City Manager Grimes suggested that the item be amended to say that 55.3 Community Development, working with local television stations, would attempt to develop and produce a video talk show to be aired on Fayetteville Open O Channel and the three TV stations in Fayetteville. Q) Director Henry stated that with three TV stations in the area, she did 55.4 CO not feel it was necessary to purchase video equipment. Administrative Assistant McWethy pointed out that HUD's main concern 55.5 was what action has been taken to further Fair Housing. He said they are Q not particularly concerned with the procedure, but with the fact that something is being done. Director Osborne stated that he felt Section C, Item 2 should read, 55.6 . .to be aired on Fayetteville Open Channel and stations with local coverage in Fayetteville." He also stated that item 3, under Section I of page 8.02 should not specify Northwest Arkansas Times, but should simply state "3. Newspapers with substantial local circulation." Director Henry suggested deleting Section IV on page 8.04 until 55.7 further discussion was held at a later date. Director Osborne also suggested changing Item B of Section I on page 55.8 8.03 by eliminating items 1-9 and simply stating, "Possible participation by all media with local coverage." Director Colwell suggested that Section D of Item III should be 55.9 changed to state records would be maintained for three years instead of five. Director Colwell stated he would like to wait until a new person is 55.10 appointed in Little Rock before moving ahead on this. Other Board members stated they would rather go ahead with theprogram now because the 1981 CD program might be in ,jeopardy if something was not done soon. Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved to adopt the resolution with 55.11 the program, incorporating changes suggested. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Director Colwell voting in the minority. He stated he.voted no because he felt nothing concerning HUD should be passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO./IVJOAPPEARS ON PAGE 51 f OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . 1 BID AWARD/CHLORINE SCALES FOR. POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that the bid for two chlorine scales for the Pollution Control Plant be awarded to low bidder, Kucher Dearing, Inc. for the amount of $3,272.00. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. ENGINEER SELECTION Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing an agreement for Engineering Services with McClelland Consulting Engineers, for Walker Park improvements; a Perking area at the Senior Center; and combination parking areas/basketball courts at Asbell Park. 55.12 55.13 12-2-80 5E, 56.1 Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved to authorize the execution of the agreement. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. RESOLUTION NO.//,fCAPPEARS ON PAGES L5 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X . SEWER RELOCATION 56.2 Purchasing Agent Sturman Mackey recommended awarding a bid for a sewer main relocation at Lake Fayetteville Park to Combs Construction Company for $4,100. Mr. Mackey told the Board a supplemental appropriation from the General Fund surplus was needed to pay for the project if it is completed this year. If not completed this year, it will be in the 1981 General Fund Park's budget. 56.3 City Manager Grimes stated tnat if there was good weather the project might could be finished before the end of the year. 56.4 Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved to award the bid as recommended by the Purchasing Agent. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. FAA LEASE 56.5 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a lease amendment with the Federal Aviation Administration, to delete the City's responsibility for custodial care in the Flight Service Station and Air Traffic Control Tower, at no reduced rental rate. 56.6 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to authorize the resolution. 56.7 Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO./4,PAPPEARS ON PAGE,1 3`]0F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK /' . APPEAL OF AULT CASE 56.8 City Attorney McCord requested permission of the Board to appeal the decision rendered by the Chancery Court in the case of Nancy Ault Versus City of Fayetteville. 56.9 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that permission be granted. 56.10 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, with Director Sharp abstaining because he was not on the Board when the action took place and was unfamiliar with the facts surrounding the litigation. FLUORIDATION BIDS 56.11 City Manager Grimes explained that bids had been received for the fluoridation costs. He asked for authorization to execute a contract with Bennett Construction Company, along with Beaver Water District, subject to concurrance by the State Health Department. Bennett Construction Company was the low bidder at $138,000. 56.12 City Manager Grimes stated that along with that there was a budget adjustment recommendation for revenues to be increased by $58,623 and expenditures by $33,000. 56.13 Director Colwell, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the contract with Bennett be executed, and the budget adjustment approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.///APPEARS ON PAGE_51a0F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK . 1 1 Th IJ page S. 03 Administrative Fair (lousing Program Pace Two it is no longer necessary. Ads to be 5" Y 1r i;; .i -c. CD will also seek the opportunity for any free communi;y services articles that the paper may publish. 4. Grapevine - Same as above. B. Public Service Announcements: A spot audio tape will he produced by either CI) or a radio station involved, depending upon their individual requirements. A video tape will he made for use of TV stations. Tape to be produced by CD or the station involved. Tapes would be aired on a time available has i.. material to he based upon the governing law. Possible participation as follows: 1. KAW,\ G. Fayetteville Open Channel _. } ICK 7. Channel 5 3. /IPA)* 8. Channel 24 4. KIIOG 9. Channel 29 5. KKEG C. Other Activities: This will depend upon the cooperation received from other groups and agencies. Examples of other activities include, but are not limited, to the following: 1. Fayetteville Board of Realtors - CD will provide written materia] for the Board to distribute to their membership. CD will provide a program on Fair Housing for a meeting of the Board membership, if requested. Frequency will depend upon being invited to present a program. 2. Talk Show - CD will develop and produce a video talk show to be aired on Fayetteville Open Channel and the three TV stations in Fayetteville. It will be necessary for CD to purchase a video camera and recording equipment. This equipment will be used for other purposes also. The program produced hill have interviews with HUD representatives as well as question and answer time. 3. Civic Organizations - CD and other city staff, such as City Manager and Administrative Assistant, will speak or otherwise present a program to civic clubs, Chamber of Commerce, and University of Arkansas organizations upon being requested to do so. Program to be on Fair Housing rights and responsi- bilities. II. Complaint Assistance: CD will assist any person who has a complain to insure that due process of law is fulfilled. A. All complaints of discrimination will be referred to CD. B. CD will assist, if necessary, complainants in filling out (IUD forms ((IUD -903 and DA1. 3000/21) and forward same to the IMP Regional Office in Fort Worth, l'exas. 111. Complaint Follow-up: A. CD will follow: -up all complaints filed with 11119 Regional Office to insure that the complaint has received due porcess. 111 com- plaints will be sent by certified ::..111 - return recc tpt requcste.:. if 1 soy trirrytorm Cowes% nonce" 14;1 page 8.02 AD.' IN1STIt1Ti1'F F111: HOIIS I'.ti PROCILIPI Policy It is the desire of the City of Fayetteville. Arkansas to provide a Fair Housing Program for the City. Definitions "City" means the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas. b- "CD" means the Community Development Department of the City of Fayetteville. Arkansas. "Person" includes one or more individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations, labor organizations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers, and fiduciaries residing in the city limits of the City of Fayetteville or desiring to move into said limits. d. "Dwelling" means any building, structure, or portion thereof which is occupied as, or designed or intended for occupant' :is a residence by one or more families, and any vacant land which is offered for sale or lease for the construction or location thereon of any such building, structure, or portion thereof. e. "To Rent" includes to lease, to sublet, to let and otherwise to grant for a consideration the right to occupy. Premises not owned by the occupant. f. "Discriminatory (lousing Practice" means an act that is unlawful under Section 804, 805, or 806 of Title VIII of the Civil Rights 1ct of 1963 Public Law 90-284, dated April 11, 1968. "Program" means the Fair Housing Program. Administration The CD office will have the authority and responsibility for admin- istering the program. The program shall be divided into (4) four general areas. I. Education: This arca will be to teach all persons their rights and responsibilities under the law. A. Publications: Types of publications are listed as follows: 1. Brochures - First printing will consist of 10,000 brochures to be distributed at City Hall. Banks, Savings and Loans, the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, Post Office, and possibly utility offices. CD will also work with F.0.11CC to seek distribution through their organization. _. Posters - 100 posters wi11 he produced and placed at locations where they would be visible to a high percentage el. the populace: i.e., grocery stores, banks, post office, city hall. University. Chamber of Comnti ce. Northwest Arkansas Times - Paid ads will be nuhl i shed two (_) times per month for the first year and then one ;;1 lino per month thereafter until it is determined by the City b;.ir.i ;hit ils Administrative Fair (lousing Program Page Three page S. 04 il. CI) will call IND from time to time to check on status of a complaint. C. CD will maintain contact with the complainant until the complaint is resolved. D. CD will maintain records and files of all complaints for a period of five (3) years from date final decision is made. IV. Other Activities: A. Development - CD will assist private developers, the Fayetteville Housing authority, and other non-profit organizations in the development of new housing units to provide housing opportunities outside lower-income and minority concentrations. This assistance may be provided by the purchase of a site using Co -muni ty Develop- ment Block Grant funds and providing such site improvements as streets, water, sewer and drainage. CD could write -dove the cost of purchase in order to make a project economically feasible for a developer. CD could provide an interest subsidy thereby lowering the market interest rate on a project loan. The extent of assistance would depend upon the need of and benefit to be determined at the time of request. II. Rehabilitation - CD will assist landlords in the rehabilitation of their multi -and -single family housing. This assistance would assure that lower-income and minority persons would be able to afford decent, safe and sanitary housing. Assistance in the Porn of interest subsidy, 312 Loans, and Section 8 moderate and sub- stantial rehabilitation would be given. C. Counseling - CD will counsel any person needing help to find housing outside of lower-income and minority concentrations. Counseling to include information and referral service. 1 12-2-80 • 57 CA'MPBE'LL SOUP COMPANY Director Lancaster stated that he would like the Board to go on record 57.1 as saying they think it is commendable that Campbell Soup Company has written their letter, and that they plan to move forward and direct people to take steps necessary to reduce the grease.dispertion at the local plant. Director Colwell stated that the 37% sewer increase was not being 57.2 brought about to pay Campbell Soup's way, and that they do contribute substantially to the Water & Sewer revenue. MEETINGS CHANGED Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to change the dates of the O meetings for the month of February to the 2nd and 16th from the 3rd and 17th because of Razorback ballgames. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 4-1-2. Director Colwell voted in the minority, and Directors Sharp and Lancaster abstained. Q Q MINUTES City Manager Grimes pointed out that page 41.15 of the minutes of the November 20, 1980 meeting should be amended to read, ". .and the ordinance placed on third reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time.” 1 ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 57.3 57.4 57.5