Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-12-15 Minutes64 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Monday, December 15, 1980, at 7:30 in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Osborne, Sharp, Todd, Colwell, Henry, Lancaster, Noland; City Manager Grimes, Administrative Assistant McWethy, and City Clerk Koettel. ABSENT: City Attorney McCord CALL TO ORDER Following a moment of respectful silence and roll call, the Mayor called the meeting to order. ITEMS 9, 10, 11 TABLED (FRANCHISE TAX) 64.1 Mayor Todd informed the audience that items 9, 10, and 11 had been tabled upon the recommendation of the City Attorney. He explained that the Public Service Commission had changed their regulations, which reduced the tax base on which the franchise tax was applied. Mayor Todd stated that this would reduce the revenue brought in by the franchise tax. Therefore, the City was considering the possibility of increasing the rate to be applied against a smaller base in an attempt to stabilize the finances. 64.2 Mayor Todd stated that the City was working with the utilities, and that the utilities were interested in getting a clarification from the Public Service Commission. 64.3 Director Colwell stated that he had researched some past utility bills and in the case of the gas bill, the fuel adjustment was approximately fifty percent of the bill. He stated that the present 4% tax would have to be increased to 8% in order to bring in the same amount of revenue. Director Colwell stated that the fuel adjustment cost on the electric bill had varied considerably during the past year. 64.4 Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that items 9, 10, 11 be tabled, and that the City Attorney be allowed to try and get a clarification from the Public Service Commission. 64.5 The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. CD RECOMMENDATION 64.6 Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from the Community Development and Housing Committee on the proposed 1981 CD Block Grant Program. The total amount for the CD Block Grant Program is $622,000. 64.7 Mr. Ish Benton addressed the Board and told them that there were 17 persons on the community development committee. He said these committee members had made some difficult decisions. 64.8 Mayor Todd told Mr. Benton that the community development committee was appreciated for all their work in putting the 1981 program together. 64.9 Mayor Todd informed the audience that the Board would go through the proposed 1981 program item by item. 64.10 The first item was administrative expenses - $60,000. Rick Mason, Director of Community Development, explained that these expenses were salaries, office supplies, travel, insurance, rent, etc. This amount is a little less than 10% of the total amount of the budget. 64.11 Mayor Todd pointed out that the salaries would be in line with the City pay plan. 1 1 1 65 The next item was housing assistance - $200,000. Mayor Todd stated that $75,000 was for acquisition and relocation, $50,000 for rehabilitation grants, and $75,000 for rehabilitation loans. Mr. Dale Evans, co-chairman of the community development committee and chairperson of the housing assistance subcommittee, addressed the Board. Mr. Evans stated that there was a misunderstanding on the date of the last meeting, and only five persons were in attendance. Mr. Evans stated he had some proposals he had wanted to be considered at the last meeting, and that these proposals were denied by only one vote. Mr. Evans stated he felt that these were denied because of the lack of representation of all the members of the committee. Mr. Evans stated he had requested that the housing assistance portion O of the CD budget be increased by $100,000. He asked that two additional items be considered, historic preservation and weatherization. Mr. Evans said these ideas had evolved rather late in the deliberations, and he asked the Board to allow the committee the opportunity to meet once again to consider those two additional items. Q Mrs. Houser, a member of the audience, asked the Board what the difference Q was between the winterization and weatherization program, and what the EOA does on these programs. Mayor Todd stated that in the past the EOA program had required local matching funds, and that in the past these local matching funds had been provided through the CD budget. Mayor Todd told Mrs. Houser that these funds were included in the proposed $200,000. Director Sharp asked why there was a 10% pre -payment penalty on the loans if the balance was paid within three years. He stated that the City would probably want to get the money back as soon as possible. Administrative Assistant McWethy explained that this was done to avoid property being sold at a profit after an interest subsidized loan was used to rehabilitate the property. He pointed out it was not the intention of the CD program to encourage speculation for profit. Director Sharp asked that if the property was sold under the housing rehabilitation program, would the cash grant money have to be repaid. Mr. Evans explained that 20% credit was given for each year the property was retained. After five years the obligation to repay would be fulfilled. Mayor Todd explained that under the loan program proposed, the full amount would have to be paid back and a 10% penalty paid if the balance was paid within three years. Director Osborne stated he could see certain situations where a person might have to sell a house other than for profitable reasons. Director Sharp stated that he would feel more comfortable if the person would pay the penalty between the subsidized interest rates and the interest rates at that time. Director Noland asked Mr. Evans if he thought the committee could have a satisfactory meeting by the 3rd or 4th of January. Mr. Evans stated that he had talked with several members of the committee and they had agreed to contribute additional time, and he felt there would be sufficient time before January 6th to meet. January 6th would be the date of the next board meeting where final decisions would be made on the CD budget. Director Colwell asked Mr. Evans if he was asking for another $100,000 for the housing assistance part of the budget, and Mr. Evans answered that was correct. Director Colwell stated that if housing was given another $100,000 the funds would have to come from some other part of the CD budget. Director Colwell said he questioned if the matter could be resolved in the next two weeks, since the money would be coming out of some other committee's fund. 65.1 65.2 65.3 65.4 65.5 65.6 65.7 65.8 65.9 65.10 65.11 65.12 65.13 65.14 65.15 65.16 • 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.8 66.9 66.10 66.11 66.12 66.13 66.14 66.15 66.16 66.17 Mayor Todd stated that the full committee did vote the full $200,000 for the CD program, and that he did not see the point in meeting again. Director Henry stated that since the two options were designed to do a better job and give more flexibility to the program the Board should probably consider them. Mr. Delvin Nation, a member of the community development committee, addressed the Board. He stated he would be willing to come back and meet again to consider the two items proposed by Mr. Evans. However, he did state he had mixed feelings about the situation since the $200,000 for housing assistance was voted in by the committee. He said he hated to bring up the entire CD budget because of the two items. Mr. Evans stated that if the Board decided that a full committee meeting was not appropriate, then a subcommittee meeting would probably be necessary. Mayor Todd asked if it would be acceptable to leave the amount of money the same, but allow the subcommittee to consider some alternative recommendation on how the money would be appropriated. Mr. Benton told Mr. Todd that the housing subcommittee could meet and consider these two alternatives without recalling the entire committee. Director Noland, seconded by Colwell, moved that the housing subcommittee be asked to meet and consider the alternatives of the housing assistance category. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 6-1 with Mayor Todd voting in the minority. The third category was social service facilities and public works - $28,250. $25,000 was for the initial funding for the purchase of an existing building or construction of a new facility for Community PreSchool. $3,250 was allocated for the purchase of equipment for Fayetteville Open Channel. Ms. Judy Taylor stated that she was on the Board of Community PreSchool and would be glad to answer any questions the City Board of Directors might have concerning the preschool. Director Noland asked in what way the Community Preschool was in competition with other preschools. Ms. Taylor stated that she did not feel the Preschool was in competition with the other schools. She stated that there was a gap between the totally free services and the more expensive services. She stated the Community PreSchool is a nonprofit organization and that the school does receive government funds. Ms. Taylor pointed out that the school was licensed with Social Services. She told the Board the school was trying to obtain a building so they would not have to pay rent. Ms. Taylor also told the Board that the school is located in a CD target area. In response to a question by Director Noland, Ms. Taylor informed the Board that the Community PreSchool had received a letter from HUD stating that the PreSchool could be considered eligible for CD funds. Mr. Mason, Director of Community Development, told the Board he had recieved a copy of this letter. He stated that HUD's answer was not a "no", yet it was not a "yes" either. Ms. Taylor stated that HUD's question was based on the aspect of the preschool being a day-care service instead of a school. Ms. Taylor stated it was a day-care service. She also pointed out that they had originally requested $100,000 and it had been cut to the $25,000 being proposed. Director Osborne stated that he did not trust HUD and he would want them to say that the present program at the Community Preschool is eligible. )N Director Henry asked Ms. Taylor if the Community Preschool principally benefited low income persons, and Ms. Taylor answered that it did. Director Sharp asked Ms. Taylor if they had no problem now with operating funds, and Ms. Taylor answered that they were breaking even. However, she stated tuition would continually have to be increased in order to continue breaking even. She stated that if they had a larger facility they could be licensed by Social Services to care for more children than they are at present. 67 Mayor Todd asked Ms. Taylor where the funds would come from for a building 67.1 if the $25,000 proposed was used for site acquisition. Ms. Taylor explained III that if the $25,000 was approved, they would come before the Board again for the next two or three years and request funds for a building. A member of the audience addressed the Board and stated that as a single 67.2 parent she really felt a need for this type of facility. Mr. Mason pointed out to Ms. Taylor that if CD money. was -used to fund the 67.3 facility, and a child's tuition could not be paid, that child still would have to be accepted. He stated that a child who could not pay would have priority over one who could. Another member of Community PreSchool's Board stated that he felt there 67.4 was a definite need for schools such as this one, and that'he was willing to take the necessary risks. O Director Henry stated that people gripe and complain about women who 67.5 CD stay home and don't work and are on welfare, yet when the women try to go to work and earn their own living, facilities are not provided for their children. CO She stated that people talk one thing and yet live another. She stated people 7 don't want the women on welfare, yet they don't back things such as the Q facility discussed here to help make it possible for women to earn their own Q living. Director Henry stated the elderly can lobby for themselves, but that children cannot lobby and are thus constantly neglected. Ms. Taylor invited all the members of the Board of Directors to come 67.6 by the Community PreSchool and visit so they would be more familiar with the program being offered. 67 7 Category 4 was Parks & Recreation - $170,500. Funds of $75,000 were allocated for the renovation of the gym at Asbell Park, $55,000 for development III of park land near Washington Mountain, $32,500 for future parks in south/ southwest Fayetteville, $5,000 for landscaping improvements, planning and developing along Highway 71B, and $3,000 for improvement of existing wooden bridge at Greathouse Park and fencing along west property line. Mr. Delvin Nation addressed the Board and stated that he would like to 67.8 add $30,000 to the total budget to be spent on Washington Mountain Park. He stated that $55,000 would not be adequate. He told the Board that some members of the subcommittee agreed with him on this item. Mr. Nations informed the Board that the original request was for $75,000. There was no motion for this, therefore the Mayor moved on to the next item. Director Lancaster asked what a new gym the size of the present one would 67.9 cost at Asbell School.. Director Lancaster was informed that an estimate would be $150,000. Delvin Nation informed the Board that the estimate of $75,000 had been received from Don Hunnicut for renovation of the gym. He explained that the building is structurally sound. Due to vandalism and deterioration it does need a lot of work. Director Lancaster questioned spending 50% of the cost of a new building 67.10 just for renovation purposes. Director Osborne agreed that this seemd to be a high estimate. Mr. David Lashley, a member of the Parks & Recreation committee, told the 67.11 Board that the floor needed to be replaced, the ends were too close to the court, and that an entrance area was needed. The present facility has no entrance and you must enter from the outside directly onto the court. Category 5 was Streets - $143,250. Mayor Todd stated that $143,250 had been 67.12 III allocated for streets and he listed the streets in order of priority as: Twelfth Street, Van Buren, 9th 12th, & 13th. Sharon Rakes, a member of the audience, addressed the Board. She 67.13 stated that she lived at 1228 S. Wood Street. She stated that she and other members of the community in which she lived did not believe that this money should be spent on 9th, 12th, or 13th streets. She told the Board the streets were dead end streets, and that the residents of the conanunity felt the streets were being improved so that a Planned Unit Development for low income residents 68.1 68.2 68.3 68.4 68.5 68.6 68.7 68.8 68.9 68.10 68.11 68.12 68.13 68.14 68.15 68 could be built on the ten acres at the end of the streets. Ms. Rakes stated that such a project would not be a success, and that the persons who would live in the PUD would have no pride of tenancy. She told the Board if the PUD was allowed the neighborhood would have a greater fear of vandalism, and even a fear of public safety. Ms. Rakes also stated that this would overload the city utilities and sewer. As an alternative, Ms. Rakes suggested the City consider scattered housing instead of large apartment complexes for the public housing facilities. Ms. Rakes submitted a petition to the City Clerk with signatures of persons opposing this expenditure of funds on the mentioned streets. Director Sharp agreed that scattered sites would be better than the large apartment complexes. Mr. Newton Hailey, architect for the Federal Housing Authority, addressed the Board and explained what sites had been considered and why certain sites were eliminated. There were problems with sewer, terrain, and other items of this nature in several cases. He stated that the pro perty had to be either R-2 or R-3 zoned. Mr. Hailey stated that the only option left was the ten acre tract which was being considered for 52 units. He stated that the CD money requested would pave 180' of Wood street, and would extend 13th Street east for 350'. Mr. Lloyd Seaton of the Housing Authority addressed the Board. He stated that every attempt had been made to obtain scattered housing. He also said that he could appreciate the concern of the people of the community who were present in opposition to the complex. However, he did point out that one site which had been considered but was not chosen, now had an apartment complex on it which is larger than the one the Housing Authority had proposed. Mr.. Seaton told the Board that both areas of Lewis Plaza and Willow Heights, two existing housing sites, had been cleaned up considerably by the development of the PUDs. Mr. Ish Benton pointed out that the streets being considered had been on a priority list for the past three years. A member of the audience asked where the citizens of the community should take this matter, and was advised that there would be a subdivision meeting before the matter went to the Planning Commission. Mr. Seaton stated that the Housing Authority would meet at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, December 17, at the Housing Authority Office and the matter would be discussed. Director Noland asked if the Housing Authority had a firm option on the ten acre tract and was told that they did. Ms. Rakes told the Board she did not think the City should spend City tax money to fix streets for a project which would only cause the value of property to depreciate. Mr. Bill Boudrey addressed the Board and stated that he lived on the opposite end of 12th Street, west of South School, and that they would like to have their part of the street blacktopped. One member of the audience asked Mr. Seaton if HUD would approve the ten acre tract for the PUD if the streets were not improved. Mr. Seaton stated that it was possible that the tract could be approved if the streets were not improved, but that HUD would have to make that decision. Another member of the audience asked the members of the Board why some of the PUDs were not built on the north side of the City. She stated that all the low income housing was built on the south side, and she felt the north side should have their share also. Director Colwell stated that he thought the Housing Authority had 20 or 30 sites to chose from and asked what had happened to all of those possibilities. Mr. Seaton stated that the Board had turned down two of the proposed sites, and stated that one of these sites had been on the north side of town. After further discussion, Director Colwell moved that 13th Street, Wood Street, 9th, and 12th Streets be stricken from the list to be paved. The motion died for lack of a second. 69 One member of the audience addressed the Board and requested that the Board leave Van Buren Street on the list to be paved. Director Henry suggested that someone give the Housing Authority some direction on how to choose sites for Public Housing so that everyone would be happy. 69.1 69.2 REZONING ,4PPEAt/NORTH OF EAST TOWNSHIP RD. AND EAST OF N. COLLEGE AVENUE Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in 69.3 petition R80-30 for 7.88 acres located on the north of East Township Road and east of North College Avenue, by petitioner J.B. Hays. The change requested was from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-0 "Residential Office (3.4 acres) and to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" (4.4 acres). O Mayor Todd pointed out that these changes had been recommended by the 69.4 Planning Commission on December 8, 1980. CDAdministrative Assistant David McWethy read an ordinance rezoning the 69.5 property. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed Q unanimously and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be further 69.6 suspended and the ordinance read for the third and final time. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the 69.7 ordinance which passed by a unanimous vote. ORDINANCE NO. £.& 90 APPEARS ON PAGE .Z.4' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X REZONING APPEAE/NORTH SIDE OF STONE STREET, 700' WEST OF SOUTH SANG AVENUE Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in 69.8 petition R80-29 for 5.99 acres located on the north side of Stone Street, 700' west of South Sang Avenue, by petitioner Lee Terry. The change requested was from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential" as considered in a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission on December 8, 1980, and was recommended by the Planning Commission by a unanimous vote. Administrative Assistant David McWethy read the ordinance. Director 69.9 Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further 69.10 suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Todd asked Mr. George Lewis, representative of the petitioner, 69.11 if he understood that the existing water line in Stone Street was not sufficient to provide fire protection for multi -family development. Mr. Lewis answered that his client was aware of this. There being no further discussion from the audience or Board, the Mayor 69.12 called for a vote on the ordinance which passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO 43(pq D APPEARS ON PAGE .Z46/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X IMPROVEMENT WAIVER/SOUTH LOCUST Mayor Todd introduced a request for a waiver of some of the improvements 69.13 that would be required in connection with the development of property at 502 South Locust, between Sixth Street and Archibald Yell Boulevard. 1 1 70 70.1 The petitioner, Mr. R. J. Keating, was proposing to build a six-unit apartment complex and the improvements required would be to widen the street by 6 feet and install curb, gutter, and storm drainage. Mr. Keating was asking that the Board grant a variance from those required improvements. 70.2 Mr. Keating addressed the Board and told them he was requesting the variance for several reasons. 70.3 First, he stated that this was not the type of street that lends itself to development, and that this particular section of the City was not yet in a period of transition. 70.4 Second, he told the Board this would impose a financial hardship upon him. He explained that financing for the project had been procurred before the building permit was issued. However, due to the area, only 60% of the appraisal value was authorized for the project, and the appraisal was a low one at that. 70.5 Thirdly, Mr. Keating stated that the development of the six-unit complex would not cause an increasingly amount of traffic in the area and off-street parking was provided for the complex. Mr. Keating stated that such segmental street development as proposed was not useful and in fact could even cause drainage problems. 70.6 Lastly, Mr. Keating told the Board that the City code section requiring these improvements specifically referred to "unpaved streets", and Locust Street is a paved street, thus not under the provisions of the Code in question. 70.7 Mr. Keating also told the Board that he had a petition with the signatures of all the land owners on both sides of the street for two blocks, stating that they were in favor of this appeal. 70.8 City Manager Grimes stated that he felt Mr. Keating had some valid points, and that he did not believe that the small section of street would be of much benefit. He suggested entering into a contractual agreement with Mr. Keating, stating that Mr. Keating would pay for his part of the improvements, if the development along the street did come to pass in the future. 70.9 Director Lancaster stated he thought a contract or bill of assurances to this effect would be a good idea. 70.10 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that Mr. Keating be granted a temporary waiver of improvements with a written contract stating the City has a lien to secure these improvements being completed at the City's option, with the understanding that the City would not arbitrarily require these improvements, but would have the right do so so when the other property along the street is developed. 70.11 Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. CITY POOL 70.12 Mr. Tom Brinner and Mr. Albert Jones presented a brief video tape program of the City Pool. The presentation showed shots of the deterioration of the pool, and of the pipes which went into the pool. 70.13 Mr. Brinner addressed the Board and stated that there were major problems with the pool, and that unless something was done the City would soon find itself without a swimming program. One problem mentioned was that the pipes leading into the pool are inaccessible. 70.14 A Landscape Architecture Class had done a study on Wilson Park, and Mr. Brinner presented plans to the Board that the class had developed. The park was divided into two areas, the eastern half and western half. The new pool would be 50 meters long and 25 meters wide. 70.15 Administrative Assistant David McWethy explained to the Board that under HCRS funds, the pool would be an eligible item. He said the City could apply for matching funds up to $200,000. $200,000 from HCRS would have to be matched by $200,000 from the City. He stated that there was a time consideration. 1 1 1 The City could apply in the spring of 1981 and the application acted upon during the fall and winter of 1981, with the actual award being made during the summer of 1982. Director Lancaster asked if there were funds available to temporarily repair the old pool. Dale Clark responded that they did have to repair the pool at the beginning of every summer before it was opened to the public. Director Henry stated that she felt the Board should go ahead and make a decision on this item. Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the City commit the matching funds necessary to apply for the HCRS grant. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 01 RESOLUTION NO. APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK . 01 SIGN APPEAL/3010 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE 7 Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign Q ordinance for an existing sign located at 3010 North College Avenue; Q Zoning District: "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial." The variance requested by petitioner Lynn Standage, Southland Corporation d/b/a 7 -Eleven Food Store, was permission to locate a 35 square foot free-standing sign at a point 18.0' from North College Avenue. The ordinance requirement is that a 35 square foot sign requires a setback of 27.5 feet. The largest size of sign allowed at this location would be 16 square feet, unless the Board determined that strict enforcement would be unreasonable. III Mr. Standage addressed the Board and informed them that the approved location for the sign would be directly over the underground gasoline storage tanks, which would make the installation of the pole sign impossible. After some discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the appeal be granted and that the sign be allowed on either end or in the middle of the pump island, and that the petitioner have 60 days in which to make this change. Mayor Todd called for a vote on the motion which passed unanimously. 71 SIGN APPEAL/3010 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance for an existing sign located at 3010 North College Avenue Zoning District: "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial." (Across the street south from the previous request) The variance requested by petitioner Joe H. Downs, Midway Liquor, was for permission to keep the present 84 square foot free-standing sign at a point 9' from street right-of-way. The ordinance requirement is that no free-standing signs are allowed that are greater than 75 square feet, or are closer than 15' to street right-of-way. The largest legal sign allowed requires a 40' setback; the closest legal sign allowed cannot exceed 10 square feet; unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable. Mr. R. C. Smith addressed the Board on behalf of the petitioner and stated the reasons the variance had been requested. Mr. Smith informed the Board that the sign has been in existence at the same location for over twenty five years, that there is a traffic sign at the intersection and the sign does not restrict the view of traffic, that the sign is located with sufficient setback so it does not endanger the operation of vehicles at the intersection, and that the height of the sign is not excessive in comparison with the billboard signs located within 30 feet of the sign in question. Mayor Todd asked the petitioner if he had considered moving the sign (back, and the petitioner answered that it would cost approximately $15,000 to do this and would put the sign right at the entrance of the store. 71.1 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 71.9 71.10 71.11 71.12 71.13 72 72.1 Director Sharp, seconded by Noland, moved that the request for appeal be denied. He stated that a sign appeal for a similar situation on the south side of the City had been denied. 72.2 Mayor Todd called for a vote on the motion to deny the request. The motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Director Colwell voting in the minority. Director Colwell stated he did not feel the City should make the petitioner remove the sign since the illegal billboard was still standing within such close distance. SIGN APPEAL/2400 BLOCK OF NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE/VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK 72.3 Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance, for a proposed sign to be located in the 2400 block of North College Avenue; Zoning District "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial." The variance requested by petitioner Rex Benham, Villa Mobile Home Park & Sales, was for permission to erect an off-site sign on occupied, commercially -zoned property. The ordinance requirement is that off site signs are not allowed in commercial zoning districts except on vacant property, unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable. 72.4 Mr. Rex Benham addressed the Board and stated that he understood that the existing sign has to come down. However, he asked for permission to erect a smaller sign in the same area. 72.4 Director Lancaster stated that if an off-site sign was granted here, there would be no reason to deny other off-site signs in the future. 72.5 After some discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Colwell, moved to deny the appeal but allow Mr. Benham to have a large street sign reading VILLA Boulevard, with the Villa written in larger letters, installed by the City at his expense. The street sign would be a standard size and color. This would serve as identification for both the street and the mobile home park. 72.6 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. FRANCHISE TAX #1 (SWEPCO) 72.7 This item was tabled upon the request of the City Attorney. FRANCHISE TAX #2 (OZARKS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE) 72.8 This item was tabled upon the request of the City Attorney. FRANCHISE TAX #3 (ARKANSAS WESTERN GAS) 72.9 This item was tabled upon the request of the City Attorney. PUD CHANGE 72.10 Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance amending the City's Planned Unit Development regulations pertaining to the location of PUDs in R-1 zoning districts; and to the right of appeal by interested parties. 72.11 Administrative Assistant McWethy read the ordinance as shown on 72 T2 page 12.06 of the Directors' agenda (see attached). Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously, and McWethy read the ordinance for the second time. 72.13 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 McWethy read the ordinance for the third time. 72.14 Mayor Todd moved that the proposed ordinance be amended under Section 1, Item (a) to state ". . .that the PUD would adversely affect the character of the neighborhood." Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5-2, with Directors Sharp and Henry voting in the minority. 73 Director Colwell, seconded by Lancaster, moved that Section 2 be 73.1 amended to read, ". . .The developer of a PUD or the owner of any property adjoining a PUD or any member of the Board of Directors shall have the right..." Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Director Sharp 73.2 voting in the minority. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved to table the item but the 73.3 motion failed by a vote of 3-4, with Directors Osborne, Sharp, and Henry voting in the minority. Mr. Milby Pickell addressed the Board. He said the PUD ordinance 73.4 had gotten completely out of hand and was not being used as it was originally intended. He said too many developers are using the ordinance to try and build multifamily apartments in an R-1 area. After further discussions with Mr. Pickell, Director Henry, seconded 73.5 O by Sharp, moved to table the item and the motion passed by a vote of CD 4-3, with Directors Todd, Colwell, and Lancaster voting in the minority. APPRAISAL AUTHORIZATION 7 Q Director Sharp reported that the "City Hall Committee" met on Thursday, 73.6 December 11, and discussed two specific items which were, (1) determine what the value is of the west half of:,ithe third floor of City Hall reportedly owned by the Masons, and (2) look into the possibility of moving to First National Bank Building. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that an appraisal be 73.7 performed for the third floor area mentioned, and that the City Attorney determine the Masons" interest in the property. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, with Director Colwell absent upon roll call. PUBLIC FACILITIES BONDS Mayor Todd introduced a resolution approving a Housing Bond Issue, 73.8 as required by Ordinance 2485. Mr. Dale Christy addressed the Board and stated that the possibility 73.9 of selling the bonds was not good. However, he stated that if the market was good for the next seven days and the bond issue could be sold, the resolution would be necessary in order to do so. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the resolution be 73.10 passed. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.1APP$EAARS ON PAGE 5 4 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x . PENSION PLAN Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from King, Hall & Associates, Inc., 73.11 regarding city participation in the ICMA-RC retirement plan. Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that a resolution be 73.12 passed changing the pension plan. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. pp RESOLUTION NO.l)l.Xb APPEARS ON PAGE 69/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK . LIFE INSURANCE Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from King, Hall & Associates, Inc., regarding allowing pension plain participants to be eligible to take part in a group life insurance program. Director Colwell suggested that the City might be better off financially if they would self -insure. He pointed out that the premiums per year were often considerably more than the amount of insurance paid out. 73.13 73.14 74.1 74 After further discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved that this item be tabled until this possibility could be checked into more thoroughly. 74.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously and the item was tabled. BID AWARDS 74.3 Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that Bids #444 and #445 be awarded to the low bidders. Bid #444 was for one tractor -backhoe for the Water & Sewer Department, and was awarded to Northwest Equipment Company for $27,426.13. Bid #445 was for one 43,000 GVW truck chassis for the Water & Sewer Department, and was awarded to Lewis Ford Sales in the amount of $33,799.00 74.4 Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. BID AWARD - 12" WATER LINE RELOCATION 74.5 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the bid for the relocation of a 12" water line (White River Crossing) be awarded to Decco Construction Company for a bid of $30,080. The amount of $30,000 was budgeted in the 1980-81 Water and Sewer Budget. 74.6 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.11 P PEARS ON PAGE 4-4- OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x 1 . MT. OLIVE WATER CONTRACT 74.7 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution approving an amendment to a previously -approved water purchase contract with the Mt. Olive Water Association. 74.8 The changes were: (1) The size of lots would be restricted only in subdivisions of 5 or more lots. The City would require that the lots in such subdivisions average 1.5 acres in size, and (2) existing on-site disposal systems would be deemed adequate only if previously approved by the Arkansas State Health Department. RESOLUTION NO.%) APPEARS ON PAGE 5a OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ,X \ . ENGINEERING CONTRACT 74.9 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a contract for engineering services for the relocation of a 12" sewer main on Highway 71 between Johnson Road and Highway 112. 74.10 Director Noland, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the resolution be approved. 74.11 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 1.•? APPEARS ON PAGE 54 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK A j . CONTRACT AMENDMENT 74.12 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an amendment to a contract for engineering services to reflect an expanded scope of work necessitated by the writing of an EPA -required environmental impact statement and a full scale public participation program. 74.13 Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved the resolution be approved. 74.14 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.tiPlIAPPEARS ON PAGE 6230F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI 1 1 75 FAA LEASE Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a lease 75.1 with the Federal Aviation Administration for space in the old terminal building at Drake Field. Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the lease be executed. 75.2 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 75.3 e RESOLUTION NO. 13���APPEARS ON PAGE (pip OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK FBO LEASE AND OFFICE LEASE Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a lease with Scheduled Skyways for space in the old hangar building for Fixed Base Operator purposes; and associated fuel farm and parking, and a lease with O Scheduled Skyways for administrative office space in the old hangar building. Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, moved that the resolution 75.5 13) authorizing the execution of these two leases be approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 75.6 Q RESOLUTION NO.\�s• APPEARS ON PAGE '1'SOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK A 1 . 75.4 Q 1 FRIDAY AFTER CHRISTMAS City Manager Grimes asked the Board what it wished to do concerning Friday, December 26. He stated he had had several inquiries as to whether it would be a holiday for city employees. After a brief discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that City Hall be closed December 26, and that the City Manager be allowed to use his judgment for Christmas Eve, December 24. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 75.7 75.8 75.9 10% OF 1980 BUDGETS -GENERAL, PUBLIC WORKS, AIRPORT APPROVED City Manager Grimes requested a resolution authorizing him to expend up 75.10 to 10% of the amounts budgeted in 1980 General, Public Works, and Airport Funds until the 1981 budget is adopted. Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved to adopt a resolution 75.11 to that effect. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. O RESOLUTION NO. to, APPEARS ON PAGE 8/.. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK At . PHIL COLWELL COMMENDATION Director Osborne read a resolution recommending Director Colwell for his service to the citizens of Fayetteville as a member of the Board of Directors. 4; Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved that the resolution be adopted. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5-1-1. Director Noland voted no, because he said that anything having to do with HUD or Phil Colwell should never be passed unanimously. Director Colwell abstained., RESOLUTION NO. 127-80 APPEARS ON PAGE 87 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI MINUTES Director Osborne pointed out that paragraph 57.3 of the 12-2-80 minutes should be amended to reflect the following change. "...meetings for the month of February to the 2nd and 16th from the 3rd and 17th because of Razorback ballgames." ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 1:00 a.m. le a • ...4 , ✓ s / 75.12 75.13 75.14 75.15 75.16 75.17