Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-01-20 Minutes97 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, Janaury 20, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Noland, Osborne, City Attorney McCord, Administrative members of the news media, and other ABSENT: Director Bumpass Sharp, Todd, Henry; City Manager Grimes, Assistant McWethy, City Clerk Koettel, members of the audience. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Todd called for a moment of respectful silence and thanks that the American hostages in Iran had been released. The meeting was then called to order. BIKEWAYS PLAN Mayor Todd stated that Mark Risk was present to address the Board on 97.1 the Master Bikeways Plan. Mr. Risk told the audience as a matter of background that the City had 97.2 received a grant of $20,000 to be used for a bideways plan. A task force had been formed of seven persons. The task force developed the master bike plan for bike routes. A public meeting was held in November as a means of receiving input. About 20 persons attended the meeting. The routes mapped out were thought to be the most used routes by the cyclists. The maps were posted at the Highroller Cycle Shop, the Arkansas Student Union, and at City Hall. Several comments have been received from the public and most are favorable. Mr. Risk explained that some minor changes were made in the original plan. A route was mapped out to the high school, and a small section on Maple Street was added. Also, the route on Old Missouri Road was extended out to Zion Road. Mr. Risk stated that there seemed to be a misunderstanding about the 97.3 plan. He clarified that bike lanes would not be built, but that routes would have to be established over existing streets. Mr. Risk emphasized that the program is directed for high school age 97.4 and above, and that the plan is not intended to bring children onto the streets. He also pointed out that the program is strictly voluntary, and that bicyclists do not have to use these routes, but that these routes are the ones the task force deemed to be most safe. Mr. Risk showed the Board a sample of what the signs used to designate 97.5 the bike routes would look like. Mr. Risk told the Board the plan was open for amendment, and that if 97.6 probldms came up in the future they could be corrected. Mr. Grimes stated that in the proposed plan there is a route on Beechwood 97.7 Street from 15th Street to 6th Street. He said that next year Razorback Road will probably extend from Highway 62 down to 15th Street, and this might make a better route. Director Noland stated that the persons working on this plan were to 97.8 be commended. He pointed out that they had overcome some rather high odds. RESOLUTION NO..?.i / APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x � PARKS DEDICATION Mayor Todd indicated that the first step needed for this item would be the adoption of an amendment to supersede the present chapter of the City's general plan for parks. 97.9 98 98.1 Director Henry explained that this came about after an inventory of existing park facilities. She stated that this had been considered for at least two years, had been reviewed by the Greenspace Ordinance Committee, and had been recommended by the Planning Commission. 98.2 Director Henry moved that a resolution be passed adopting the update of the inventory and assessment of future park needs, with page 2 of the document being deleted because it incorrectly states that the plan is not a comprehensive ane. Director Sharp seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0 ./Q-d APPEARS ON PAGE1 Q 4 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )U . 98.3 Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance requiring developers to provide land for public parks, or contributions to buy land, at the time the land is developed. He pointed out this had been considered by the Planning Commission, but had come to the Board without recommendation. Mayor Todd stated that the directors had copies of the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting. 98.4 Mayor Todd stated that he had asked City Attorney McCord to prepare an alternative for the Board to consider which would allow deferment of the payments on the subdivisions and large scale developments. This would allow that payment be due on the subdivisions as the lots were sold, with a maximum of five years to pay the total amount. Mayor Todd said he had suggested that on large scale developments, one third would be due at the time a certificate of occupancy was issued, one third in another year, and the final third due a year after that. 98.5 Mr. Bryce Davis addressed the Board. He showed the Board a map with all the existing parks indicated in green. He said the park with the most restrictions was Agri Park at the University of Arkansas Farm. This park is rented out, but all others are open to the public without charge. Mr. Davis stated that some of the existing parks have never been developed. He gave Gregory Park as an example of a park not developed. Mr. Davis said there are about four tables there and perhaps a place to barbeque. 98.6 Mr. Davis told the Board that he is supportive of parks, but that he is for the general public sharing in the costs instead of a small group having to bear the total costs. Mr. Davis said that on a 20 acre tract $38,400 would be the maximum amount of money that would have to be used for parks. Mr. Davis said that was a lot of money, and in some cases it could be almost 20% added to the cost of land (figured at $10,000 per acre). Mr. Davis told the Board that this expense would have to figured into 98.7 the cost of the homes sold, and that it is very difficult for persons to buy homes now because of the economy. He stated that the best interest on a home loan at the present time is 14.5%. Because this ordinance would cause the prices of homes to increase, he asked the Board to consider this very strongly before passing the ordinance. City Attorney McCord told the Board that he would like to clarify one 98.8 point. He stated that many R-2,R-3 subdivisions are not developed to the maximum density permitted under the zoning ordinances. The ordinance does provide that if the subdivider legally restricts the number of dwelling units in a subdivision by means of a bill of assurance, the land dedication or payment in lieu thereof requirement would be based on the actual density as restricted by the subdivider, rather than the potential density permitted under the zoning ordinance. 1 99 Director Henry stated she would also like to clear up a misunderstanding. 99.1 She pointed out that in the Planning Commission meeting there was discussion about collecting money in one area of town, and then using the money elsewhere to develop parks. She stated that when a subdivision was developed and money for parks was collected, this would go into an account specifically set up for that park district and would not be used in any other part of town. Therefore, money collected in "the south part of town" would be used for parks in the "south part of town." Director Henry stated that when a realtor sells a home, he does not just 99.2 sell a house, but he sells a community. She said that one of the things that makes a community good is its parks. Director Henry stated that the City used to have benefactors who would 99.3 donate land for parks, and she questioned where those benefactors were now. O Mr. Davis stated that the developers with lots already developed are not 99.4 CD going to be affected by this ordinance, and that this would be unfair competition. Director Osborne stated that this idea of park lands had been under 99.5 consideration for at lease three or four years. He asked Mr. Davis where he and the other persons in opposition were during that time. Director Q Osborne stated that this was not something that was a new idea and that was Q trying to be passed in a big rush. City Attorney McCord stated that Mr. Davis had correctly pointed out that 99.6 there are park areas in town which have not been developed. He said the reason was lack of revenue. McCord said the plan just approved by the Board does have an assessment of existing available land and additional land required by 1990. This land is broken down by districts. Even with the available land which is not developed, the plan foresees a future requirement of additional land. Mr. David Lashley stated that there are nine parks that are leased 99.7 from the school. The City owns five neighborhood parks. Mr. Lashley said that in 1967 the Jaycees wanted to develop Gregory Park with streets and equipment, but it was decided at that time that the City would prefer to have that park a nature park, and that it would be kept in a natural state. The existing facilities at Gregory Park were constructed by the City with revenue sharing funds, and McDonald built the parking lot. Mr. Frank Farrish addressed the Board. He told the Board that the 99.8 real estate persons, the developers, and others he had talked with were not against parks. He said the major concern was what the end result was going to be as far as the financing of the plan. Mr. Farrish stated that Mr. Davis had already mentioned the difficulty of obtaining a house today. He said this was an American dream. Mr. Farrish asked what benefit a park would be for people if they couldn't own a home. Mr. Farrish stated there had been discussion that the people coming into the area should have to pay for the parks. However, he contended that young persons reared in Fayetteville were also going to be purchasing homes and this would make it even harder for them to do so. Mr. Farrish asked if an alternate source of financing the parks could be 99.9 found. He asked if a sales tax could be spread among all the people. Director Henry stated that the committee had met for six months and then 99.10 decided to wait until after the election to see if the new constitution would pass. She stated that they had considered every alternative possible, but that the City was very limited under the present constitution. Mr. Farrish stated he could not see making only the new people buying homes, 99.11 paying for the parks, but that he thought the costs should be shared by all. He said he would like to see another method of financing which would spread the cost among all the citizens of the City. Ms. Francis Langham said she would like to emphasize the point made about 99.12 the increased cost of homes. She said that everyday she has to help more 100 people understand that they cannot buy homes. Ms. Langham said this particularly affects the young families. She said she certainly did not agree that this will be a tax passed on to only the people coming into Fayetteville. She said there are people from Fayetteville that cannot get a home and that this will only add to the problem. Ms. Langham said she could not imagine being more concerned about park land than obtaining a home. 100.1 One member of the audience stated that the new people coming into Fayetteville are the ones overloading the existing parks. He said the fact that the cost isn't spread over the entire popular isn't entirely offensive, because the persons already here are not the ones causing the increased crowded conditions. He said that if you wanted anice house in the proximity of a park, that park would be part of the price. 100.2 Director Henry said that people who own houses are not the only ones using the parks. She said apartments create density, and that creates even a greater need for greenspace and parks. 100.3 One member of the audience stated that he was in favor of greenspace with or without improvements. 100.4 Mr. Farrish said that most citizens would vote to pay a tax for parks and greenspace. He said he thought a tax for this purpose would be passed by the citizens if put to a vote. 100.5 Director Noland stated that when a person pays a water and sewer hookup fee, he is buying a share in Fayetteville's water and sewer system. He said this was a comparable situation, and that the people would be buying a share into the City's parks. He said that as far as a broad base tax was concerned, he thought that "if" and "when" a future tax was passed this should be examined once again and consideration given to using part of the revenue for this purpose. 100.6 Mayor Todd stated that he was in agreement with this. He said he did not think the City could wait with the false hope of additional tax relief. 100.7 Mr. Farrish asked if a sales tax for parks could legally be assessed. 100.8 Director Osborne answered that in his opinion it could not be legally done. 100.9 Mr. Ervan Wimberly asked if the money would not be better spent to develop existing land than to provide additional land. 100.10 Mr. David Lashley replied that both were needed. He explained that the idea being discussed got started four years ago when it was decided to inventory the parks. It was decided at that time by the Parks Board to try and provide for future greenspace in each subdivision. The developers would be asked to put aside greenspace in each subdivision. He said that when the Planning Commission and Greenspace Committee started dealing with this they discovered inequities between different subdivisions and the value of properties. He explained that the ordinance proposed was an end result of all the previous discussions. 100.11 Mr. David Williams of 623 West Maple addressed the Board. He said he wanted to speak in support of the ordinance, and in support of the cost being shared at the front end by the developers. Mr. Williams explained that he moved to Fayetteville from Austin, Texas. He stated that he felt the potential of balancing genuine economic needs and the benefits of nature, without wearing out or destroying the benefits of both, is still manageable. He said the need for parks is legitimized and evident. Mr. Williams stated he only bought his home last year, and that he 100.12 would gladly have paid $105 more for the guarantee that his grandchildren would have parks. He said he did not mind paying increased cost for something he knew he was getting. 100.13 Mr. Williams said that he felt the costs needed to be shared by the developers, the City, and the direct users of the space. He suggested that over a period of time creative financing could be worked out where all sectors would be working together. • 101 Mr. Williams stated that he was convinced that people come to this part 101.1 of the country trying to seek out a balance between the convenience of cities and replenishment of nature. Mr. Williams said that he was going to support every developer passing 101.2 the cost on to every new person that comes in, and even though he was concerned about people trying to buy houses, he felt that the newcomers should be responsible for carrying some of the weight of what is being taken away in nature. Mr. Wade Bishop addressed the Board. He said the thing he regretted 101.3 most was that it would appear that developers and realtors are against parks. He told the Board he had talked to several developers and realtors and had not found one that was against parks. Mr. Bishop stated that the reason the developers and realtors felt this 101.4 O would be a discriminatory tax was because the developer was having to' put up the money at the front end. He said that the argument that the developer could pass the cost long to the buyer was not a good one. He said the continuing IM increase in the amount of money needed to buy a home was one reason that persons could not affort to buy homes. Q Mr. Bishop said that when money is collected for items such as this it is 101.5 usually a long period of time before the results of this money can be seen. Once again Mr. Bishop emphasized that he was not against parks, and 101.6 that he hoped the Board would come up with a better way of financing the program. Mr. Ervan Wimberly addressed the Board. He said that he understood 101.7 that a PUD required certain area to be dedicated as open area. He asked if this area was or was not to be counted toward a contribution. City Attorney McCord answered that it was not counted toward the 101.8 contribution of land being considered under the proposed ordinance. Mr. Wimberly asked what the percentage required to be donated was. 101.9 McCord answered that it was .012 acres per each single-family dwelling unit. 101.10 Mr. Wimberly said that the ordinance, . .may provide for reasonable 101.11 dedication of land for such public or community facilities." He asked what a "community" was. McCord stated that in his opinion "community" would refer to the City of 101.12 Fayetteville as a whole. Mr. Wimberly asked about subdivisions that were being developed now for 101.13 which preliminary plats had been approved but the final plats had not. McCord stated that his recommendation to the City was that the ordinance 101.14 would not be retroactive and would not apply to any subdivision for which preliminary plats had been approved. Mr. Wimberly asked what would happen if the density was restricted by 101.15 a developer and the amount of money paid at the time the final plat was filed, yet months or even years later it was determined by the developer not to build as many units as originally intended. McCord stated this could be handled administratively. He said the 101.16 Board could adopt an implementing resolution that in the event the developer restricts density, but ultimately does not develop to the restricted density, the requirement would be based on the density of the actual development, and in the event payment had been made a refund could be made. He pointed out that if the ordinance wasamended to require payment to be made as lots are sold, there would be no overpayment. Mr. Farrish asked the Board to assume that a developer had a tract of land 101.17 and he wanted to have,a:park within that tract, and that the Parks & Recreation Committee approved that it would be appropriate, but that the tract does not meet the 24% requirement. Mr. farrish asked if the developer would receive credit on the part of the land that he donates, or would he still have to make a contribution on the entire development. 102 102 1 City Attorney McCord stated that he felt the developer could apply to the Board for a waiver of any additional requirements. McCord stated that he would be given credit for any dedication made. 102.2 Mr. Farrish asked how much of the City's budget goes to support parks that are currently owned. Mayor Todd answered that approximately $300,000 is spent for parks. 102.3 Mr. Farrish asked if this was for both improvement and acquisition. Mayor Todd answered that general fund money is seldom spent for the 102.4 acquisition of parks and that the $300,000 was fcr the total operating budget for parks. 102.5 Mr. Grimes explained that when the City acquires parks it is usually through some kind of a grant program, such as Community development. He explained that a G.O. bond issue had been done in past years. Mayor Todd stated that approximately 6% of general fund revenue is used 102.6 for parks. 102.7 Director Osborne stated that the Arkansas State Constitution was passed in 1874. He said that everything done by the City of Fayetteville had been done on a funding plan conceived back in 1874, and that now the City is grasping for ways to finance programs. 102.8 Director Henry stated that this item was delayed until after the election in hopes that the constitution would be passed and some money could be made available. 102.9 Mr. Farrish asked if there was no other legal way to collect money for parks other than to tax the developers. McCord explained that two years ago there was a subcommittee appointed 102.10 to explore thoroughly available revenue sources that the City could legally avail itself of. He explained that of all those sources, all are being implemented at this time except those that require a vote by the citizens and have previously been voted down, or that from a practical standpoint could not be passed such as income tax. He said that several years ago the City had a voluntary tax which was used for park purposes, but that it was declared unconstitutional by the courts. He stated that under the existing state of the law the City is severely restricted in revenue generating ability. 102.11 Mr. Farrish asked how the City was going to maintain upkeep on more park lands if they were hardpressed to maintain the present ones, and even have some land for which funds are not available to develop. 102.12 Mr. J. B. Hayes addressed the Board. He told the Board that for a PUD 30% had to be given for greenspace, and then the developer would have to give an equivalent of 6 to 20% in that same area. He said he did not think this was fair. He also pointed out that in some cases it takes ten years for a complete subdivision to sell. He said he did not think it was fair to place a tax on just the developers, and that this excluded the University of Arkansas people, the Board of Directors, attorneys, city managers, and others. 102.13 City Attorney McCord stated that he did not want to give the impression that he was advocating for or against the ordinance. He did state that under the PUD ordinance a developer is not required to dedicate land to the City, but he is required to reserve greenspace for the use of the residents of the development. 102.14 McCord stated that the comment had been made several times concerning the exclusion of doctors, lawyers, accountants, and others. He said that all these people pay an occupation tax to the City. Mr. Bryce Davis stated that the developers also have to pay the 102.15 occupation tax. 102.16 Ms. Langham asked where they money would go after it was paid on the front end by the developer. 102.17 City Attorney McCord answered that by statute it would have to go for acquisition of facilities that serve that subdivision. He pointed out that 1 103 • the ordinance required separate accounts for each district. The four park districts would each have an account, and the funds would be deposited into separate accounts. He stated that the ordinance does not require that the funds be expended within a certain period of time. Mr. Rudy Hatcher addressed the Board. He asked if the ordinance was 103.1 passed and the time of payment was deferred until the time that a residence becomes occupied, would there be a way of getting a legal tax credit for the homebuyer. McCord answered that it would take an IRS determination. He said he 103.2 did not think the City could legislate whether or not a tax credit was given or not. Director Henry stated that Jim Lindsey had worked on the committee and 103.3 0 that he had come up with an idea that there should be a way a developer could get a tax credit. Director Henry jokingly stated that she would like the record to reflect that for the first time she and Jim were in total agreement. McCord told Mr. Hatcher that if a tax attorney could advise the City 103.4 on certain language that would help the homebuyer or the developer obtain a Q tax credit, he felt sure the Board would consider it. After further discussion, Director Osborne suggested that the item be 103.5 tabled until the legislature does whatever it is going to do about a sales tax. He said that if the community was inclined to pass a sales tax, he felt it might be preferable. Director Lancaster stated he could see both sides. He also stated 103.6 that it bothered him because the Planning Commission sent the item to the Board with a 3-3 vote and no recommendation. 103.7 After further discussion, Mayor Todd asked the Board if it was ready to hear an ordinance. McCord suggested that he read the language which he drafted at the 103.8 Mayor's suggestion that would provide a deferral of payment: "The cash contribution in lieu of required land dedication in a 103.9 subdivision shall be payable for each dwelling unit when the lot on which the dwelling unitis to be constructed is sold, or within five years from the date of final plat approval whichever comes first. A cash contribution in lieu of required land dedication in a large scale development shall be payable in three equal annual installments with the first installment due when approval of the large scale development is granted by the planning commission and the final installment due not more than three years from said date. The Developer shall post a performance bond or execute a contract granting the City a lien on the developer's property to guarantee payment." Mayor Todd.stated that he wanted to have this option available, and 103.10 the Board could decide which way they wanted to go on the ordinance. Director Sharp stated that he would like to have the original 103.;11 ordinance read. City Attorney McCord suggested that paragraph 4 of the original draft 103.12 of the ordinance should be changed. It should have a provision added that would provide said requirements not apply to a lot split or replat which does not create one or more vacant lots on which a structure could be erected under the City's zoning regulations. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time, incorporating 103.13 the change in paragraph 4. Director Noland, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be suspended and 103.14 the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 1 104 104 1 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 upon roll call and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 104.2 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the ordinance be amended so as to provide a deferred payment as suggested above, that in the case of a large scale development, one third would be due upon final plat approval by the Planning Commission, another third due a year from plat approval, and the last third due a year later. For subdivisions, the contributions would be due when the lots were sold, or at the end of five years, whichever comes first. 104.3 Director Sharp stated he was opposed to this plan because he felt the City should purchase the land as close to the time the developer purchased the land as possible before the prices go up even higher. Upon roll call the motion to amend the ordinance passed 5-1, with 104.4 Director Sharp voting in the minority. 104.5 Director Osborne moved that the ordinance become effective 1-1-82. The motion died for lack of a second. 104.6 Mayor Todd asked if some items needed to be incorporated into the ordinance or handled by a resolution: 104.7 1. If a preliminary plat had been approved, then it would not be subject to this ordinance. McCord replied this should be handled by an implementing resolution. 2. The money collected in a district had to spent in that district. McCord answered that it had to be expended for facilities that serve the subdivision and the ordinance does require that. McCord stated that the Board could pass an implementing resolution which would require that the money had to spent in the same park district that the subdivision is located in. 3. In the event a developer decided not to develop as much as he originally intended there would be a provision for a refund process. McCord stated this should be incorporated in the ordinance. 104.8 Mr. Bishop asked what would happen if at the time the plat was filed the developer expected a density of 8 units per acre, but later he decided to have density of 15 units per acre. 104.9 McCord answered that the contribution would be based on the maximum density permitted under the zoning ordinance unless the developer legally restricted the density by means of a bill of assurance, then the contribution would be based on maximum density. 104.10 Mayor Todd asked what would happen if he originally planned to have less than maximum density and then changed his mind. 104.11 McCord answered that he was bound by a bill of assurance. Mayor Todd asked if the City could release that if the additional contribution was made. McCord stated this could be done if it was included in the bill of assurance. However, he said he thought it would require the consent of the purchaser because he was relying on the bill of assurance. 104.12 Ms. Langham asked if the City could not collect this money for parks when a water and sewer hookup fee was paid for a lot. City Attorney McCord answered that this could not be legally done. 104.13 After further discussion, it was agreed that the Board would consider the ordinance as amended,and that the City Attorney would come back to the Board with a policy on how to determine the contribution if there were vacant lots in a subdivision at the end of five years. 104.14 Mr. Farrish asked if a park developed in the greenspace required in a PUD could be dedicated to the City for public use and be used as a contribution. 104.15 McCord explained that the space would have to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Parks Board in the beginning. 1 1 1 1 105 McCord stated that he could prepare this as an amendment -to be presented 105.1 at a later time to the Board. Mayor Todd called for a vote on the amended ordinance incorporating the deferred payment plan. Upon roll call the ordinance passed by a vote of 5-1 with Director Osborne105.3 voting in the minority. ORDINANCE NO ch75 APPEARS ON PAGE .25-40 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK SC 105.2 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that an emergency clause. Upon roll call the motion passed Mayor Todd moved that an implementing resolution if a developer had a preliminary plat approved the ordi and that the money collected within each park district park district. Director Noland seconded the motion.* Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 3—BIAPPEARS ON PAGE CI 1 OF ORDINANCE the ordinance have 105.4 6-0. be passed to provide that105.5 nance would not apply, would be spent in that & RESOLUTION BOOK X 105.6 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending the large scale development ordinance to impose the park requirement. Director Henry, seconded 105.7 by Sharp, 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. Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance placed on third reading. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. There being no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the ordinance. The ordinance passed by a vote of 6-0. ORDINANCE NO.„247C APPEARS ON PAGE 2s8 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK %( Mr. Frank Farrish stated that for clarification he would like to point 105.10 out that he is not personally involved in any subdivision that would be affected by this ordinance. 105.8 105.9 r SIGN APPEAL/CORNER OF APPLEBY ROAD AND NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Mayor Todd introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign ordinance by petitioner Ira Hammond, by Wade Bishop. The zoning district was "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial" and the variance requested was permission to erect a 32 square foot free-standing sign on a lot already containing a free-standing sign. The ordinance requires that only one free-standing sign per lot is permitted unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of characteristics unique to the property in question. Mr. Bishop addressed the Board and stated that until only a few weeks ago there was a sign at the proposed site. He asked the Board to grant this variance because people do not know that he is building homes down Appleby Road because they cannot be seen from the highway. He asked that this be approved on a temporary basis until the subdivision is complete, or until Mr. Hammond sells the property. Mr. Lancaster asked Mr. Bishop if the sign could be located north across the road. Mr. Bishop answered that the people developing the shopping center on the other side of the road plan on hauling dirt soon. Director Noland asked what the setback requirement would be. Mr.. Dietzen,sign inspector, stated that it would be approximately 35 feet from the curb of College Avenue. ....r v.8.a..4.at -st-- 1 .A. 105.11 105.12 105.13 105.14 105.15 105.16 1011 106 1 106.2 106.3 106.4 106.5 106.6 106.7 106.8 106.9 106.10 106.11 106.12 106.13 106.14 106.15 106.16 Director Osborne told Mr. Bishop that it would appear the City was condoning the billboards on the property that are not in conformance if a variance was allowed. Mayor Todd asked Mr. Bishop why the subdivision would need advertising when the other subdilvisions do not have advertising. Mr. Bishop answered that most subdivisions have a little more exposure than his does. Director Noland asked City Attorney McCord if he felt this could be used as evidence in the Donrey case concerning the billboards, and Mr. McCord answered that in his opinion it could not. Director Lancaster stated that the Board denied an off-site sign for the subdivision just south of the property under discussion, and the sign has been removed. Mr. Lancaster told Mr. Bishop that he was in sympathy with him. However, he pointed out that the other subdivisions don't have signs, and the property is owned by Mr. Hammonds which contains two signs not in conformance. Director Henry moved the variance be approved. The motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Bishop asked the Board to consider that he would keep the area mowed and looking nice. He pointed out that this had not been done in the past. Director Sharp, seconded by Noland, moved that the variance be denied. Upon roll call the motion passed 6-0 and the variance was denied. AIRPORT ZONING Mayor Todd introduced an ordinance regulating the height of natural and person -made objects and otherwise regulating the use of property in the vicinity of the Fayetteville airport. He stated that this had been tabled at an earlier meeting. Mayor Todd pointed out that the ordinance had previously been read the three required times. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the ordinance be removed from the table. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Wayne Jones of McClelland Engineers was present to answer any questions about the ordinance. Mr. Jones explained that the present airport zoning map was prepared in 1965. He stated that this map shows a "Precision Approach" from the South which is impractical due to the terrain of the area. Mr. Jones stated that what was being done primarily was a modification of the zoning ordinance and map for present day conditions. Mr. Jones stated the ordinance had been amended from a "Nonprecision Approach" to a "Precision Approach" because of the possibility of an Instrument Landing System at Drake Field. Director Lancaster stated that the airport committee had reviewed the ordinance and did recommend its approval. Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, moved that the ordinance be amended as discussed. The motion passed unanimously upon roll call. Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. The ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO...161 7 APPEARS ON PAGE 259 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x UTILITY EASEMENT Mayor Todd introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a utility easement along the north side of city water tank property on Rodgers Drive, to allow for utility relocation in connection with street widening. Administrative Assistant McWethy explained that the proposed street construction would take all the existing right-of-way. 1 1 1 Mayor Todd clarified that on City property. Director Noland, seconded Upon roll call the motion upon roll call. 107 the easement was strictly along the water tanks by Sharp, moved that the resolution be approved. passed unanimously, with Director Osborne absent RESOLUTION NO4 a/APPEARS ON PAGE 9.3)0F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X / . 1981 EMPLOYEE PAY AND COMPENSATION PLAN Director Osborne pointed out to the Board that City Manager Grimes and members of the Finance Department had spent a lot of time working out the Pay Plan for 1981. He stated that the average increase was 10%. 0 Director Osborne stated that there had been considerable debate over the salary of the Municipal Judge. Director Osborne toldthe Board that Judge Williams was present to address the Board and give them some figures. Judge Williams addressed the Board and told them that the salary of the Municipal Judge is set by an act of the legislature. He said the last time the salary for Municipal Judge was set for Fayetteville was in 1975 to be effective the year of 1976. Judge Williams told the Board that the case load since that time has increased by approximately 30%. Judge Williams stated the reason he had made a request for an adjustment in salary was not because of the increase of case load, but so that the salary could keep up with inflation. Mr. ,Williams stated the level of salary would be a-oonsiderable amountnoreif raises given to all other city employees over the past years had been given to the Municipal Judge position. Judge Williams stated that since he is starting his fifth year as Municipal Judge he thinks it is time for the City to seriously consider adjusting the salary up to a level that at least takes into account a reasonable rate to get it in line with inflation. He stated that the Finance Committee had recommended the salary be increased by 13%, but he told the Board he did not believe this would bring the salary in line with what $17,500 would purchase in 1976. Director Osborne stated that if the Municipal Judge had received the exact percentage increases that all other city employees received starting in 1975 his salary for 1981 would be $31,484.70. He told the Board that if inflation was not considered, and the salary rasied based on a 30% increase of case loan the salary would be $23,275. Mayor Todd asked Judge Williams how many 'hours per week he worked as Municipal Judge. Judge Williams answered that he spends approximately 30 hours per week on the job. Judge Williams suggested to the Board a provision which would set a range of $22,000 or $23,000 to $28,000 or $30,000 to be placed in legislation and tied to the City s cost of living adjustments on a yearly basis and the City given the authority to adjust the salary within this range. After further discussion, Director Noland moved that the City recommend to the legislature that the range be from $23,000 to $29,000 for the salary of the Municipal Judge with the exact salary to be set by the Board. Director Osborne seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Mayor Todd voting in the minority. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the increase he included in the 1981 pay plan for $24,000. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5-1, with Mayor Todd voting in the minority. Director Osborne stated that a salary had not been set for the City Manager. He said he did not feel it was fair for the City Manager not to receive an increase at least approximate to what other city employees received. 1 107.1 107.2 107.3 107.4 107.5 107.6 107.6 107.7 107.8 107.9 107.10 107.11 107.12 107.13 108 108.1 Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the salary of the City Manager for 1981 be $39,900. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 108.2 Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from the City Manager for a title change from Administrative Assistant to Assistant City Manager. Mayor Todd stated that this has been considered as a possibility for a number of years. 108.3 Director Lancaster stated that he would like to abstain on this issue because he did not want it to appear that he was voting against an individual person. He said there is a difference to him in titles. He said this would create an executive position in management which would mean that the position would cease to be under the direct supervision of the City Manager and would be answerable to the Board. 108.4 Director Osborne and Mayor Todd both told Director Lancaster that they disagreed on that point. Mayor Todd stated that the title "Assistant City Manager" would mean 108.5 that this person would report to the City Manager. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the recommendation 108.6 to change the title from Administrative Assistant to Assistant City Manager be approved. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5-0-1, with Director Lancaster abstaining. There being no further discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, 108.7 moved that the 1981 salary increases be approved effective 1-1-81. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.S-3 1 APPEARS ON PAGE C1.5 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK A 1 ACT 9 BONDS 108.8 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution expressing the City's policy regarding the issuance of Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds. 108.9 City Attorney McCord pointed out that paragraph #3 had been reworded to read, ". . .and develop industry; rather than commercial development. . ." Paragraph #5 had been reworded to read, "Whether all or a substantial 109.10 portion of the end product or service produced locally is either consumed elsewhere or consumed locally by vistors drawn by the activity rather than the end product of service being marketed solely to retail customers in the area." 108.11 Director Noland asked if the "economy" in paragraph 4 referred to the economy of Fayetteville. McCord answered that was what he had in mind when he drafted the wording and that he would amend this to state, "for the entire economy of the area; and. . ." 108.12 Director Henry, seconded by Todd, moved that the resolution be adopted. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.4S/ APPEARS ON PAGE 031 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK /07 FISH STOCKING 108.13 Director Noland stated that the Water and Sewer Committee was recommending that payment in the amount of $7,906.09 be made to the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology for payment of fish which were killed by discharge from the Fayetteville Waste Treatment Plant. 108.14 Director Noland, seconded by Lancaster, moved that payment be authorized. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 1 1 SIGN REHEARING/701 SOUTH SCHOOL AVENUE/HOOT GIBSON Mayor Todd stated that Mr. "Hoot" Gibson was present to request a rehearing regarding a variance from the literal provisions of the sign ordinance for an existing sign located at 701 South School Avenue. The zoning district is "C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial" and the variance requested was permission to allow an existing roof sign to remain until August 1, 1983. Mayor Todd explained that this had been considered at a previous 109.2 meeting and it was agreed that the sign could remain if the petitioner would remove or cover the "Coca-Cola" part of the sign and execute a contract specifying the terms of the variance. Mr. Gibson stated that Coca-Cola owns the sign and would not allow 109.3 the sign to remain unless the Coca-Cola advertisement remained. Mr. Gibson asked that the sign be allowed to remain as is until August 1, 1983 when the lease on the building expires. O Director Lancaster stated that Coca-Cola was in violation of the 109.4 CD sign ordinance. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the sign be allowed 109.5 1:3)to remain until August 1, 1983 with Mr. Gibson removing the sign on that 7 date. Q Upon roll call the vote was 3-3, with Directors Noland, Osborne, and 109.6 Q Henry voting "yes" and Directors Sharp, Todd, and Lancaster voting "no". Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the item be tabled 109.7 until the next meeting when Director Bumpass would be present. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously and the item was tabled. 109 109 1 LINE OVERSIZING/MT. OLIVE WATER ASSOCATION Director Noland asked the City Engineer if the City would be paying all 109.8 of the engineering costs on this oversizing and was informed that the City would only pay a prorata share of the costs. Director Noland, seconded by Sharp, moved that a contract for oversizing 109.9 be awarded to Jerry Sweetser, Inc. in the amount of $62,310.96, and the oversizing be approved at a cost of $26,401.69. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. LINE OVERSIZING/MT LAKE SEQUOYAH DRIVE Director Noland stated that the Water that a water line on Lake Sequoyah Drive be cost of $3,687 to the City. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, Sweetser Construction Company. Upon roll call the motion 109.10 & Sewer Committee was recommending 109.11 oversized from 2" to 6" at a moved that the bid be awarded to 109.12 passed unanimously. 109.13 LINE OVERSIZING/HANSHEW ROAD SOUTH OF HWY 62 WEST Director Noland reported that the Water & Sewer Committee had recommended 109.14 that an oversizing on Hanshew Road, south of Highway 62 West be made in the amount of $7,105. He reported to the Board that the Water & Sewer Committee had stipulated that anyone who wanted to tie onto this line for a period of three years would be required to pay a fair share of the construction costs. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the oversizing be 109.15 approved as discussed. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. SEWER EASEMENT Director Noland stated that the Water & Sewer Commiteee had recommended 109.16 that a 25' sewer line easement be approved for the City of Elkins to cross Fayetteville City property at Lake Sequoyah. Director Noland stated that if another line was added permission would be required of the Board of Directors. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the easement be 109.17 approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOL'UT'ION NO. i gd (APPEARS ON PAGE 01 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(t 110 STREETLIGHT REQUEST 110.1 This item was tabled at the request of James A. Vizzier, petitioner. OTHER BUSINESS AIRPORT 110.2 Airport Manager Ede Hogue presented the Board with a status report on negotiations with Continental Ozark concerning the FBO at Drake Field. Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster moved .City Attorney McCord 110.3 actively involve himself in the negotiations with Continental Ozarks and Skyways. 110.4 McCord stated that as a matter of clarification he had been involved. 110.5 Director Osborne stated that it would be helpful if McCord became involved in negotiations with Pete Estes, Attorney for Continental Ozarks, and that things would move somewhat faster. 110.6 Director Lancaster stated that Ede Hogue and Dale Fredrick have exhausted their resources trying to get a recommendation ready for the Board. He stated he wanted to have a definite solution or answer at the next Board meeting. 110.7 City Attorney McCord stated that he needed some direction on exactly what the Board wanted him to do. McCord stated that he would negotiate on the basis of the staff 110.8 recommendations made in the letter from Ede Hogue, and on the basis that in his opinion the Board might create an anti-trust prob m if it attempts to give Continental Ozarks an exclusive right to perform services when there is space available for somebody else to perform some of the services not presently provided by Continental Ozarks. 110.9 Mayor Todd stated he felt the negotiations should continue. Mayor Todd called for a vote on Director Osborne's motion that 110.10 McCord involve himself in the negotiations and the motion passed unanimously upon roll call. MCCLINTON-ANCHOR/AIRPORT 110.11 City Attorney stated that McClinton -Anchor Construction Company had agreed to perform services of removing snow from the runway at Drake Field contingent upon the City agreeing to indemify them against any potential claims. 110.12 Director Lancaster asked why the City could not use City equipment and City personnel to perform this task. City Manager Grimes answered that the time the equipment is needed at 110.13 the airport is the same time it is needed in town for the streets. 110.14 Following more discussion, Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a contract with McClinton - Anchor for snow removal at the airport for this winter, and that the staff continue to search for a way for the City to perform this task in the future with City personnel and City equipment. 110.15 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 21 APPEARS ON PAGE11 5 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK 210 HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM/POLICIES & CRITERIA 110.16 Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that the revised Policies & Criteria for the Housing Assistance program become effective immediately, using money still available. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 110.17 expressing opposition of a proposed outfall line for secondary treated sewage "THE KNOLLS" ON PRAIRIE CREEK ARM OF BEAVER RESERVOIR Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that a resolution be passed 1 1 1 1 from be mailed thetUnitedPrairie StatesCreek ArmyArm Corp ofBeaver EngineersReservoir and that a Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.//-$IAPPEARS ON PAGE IQ bOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(r CAB SERVICE Mayor Todd stated that he had been receiving telephone calls concerning the discontinued cab service, Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the franchise of Mr. David Miller's cab service be revoked due to failure to maintain adequate vehicle insurance.* Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. PRESCHOOL TUITION/HUD Director Sharp moved that $10,000 of the $25,000 originally budgeted �) in the 1981 Community Development Budget for a tuition grant program be placed in sidewalks and the other $15,000 be used for the Washington Mountain line item. Director Osborne seconded the motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. WARREN TOOL/ACT 9 BOND City Attorney McCord stated he had received a request from Warren Tool stating they want to build an expansion on their existing facilities and wish to finance it by Act 9 bonds. They asked the Board to adopt a resolution authorizing the execution of a memorandum of intent to issue up to $1,000,000 for this proposed expansion. McCord stated he was advised the expansion would result in an additional number of employees. Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, moved that the memorandum of intent be authorized contingent upon the condition that Warren Tool comply with the policies passed by the Board for Act 9 bond issues. RESOLUTION NO.q-Gp' APPEARS ON PAGE j ($ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )( 1 NORTHWEST ARKANSAS CULTURAL CENTER BOARD Mayor Todd stated he had met with the Northwest Arkansas Cultural Center Board He said they had discussed the possibility of the Board discontinuing their City affiliation. Todd stated the Board is trying to proceed in reforming as a nonprofit organization. The Baord did request that the City Board of Directors appoint an AdHoc committee to study the possible ways a cultural center could be built. 1 1 MINUTES Mayor Todd asked that paragraph of 92.4 of the January 6 meeting be amended to read, ". . . development for the samll PUDs under the PUD ordinance." ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m. *t ._._ 1 . 10 111 111.2 111.3 111.4 111.5 111.6 111.7 111.8 111.9