HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-03-24 Minutes140
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
3-24-81
A meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday,
March 24, 1981, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration
Building, Fayetteville, AR 72701.
PRESENT: Directors Henry, Lancaster, Noland, Osborne, Sharp, Todd, and
Bumpass; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Assistant City Manager
McWethy, City Clerk Koettel, members of the news media, and other members of
the audience.
ABSENT: None
140.1 FIRE SERVICE (attached)
Mayor Todd introduced a recommendation from the City Managerrregarding
140.2 continuing the provision of fire suppression services outside the City limits.
The City Manager's recommendation is summarized below:
140.3 1. The property to be served must be within the boundaries (one or
two miles from the City limits, as the Board decides) the City agrees
to serve, and must include all the property in that area --such as along
both sides of a road --rather than being on a per -parcel basis;
140.4 2. The owners must pay in advance a yearly fee of $95 for each household
in the area under consideration; must agree to pay a per -run fee of $250
for the first hour and $100 for each additional hour or fractional part
thereof: and agree that if a per -run fee is not paid within 30 days then
it will be deducted from the advance payment, the contract will be
cancelled, and the balance will be refunded on a pro -rata basis; and
140.5 3. Outside city fire service must be clearly recognized as being subject
to the City's superior and paramount right of refusal if the personnel
and equipment are needed elsewhere in the City.
140.6 Mayor Todd called for comments from the audience.
140.7 Mr. George Blackwell asked what the policy would be for vacant land and
brush fires. He stated he was agreeable on the fee to be charged.
140.8 Mr. Grimes replied that vacant property had not been addressed and remained
to be worked out.
140.9 Beth Crocker asked if the $95 fee was for an individual contract with the
City.
140.10 Mayor Todd answered that there would have to be a neighborhood or identifiable
area in order to obtain a contract.
140.11 Ms. Crocker pointed out that if someone in the area did not want to
participate, then the other property owners would have to make up the cost
and that this could be a problem.
140.12 Mr. Grimes explained that there will be a charge for each residence, but
that there will be one person to represent each area, and that person will
receive the statement for the annual fee.
140.13 Mr. Grimes agreed that there would be some problems about how the rural
residents in an area would share the cost among themselves, but stated that he
did not think that the City should involve itself with those problems.
140.14 Ms. Crocker stated that if residents of the county are going to pay a
fee, then she feels like they should have the right to expect the same services
offered to those living in the City.
140.15 Director Lancaster explained that the City was not going to do anything
to jeopardize the citizens of Fayetteville's fire ratings. He stated that
1
3-24-81
141
all of the City's trucks and equipment would not be taken to the county, and the
III City left short-handed. He told Ms. Crocker this was what was considered when
the clause was written stating that the City had the right of refusal.
In reply to Ms. Crocker's question concerning the number of households 141.1
in the county which would be eligible for this service, Assistant City Manager
McWethy stated that there are 1100 Ozark Electric accounts within one mile
of the City and a total of 2500 accounts within two miles of the City.
Ms. Crocker stated that she hoped there was widespread publicity concerning 141.2
this item, and that good relationships would be maintained between the citizens
of Fayetteville and the citizens of the county.
Another member of the audience, John Glass, stated that the City of Fayette- 141.3
ville does not have a brush truck. He stated that the Wedington fire department
O does have a brush truck, and that in the case of a brush fire Fayetteville
0) will have to use a truck from one of the smaller county fire stations, such
as Wedington Woods. He stated that as a member of that particular fire association,
CD he would be paying for the truck which the City of Fayetteville would use. 141.4
7 Fire Chief Logue stated that the City does not fight brush fires, but that
<[ it is the responsibility of the Forestry Department. 141.5
Cr Director Noland pointed out that the contracts for fire protection would
be voluntary, and that the City was not forcing anyone into this arrangement. 141.6
Ms. Crocker asked the Board if the City's policy concerning fire hydrants
in the rural areas would be changed. 141.7
Mr. Grimes stated that there would not be a change allowing fire hydrants.
He explained that this would take away any incentive for those persons to want
to be annexed into the City, since they would have all the services and benefits
of the City without being inside the City. 141.8
IIIMr. Leonard Linstead addressed the Board and stated that he felt the main
problem would be in getting everyone in a particular area to agree to pay for
their share of the services. 141.9
Mayor Todd stated that this would depend on neighborhood initiative. 141.10
Ms. Crocker asked if this could be done with subdivisions, and Mayor Todd
answered that it would seem reasonable if an area was identifiable as a
subdivision. 141.11
Director Bumpass asked how individual problems would be handled, and
Mayor Todd stated that it would probably be taken care of administratively
with an appeal procedure to the Board of Directors. 141.12
City Attorney McCord explained to the Board that statute requires that
an ordinance be adopted setting forth the terms, conditions, and restrictions
under which fire protection will be extended beyond the corporate limits of
the City. 141.13
Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that the City Attorney
be authorized to draft an ordinance outlining the recommendation made by
the City Manager, and that the distance be two miles outside the corporate
city limits. 141.14
After further discussion, Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, moved that
Director Lancaster's motion be amended so that the process of establishing
contracts with the City for fire service outside the City limits would become
effective June 1, 1981, and the present policy would be terminated at that time.
Upon roll call, the amendment passed unanimously.
Ms. Crocker pointed out that the $95.00 fee could possibly be decreased, 141.15
III as well as increased, depending upon the circumstances and situation. The Board
agreed that there could be either a reduction or an increase in the annual fee.
City Attorney McCord informed the Board he would have an ordinance drafted 141.16
for their consideration at the next board meeting.
Mayor Todd asked if the amended motion would pass. The motion made by 141.17
Lancaster and amended by Bumpass passed unanimously upon roll call.
3-24-81
142
CROSSWALK PETITION
142.1 Mayor Todd introduced a petition requesting the appointment of a committee
to recommend ways of "improving the safety of the courthouse crosswalk." This
is the crosswalk that crosses College Avenue (Highway 71 B) at Center Street.
142.2 Mr. Larry Froelich addressed the Board. He stated that one person has
already been hit at this crossing, and many others have almost been hit.
He stated that it was felt the drivers inadvertently go through the red light
because of the position of the light.
142.3 Mr. Froelich asked the Board to appoint a committee to study different
possibilities of making the intersection safer. He stated that the possibility
of an elevated crosswalk had been mentioned, but the cost might make it impractical.
Also, an underground tunnel was suggested.
142.4 Mr. Grimes stated that soon there will be a need for lights at Meadow
and College, and that perhaps the light at Center and College will not even
be needed.
142.5 Director Henry, seconded by Bumpass, moved that Mayor Todd appoint a committee
consisting of representatives of the City, the County, and the State.
142.6 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
142.7 Mayor Todd proceeded to appoint Leon Brewer, Roger Haney, Larry Froelich,
and David McWethy. Terry Jones was appointed later.
REZONING APPEAL/250' EAST OF PORTER ROAD AND 325' SOUTH OF DEANE STREET
142.8 Mayor Todd introduced an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission
regarding rezoning petition R81-2, 5.27 acres located at 250' east of Porter
Road and 325' south of Deane Street. The petitioner, Gordon Houston, was
requesting the zoning be changed from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-2
"Medium Density Residential."
142.9 Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on
February 23, motions to recommend both approval and denial each failed to
pass by a 4-4 vote.
142.10 Ms. Jan Parker of Porter Road addressed the Board. She told the Board
that most of the single-family houses in that area are owner -occupied and are
not rent homes.
142.11 Mayor Todd read a letter from Mr. Heartsill Ragan, III expressing opposition
to the rezoning.
142.12 Mr. Blackwell stated that he owned property on Holly Street, and that he
also was opposed to the rezoning.
142.13 Ms. Parker asked where the drive providing access to the complex would
be built, and was informed that it would be built either on Lot 9 or between
Lots 12 and 13.
142.14 Mr. Glass stated that he was concerned about this rezoning. He stated that
Deane Street is becoming an "apartment slum." He especially stated concern about
lack of space between apartment buildings.
142.15 Ms. Parker told the Board that Mr. Houston had built the apartments located
on the corner of Deane Street and Porter Road, and that they are now an eyesore
to the community.
142.16 Mayor Todd explained that duplexes could be approved in an R-1 area as a
conditional use, and that the Planning Commission had granted Mr. Houston a
conditional use for twelve duplexes (twenty four units) on other property.
142.17 Director Osborne asked how many units could be built per acre in an R-1
area under a conditional use. McCord answered that for two-family dwellings,
seven families per acre were allowed. (35 dwelling units for five acres)
142.18 After further discussion, Mr. Houston offered a bill of assurance stating
that he would limit his construction to 60 units on the five acres, if the R-2
zoning request was approved.
1
‘spliET re et,
page 1. 01
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
P. 0. DRAWER F )p>m
March 10, 1981
TO: City Board of Directors
FROM: Donald L. Grimes, City Manager
RE: Outside -city fire runs
[501) sxs-noo
Before addressing the matter of providing fire suppression services
to rural properties outside the Fayetteville city limits, I am recommending
--whatever else we do --that:
1. We keep our existing mutual aid agreements.
The ones in effect with the larger cities are of
obvious mutual benefit to both parties, and are
intended principally to cover major conflagrations
that would strain the fire suppression capability
of any one city. Fire Chief Paul Logue also feels
that we should keep the mutual aid agreements
with Elkins and Prairie Grove, and I'll defer to
his judgement and reasons on this.
2. Additional mutual aid agreements that might
be requested in the future (with, for example,
Farmington, Goshen, Wedington Woods, or others)
should be looked at very closely by the Board
Police g Fire Committee to see if they would,
indeed, provide for mutual aid.
3. We continue to make outside city runs with the
Rescue Truck, which has equipment necessary to
extricate victims of automobile and other accidents.
1 feel that this service should be continued not only
for humanitarian reasons, but also because I know
of no equitable alternative. While the taxpaying
citizens of Fayetteville do not move their homes and
businesses around the countryside, they do transport
themselves and their families upon the public roads.
And the consequences of failing to send the Rescue
Truck outside the city to a car crash could be
monumental if one or more of the victims were
Fayetteville residents.
City Board of Directors
March 10, 1981
page 2
page I. 02
4. Finally, I am recommending that the Fire
Chief be given the latitude to disregard the finer
points of any adopted city policies on outside -
city fire runs when such is warranted by major
or potentially catastrophic events. Such would
include, for example, plane crashes, train
wrecks, accidents involving transport trucks,
explosions, or other similar disasters. We
cannot, I feel, foresee all possible future events
and I would hate for the Fire Chief to feel that his
hands are tied when a quick and decisive response
is called for to save lives.
et
So much for the preliminaries; now to the heart of the matter.
When considering an equitable cost for, and method of providing,
outside -city fire suppression service, it is important to keep in mind
that the city's "cost of service" actually consists of two parts• the
standby costs of having fire stations, trucks, and trained personnel
to call upon; and the actual specific gas -and -oil costs of an individual
run. Up to this point our rural neighbors have been billed for amounts
that approximate the latter (average: $212), while the Fayetteville
taxpayers have been absorbing the former. Efforts to translate these
two-part costs into costs -per -fire -run have been challenged with the
response that the total costs per fire run could be reduced by simply
having more fires. What is needed is a compensation formula that takes
into account the fact that the standby costs will be essentially the same
whether fire runs are made or not, and one which recognizes that it is
this cost of maintaining the department in a ready -reserve status that is
so high.
Since the standby and operating costs of the fire department are
paid for almost exclusively by Fayetteville residents, * perhaps a
cost -per -household -per -year basis would be more accurate. If we
*
Despite the allegations of some rural residents that they pay their
fair share of these costs, too, through occupation licenses and the
1e: hotel/motel/restaurant tax, the fact remains that if the occupation
tax revenues and the H/M/R receipts were added together --from
those who live inside the city as well as those who don't --they would
pay only about one-third of the Fire Department budget. And, of
course, those familiar with the facts know that none of the H/M/R
money goes to the Fire Department. Those who allege that rural
residents somehow pay state and federal taxes that end up in the
city coffers as Revenue Sharing or State Turnback funds are similarly
misinformed.
1
1
City Board of Directors
March 10, 1981
page 3
page 1.03
assume that the total yearly cost of having a fire department is approximately
$ 780,000 (see working papers at the end of this report) and there are
13,400 residences in the city, as determined by an interpolation of water,
sewer and sanitation accounts, then the cost -per -city -household -per -year
is roughly $60 to have the system available to call upon.
If the Board were to decide that we should, under some circumstances,
offer rural fire suppression service to selected areas, it seems to me that
each rural household receiving this service should pay a yearly amount that
is at least as much as the city counterpart pays. In fact, when you take
into account the bookkeeping and administration costs of establishing and
operating such a rural response system, a yearly cost of $75 per rural
household would probably seem reasonable to most Fayetteville residents.
The question of how large a rural area should be considered for
service remains to be answered, and this is essentially a policy decision
to be made by the Board Personally, I don't think we should start out
with territory more than one to two miles outside our city limits. Serving
such an area would not have an adverse effect on Fayetteville's fire class
rating, according to the state Insurance Services Office, so long as (1)
such rural runs would not exceed 10% of the total fire runs per year
(during the last two years they have been less than 3%), and (2) we did not
send more than 500 of our equipment outside the city. The offering of
rural fire protection should not cause an increase in the number of fires,
so if we responded only to those calls for which a service contract was in
effect the actual number of yearly rural runs should actually decrease.
Regardless of whether we go one mile outside the city limits or
two, I strongly recommend that we enter into contracts that cover all the
houses in a given area, rather than on a per -specific -property basis
Here's an example of what I mean. Let us suppose that "Rural Road"
is within the area that we agree to serve at a cost. We determine that there
are eight homes on Rural Road, so we agree to provide fire suppression
service to all the residences on Rural Road for $600per year (8 X $75 )
plus a per -run fee (mentioned later in this report). Exactly how the residents
of Rural Road choose to apportion this amount among themselves is, in my
opinion, not the city's concern. But once this "up -front" yearly fee is paid
in advance, the Fire Department would know that any time a fire call came
in from Rural Road, they'd roll.
The alternative, contracting with individual properties, would
result in a bodge-podge where, in the case of our example above, 2101
Rural Road might pay for the service but 2103 would not want it. And
when a call came in that there was a fire at, say, 2117 Rural Road --or,
more likely, "there's a house on fire down on Rural Road; I think it's the
third or fourth on the left" --the Fire Department would run the risk of
City Board of Directors
March 10, 1981
page 4
page 1.04
either sending a truck only to discover when the fire's out that the property
was not covered by a service contract; or worse yet, not sending a truck
and learning when the coals had died down that the owner had paid in
advance all along.
On this point I strongly recommend that the boundaries of the rural
areas we will serve, whether they be one mile or two, be adjusted where
practical so as to include all of an area or none; and that no fire suppression
service be offered an area until the entire yearly fee for that area is paid.
A less hypothetical situation in which we could use the recommended
approach would be for the City of Greenland. They have no fire department
of their own, nor do they have either a mutual -aid or fire protection
contract with Fayetteville. Dealing directly with Greenland's city govern-
ment we could offer to provide fire suppression service for the entire city
at a yearly standby cost of $75 per household times the estimated number
of households in the city limits. And then let Greenland's city government
and the people of Greenland figure out the way of sharing this cost that best
suits their needs.
In summary, then, I recommend that when rural residents of an
area express a desire for fire suppression service from Fayetteville, we
provide it under the following conditions which would be spelled out in a
contractual agreement, including:
1. The property to be served must be within the
area (1 mile or 2 miles from the city limits, as
the Board decides) we agree to serve;
2. The owners pay in advance a yearly fee of
$75 per household; agree to pay a per -run fee of
$250 for the first hour and 5100 for each additional
hour or fractional part thereof ; and agree that if
a per -run fee is not paid within 30 days then it
will be deducted from the advance payment, the
contract will be cancelled, and the balance will
be refunded on a pro -rata basis; and
3. Outside -city fire service must be clearly
recognized as being subject to the city's superior
and paramount right of refusal if the personnel and
equipment are needed elsewhere within the city.
In one sentence, I feel that we should continue to offer rural fire
suppression service if it can be done in such a way that the residents of
Fayetteville neither unfairly subsidize it, nor are adversely affected by
us offenng the service. In case the Board is willing to consider a policy
of this sort a proposed rough -draft agreement is enclosed.
3-24-81
City Attorney suggested that perhaps Mr. Houston would want to submit 143
a development plan containing concrete proposals to be incorporated into his 143.1
bill of assurance, and that With those kinds of protection the Board could make
III a decision in the best interest of the overall community.
Mrs. Allen of Deane Street addressed the Board and stated that she is a 143.2
widow and that her life savings are in her thome. She asked the Board not to
rezone the property to R-2.
Director Osborne stated that he was in agreement with the City Attorney's 143.3
suggestion of a more specific plan being presented to the Board.
McCord stated that he did not want to encourage the Board to get into 143.4
contract zoning. He stated that if Mr. Houston wanted to offer that, it would be
fine, but that if he did not wish to do so, a decision should be made based
upon information already provided.
Director Henry stated that when Mr. Houston bought the property he knew 143.5
O it was zoned R-1, and that the people in the homes in the area bought their
CD property in reliance on R-1 zoning. She stated that she felt there would be
M a major impact on the neighborhood when 60 units were built behind these single-
family homes.
7 Director Osborne moved to table the item until a more specific plan could 143.6
Q be presented to the Board. The motion died for lack of a second.
Q Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the rezoning request 143.7
be denied. Upon roll call the motion passed by a 5-2 vote, with Directors
Osborne and Bumpass voting in the minority.
WATER GUIDANCE/REQUIRED IN SUBDIVISIONS
Mayor Todd introduced a request from the Planning Commission for guidance 143.8
from the Board as to when City water service should be required in subdivisions
outside the city limits.
Paul Noland, chairman of the Water & Sewer Committee, addressed the Board 143.9
and stated that it was the recommendation of the Water and Sewer Commiteee that
subdivisions be required to provide city water outside the city limits.
Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the recommendation be 143.10
approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
City Manager Grimes explained that the growth area water system was set 143.11
up with the idea that it would be self-sustaining. He stated that it is
self-sustaining, and that money is not being taken from the water users within
the City and being used in the rural areas. The money being used is money
generated by the rural water system.
STREETLIGHT REQUEST
Mayor Todd introduced a request by the developers of Washington Mountain,
a Planned Unit Development, that the City either waive city streetlight
requirements for their private streets, in favor of individual yard lights,
or participate in the cost in the same way as would be done for subdivisions
with public streets.
Mr. Jim Vizzier addressed the Board. He explained that they had asked
for a private street with the idea that they would put street lights at
the intersections and then require individual yard lights. However, it was
suggested by Clayton Powell that the streetlights be put in at city standards.
However, it was discovered that this would cost several times the cost that
the City pays in a normal subdivision because Ozarks Electric charges a higher
rate to private parties than to the City.
Director Lancaster asked Mr. Vizzier if all the property was in the
City limits. Mr. Vizzier stated that all but approximately 30 acres was already
in the City, and the other would be brought into the City.
143.12
143.13
143.14
3-24-81
144
144.1 Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that the only thing of concern
to him about this request was how to distinguish private streets in PUDs
from private streets serving four or five houses. He suggested that some
type of cut-off be established.
144.2 Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that the cost to the City would
be $1.65 per month per light, and that there will be approximately 60 lights.
144.3 Mr. Grimes stated that he would hate to see the City pay for streetlights
and the development not be a success.
144.4 Director Henry stated that if the reason for requiring streetlights was
for the benefit of the public, then she felt the City should participate. If
the lights are for private purposes, then the City should not participate.
144.5 After further discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved
that the streetlights be put in at the expense of the developer and utility
company, and that the City pay the cost of electricity per month. Director
Osborne stated that he did not want the Board to set a policy that this will
be done for every PUD.
144.6 Upon roll call the motion passed by a 6-1 vote, with Director Noland
voting in the minority.
1979 BUILDING CODE AMENDMENTS
144.7 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance adopting amendments to the 1979
edition of the Southern Standard Building Code.
144.8 Director Noland, seconded by Todd, moved that the rules be suspended and
the ordinance placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.
144.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further
suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call
the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the third time.
144.10 Mr. Bryce Davis and Freeman Wood were present to answer any questions
concerning the amendments to the Code. Mr. Davis stated that he had called
every builder in Fayetteville in order to receive input. He also told the
Board that considerable thought was given to the section of the code concerning
handicapped persons. It was agreed that if the project had any government
money involved, certain specifications would have to be followed to benefit
the handicapped. However, it was agreed this was not necessary in residential
construction.
144.11 Mr. Wood pointed out that presently $1.00 is charged to issue a certificate
of occupancy. $10.00 is the proposed charge for the reissue of a certificate
of occupancy because the inspector has to go back to the site to inspect it.
144.12 Director Henry questioned whether or not a $1.00 fee is reasonable.
144.13 After further discussion, Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved that
the ordinance be amended to reflect that the $1.00 fee mentioned above be
raised to $5.00 and the $10.00 be raised to $25.00.
144.14 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
144.15 Director Sharp asked Mr. Wood if the $500 ceiling on the fee for checking
plans was reasonable.
144.16 Mr. Wood answered that it is less than the Building Code specifies, which
is half the amount of the permit, but could be considered reasonable.
144.17 After further discussion, Mayor Todd, seconded by Osborne, moved that
this ceiling be raised to $1,000. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
144.18 Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass as amended. Upon roll call
the ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2709 APPEARS ON PAGE 005 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI
1
1
3-24-81
145
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES/CITY HALL
Director Sharp stated that two architectural firms, Hailey, Powers, Froning 145.1
and Design Direction had met with Jim McCord and came up with contracts for
architectural services in connection with the renovation of City Hall.
Director Sharp, seconded by Noland, moved that contracts be awarded with 145.2
Hailey, Powers, Froning and with Design Direction. Upon roll call the motion
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 32-81 APPEARS ON PAGE ai H SAOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )0 .
ASSESSOR APPOINTMENT/TABLED
Mayor Todd stated that a vacancy on the Board of Assessment for Sycamore 145.3
Street Improvement District No. 77-1 needed to be filled. The commissioners
O of the district had requested that Jeremy Hess be appointed to fill this
vacancy. However, upon discussion it was discovered that Mr. Hess could
6) not legally serve because of what might appear to be a conflict of interest.
Q) Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the item be tabled 145.4
until another person could be suggested.
Q Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 145.5
Q PUD ORDINANCE
City Attorney McCord read the PUD ordinance. Director Osborne, seconded 145.6
by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance placed on second
reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney
read the ordinance for the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further 145.7
suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll
II/
call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the third time.
Mayor Todd stated the seven items listed in Section 1 of the ordinance 145.8
were taken from conditional use provisions, and that these seven items were
things the Planning Commission would consider.
Mayor Todd stated that an eighth item had been deleted. This item was 145.9
on general compatibility and had proven to be quite controversial. It was
decided that item 8 should not be included if Section 2 was added to the
ordinance.
There being no further discussion on the ordinance, the Mayor called 145.10
for a vote. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2710 APPEARS ON PAGE 609 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(f .
CD ENGINEER/12th STREET AND VAN BUREN/S'EWER LINE HUNTSVILLE ROAD
Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that a contract for engineering 145.11
services be authorized for two community development projects. These are
12th Street and Van Buren Street and a sewer line on Huntsville Road, west
from Sherman Avenue. This contract is a not -to -exceed amount of $24,098.33
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 33-81 APPEARS ON PAGE 4fpOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X) .
CD ARCHITECT/SHELTER FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND
REMODELING SENIOR CENTER
Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that a contract for architectural 145.12
services be authorized for the construction of an addition to the Shelter for
Victims of Domestic Violence, and for remodeling the Senior Center, under the
Community Development Block Grant Program. This contract is a not -to -exceed
amount of $5,450.00
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 145.13
RESOLUTION NO. 34-81 APPEARS ON PAGE/61/45 9 -OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOKXI
3-24-81
14i
ACT 9 BONDS/AMERICAN AIR FILTER PLANT
146.1 Mayor Todd •introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a
Memorandum of Understanding regarding the issuance of Act 9 Industrial
Development Revenue bonds.
146.2 The memorandum was for the issue of approximately $6,800,000 in Act
9 bonds to finance the expansion, equipping, and renovation of the American
Air Filter Plant. The facilities will be owned by the City until the bonds
are paid off.
146.3 Mayor Todd stated that approximately 120 more jobs would be created as
a result of this expansion.
146.4 Director Henry asked if the City had an individual contract with
American Air Filter Plant concerning the discharge of waste into the sewage
system. She questioned what type of waste they would be discharging.
146.5 Mr. Grimes stated that he had never heard of any problem on this with
American Air Filter, but that he would be sure and check this out.
146.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that the resolution be
approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 35-81 APPEARS ON PAGEa6..3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK 2(1 .
HMR REPORTING
146.7 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending the reporting procedure for
collection of the 1% hotel/motel/restaurant tax, by requiring proprietors to
either attach a copy of their monthly state sales tax report or authorize the
state to release this information to the City.
146.8 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended
and the ordinance placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.
146.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be further
suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. The motion
passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third
time.
146.10 Mr. Stephen Zisner addressed the Board and stated that he felt the
alternative of authorizing the state to release the information was a much
better one than attaching a copy of the monthly report.
146.11 Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass, and upon roll call the
ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO.2711 APPEARS ON PAGE Cll OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(/ .
PAY PLAN/1981
146.12 Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved that the 1981 Pay Plan be
approved.
146.13 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 36-81 APPEARS ON PAGE(269OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK JAS
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES POLICY
146.14 Mayor Todd introduced a resolution approving a proposed policy and
procedures for professional services contracts.
146.15 Finance Director Scott Linebaugh stated that on page 15.02 of the
director's agenda, item #3 should have the following addition made:
146.16 . . the organization will be requested to submit in writing a
best and final offer and if a satisfactory contract price is not reached,
then the selection committee will move to the next highest organization."
1
1
1
3-24-81
Director Henry told Finance Director Linebaugh that she thought the
proposal was very good and was long overdue.
Mr.Newton Hailey addressed the Board and stated that he had some real
problems with the proposal. He requested more time to go through the proposal
and review it. Mr. Hailey stated that the Post Office has a similar situation
to this one, but that fees are not discussed until a selection is made. Mr.
Hailey told the Board that the State Building Service has a process which he
feels would work just as well. Mr. Hailey stated that he felt qualifications
would be overlooked and that each job would be given to the firm with the
bottom dollar figure.
After further discussion, Director Osborne stated that he was in strong
support of the proposal. However, he said he did not feel it would hurt to
wait until the next meeting to consider the item so those needing more time
to study the proposal would have that opportunity. Therefore, Director
Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, moved that the item be tabled until the
next meeting.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
BID AWARDS/VEHICLES FOR POLICE, FIRE, WATER & SEWER
Purchasing Agent Sturman Mackey stated that it was his recommendation
that Bid #447 be awarded to the low bidder, Jim Ray Chevrolet. The total
cost of the police vehicles would be $69,310.40, and the amount budgeted is
$64,800, therefore a budget adjustment would be needed to appropriate $4,510.40
from the General Fund Surplus. The bid for the Fire Department vehicle is
for a Chevrolet Chevett at a cost of $5,963.66. The vehicle for the Water &
Sewer Department is a standard size pickup at a cost of $5,943.90.
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the bids be awarded
as recommended and the budget adjustment be approved. Upon roll call the
motion passed unanimously.
BID AWARD/FUEL STORAGE TANK
Purchasing Agent Sturman Mackey stated that he was recommending that
bid #448 for one 20,000 gallon underground fuel storage tank be awarded to
the low bidder, Houten Equipment Company of Springdale. The 1981 Revenue
Sharing Budget includes funds for this equipment. The cost for the tank
is $6,880.40.
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the bid be awarded as
recommended. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
WATER EXTENSION NORTHWEST OF MT. COMFORT
Water & Sewer Committee Chairman Noland stated that bids were taken on
the water extension northwest of Mt. Comfort, but that after the bids came
in the people decided not to participate. However, some wells in the area
have gone dry now and the people would like to go ahead with this extension.
The low bidder was Combs Construction Company, and they have agreed to honor
this bid even though it was placed in January. Also, the committee recommended
that the City share $4,815.00 of the cost to oversize the line from a two
inch to a four inch line for 3,570 feet. Director Noland stated that if other
persons wanted to add on to the line within three years, that they would pay
their pro -rate share of the cost.
Director Noland moved that the bid be awarded to Combs Construction Company
with the City paying $4,815.00. Director Sharp seconded the motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
147
147.1
147.2
147.•3
147.4
147.5
147.6
147.7
147.8
147.9
147.10
147.11
3-24-81
148
NIMLO BILL
148.1 Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved that a resolution be passed
urging the congressional delegation to support the proposed amendments NIMLO
is making to the Civil Rights Act.
148.2 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 37-81 APPEARS ON PAGE19'1 O OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK , D 1
BUILDING IN CITY EASEMENT
148.3 Director Lancaster stated that there is a building built in the City
easement off of South 71.
148.4 City Attorney McCord explained that the building had been built on public
right-of-way quite some time ago, and that criminal charges were brought against
the owner in municipal court. However, the case has proceeded slowly, and
trial has been reset for April 9. He stated that municipal courts do not have
injunctive relief, and that the most that could be accomplished would be that
the property owner would be fined and have the right of appeal to the Circuit
Court.
148.5 McCord explained the Board's alternative would be that of filing an action
in Chancery Court for mandatory injunction requiring the property owner to
remove the building from public right-of-way.
148.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved that McCord file an action
in Chancery Court for mandatory injunction requiring removal of the building.
148.7 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
UA EASEMENTS/UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
148.8 Mr. Grimes stated that the easements the City had agreed to assist
the University in obtaining would have to be in the name of the University
before the University could pay for the improvements on the easements.
148.9 Director Henry, seconded by Bumpass, moved that a resolution be adopted
authorizing the execution of three drainage easements to the University
of Arkansas.
148.10 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 38-81 APPEARS ON PAG E r) 3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK yd.
MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN AMENDED
148.11 City Manager Grimes stated that sidewalks had been installed on the
south side of East 5th Street and on the east side of Sherman Avenue, but
that the Master sidewalk plan shows the walks to be on the north side of
East 5th Street and the west side of Sherman Avenue. Therefore, the master
sidewalk plan needs to be amended to reflect this. The reason the walks were
changed was because of problems with mailboxes.
148.12 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance amending the master sidewalk plan
for the first time.
148.13 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended
and the ordinance placed on second reading. The motion passed unanimously,
and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.
148.14 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further
suspended and the ordinance placed on third and final reading. Upon roll
call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the third time.
148.15 Mayor Todd asked if the ordinance should pass. The ordinance passed
unanimously upon roll call.
ORDINANCE NO. 2712 APPEARS ON PAGE OI,Z OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI
1
1
3-24-81
ACT159/BANK STATEMENTS 149
Assistant City Manager McWethy explained that ACT 159 requires that the 149.1
Board be provided with monthly bank reconciliation statements. He stated that
these would have to be handed out monthly, unless the Board instructed the staff
that they were to comply with the law by having one copy of the monthly
reconciliation statements available for the Board's inspection.
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the staff have one copy 149.2
of the monthly statements on file for inspection by the Board. Upon roll call
the motion passed unanimously.
INTERNATIONAL YEAR FOR DISABLED PERSONS
Mayor Todd stated that this is the "International Year for Disabled Persons."149.3
He stated there is a meeting in Little Rock to coordinate the cities in Arkansas.
Mayor Todd, seconded by Henry, moved that Cecilia Tu be commissioned to represent
O the City of Fayetteville at that meeting. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously.
MINUTES
Director Noland stated that the word "lease" should be "leas" in the last 149.4
Q sentence of the first paragraph of the 342-81 meeting.
Q Mayor Todd pointed out that paragraph 134.6 of the 3-3-81 meeting should 149.5
be corrected to state, "Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp moved that the matter
of commercial subdivisions be referred to the Planning Commission."
Also, 134.9 of the 3-3-81 meeting should be corrected to read, 149.6
a contest be conducted with Director Bumpass in charge. . ."
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 149.7