Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-02-02 Minutes386 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, February 2, 1982, at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Lancaster, Todd, Osborne, Sharp, Noland, Bumpass, and Henry; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Assistant City Manager McWethy, and City Clerk Rowe; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: None CALL TO ORDER 386.1 Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH 386.2 Mayor Noland introduced the three Employees of the Month for January 1982. He presented Stephen Haile, Kathy Morgan, and Freeman Wood with a certificate and a check and noted the comments their supervisors had made. (Additional information on this item may be found on page "8" of the agenda of this meeting attached to these minutes.) ACT 9 BONDS/MEXICAN ORIGINAL PRODUCTS, INC. 386.3 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance authorizing the issuance of $2,000,000 in "Act 9" Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Mexican Original Products, Inc. (Additional information on the bonds may be found on page "B" of the attached agenda.) 386.4 Mayor Noland declared a public hearing open. 386.5 City Attorney McCord stated that this revenue would allow Mexican Original to acquire additional equipment, and there will be no plant expansion. There will be a payment -in -lieu -of -taxes agreement because the project would be tax exempt. The bonds will be secured by a letter of credit issued by Worthen Bank to guarantee payment of the bonds, so no possibility of default. He further stated that representing Mexican Original in the audience were Terrance Spencer, President; Richard Ardemagni, Treasurer; and a representative of the Rose Law Firm, Less Balidge, and these people would answer any questions. 386.6 Mayor Noland stated that this proposed equipment expenditure would create initially 40 to 50 new jobs for the industrial community in Fayetteville. 386.7 Director Todd asked how the new equipment would lead to the 40 to 50 additional ,lobs. 386.8 Mr. Spencer stated that the new equipment would allow the plant to expand their production capabilities. The new equipment would also require more people to operate than the present equipment. The freezer expansion would enable the plant to freeze their product on site as opposed to leasing freezers from Welch's in Springdale and other areas of the United States. 386.9 Mayor Noland stated that he had received a call from a lady that lives on the south side of Mt. Sequoyah, arid he told her that he would mention her call and request to the Board. Mr. Noland stated that the lady reported that during the day there is a cloud of smoke that hangs in the valley and the smell of the cooking products was offensive to her. 1 1 February 2, 1982 387 Mr. Spencer stated that there was an odor associated with this type of 387.1 industry, but he had never been informed that it had been offensive. He stated that if it was offensive, Mexican Original would look into the problem. He stated that they were an FDA inspected plant and received constant supervision from the FDA. He stated that they had been approved by several offices of the federal and state government due to their FmHa loan and the size of their production. Director Todd asked if there had been any waste water pollution problems. 387.2 Mr. Spencer stated that he was not aware of any. He further stated that a study had been conducted by McClelland, and Mexican Original is in the process of installing a screen that will filter out any whole particles in the water system. There being no further discussion, the public hearing was declared closed. 387.3 0 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Todd, 387.4 17) seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director 387.5 Q Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the ordinance was read for the third time. Mayor Noland stated that Mexican Original is one of the nation's largest 387.6 producers of flour and corn tortillas, taco shells, and corn chips. In 1981 they were employing in excess of 300 people and purchased over $2,500,000 in local goods and services. Mexican Original estimated that they contributed something in the nature of $5 million to the local economy. They have sales to 39 states and Canada. There being no further discussion, upon roll call the ordinance passed 387.7 unanimously. ORDINANCE N0. 2791 APPEARS ON PAGE /106 -- OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )C// FIRE ORDINANCE/LANDLORD-TENANT Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance imposing fire protection standards for the rental of residential property providing sleeping accomodations for less than 15 persons. (Additional information regarding the ad-hoc committee members and decisions may be found on page "C" of the attached agenda.) City Attorney McCord stated that there had been some numerical changes regarding section numbers in the proposed ordinance. He also stated that the wording would be changed from "building" to "dwelling unit" where discussing the requirements for smoke detectors. Mr. McCord further stated that there was a question concerning when there was a vacancy, who would be responsible for insuring that the smoke detector is in operable order when a new tenant moves in. The owner of the dwelling unit would have that responsibility. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Osborne voting in the minority. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Osborne and Todd voting in the minority, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. Director Bumpass informed the Board that the committee had met five times and that the committee was made up of landlords, tenants, members of the Fire 387.8 387.9 387.10 387.11 February 2, 1982 38S Department Inspection Department, City Building Inspector, and Board members. The proposed ordinance is a result of these meetings. He stated that the proposed ordinance was a recommendation by the commiteee by a vote of 7 to 2. 388.1 Director Sharp stated that he felt this was an example of "reasoning together." He stated that the first meeting was tense, but eventually the group started working on what they could all agree upon and drafted the proposed ordinance expanding those areas. He stated that he had received several calls from citizens, and that there had been good citizen participation. 388.2 Mr. Tom Lavender addressed the Board. He stated that he felt this proposed ordinance was another way of adding a little burden to the smaller people. The small dwelling units are just about at the breaking point, and he felt any additional cost would cause extra burdens to the landlords. He further stated that he saw a lot of legal requirements being placed on people and penalties for noncompliance. He stated that he felt there was no way for the requirements of the proposed ordinance to be complied with constantly. He stated that he felt requiring a student to furnish a fire extinguisher was another thing to hinder the small people. 388.3 Mr. Bill Giese addressed the Board by reading a prepared statement. He stated that he felt the real purpose of the proposed ordinance was an excuse to gain entrance into people's homes for reasons other than fire prevention. He stated that the proposed ordinance was not intended for private homes, but he felt the intent was there for this, and this would lead to private home regulations. He stated that he felt this proposed ordinance was setting a precedent that would in the future allow regulations of homeowners as well as tenants for matters other than fire protection. He suggested using current regulations and laws for fire protection and educational programs. 388.4 Mr. Agee addressed the Board and made the following comments. He stated that he had discussed this with Director Sharp and appreciated Mr. Sharp's cordiality. He stated that he was not particularly against the proposed ordinance. He asked if the rental property over 15 units were required to have smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. 388.5 Director Bumpass stated that he thought that was correct. Director Bumpass redirected the question to Fire Inspector Larry Poage. 388.6 Mr. Poage stated that landlords were required to have fire extinguishers available. He confirmed that this was an Arkansas State Law and Ord. 1537. Mr. Poage further stated that as he understood it, there is a right to check this compliance presently, but no regulation stating they are going to be checked. He stated that his contention was that every piece of rental property in town should be inspected by the proposed date. This would eliminate discrimination. 388.7 Mr. Agee further stated that he was concerned about entry into the apartments for inspection. He asked if the City would take the full responsibility for coordinating entry with the tenants for inspection purposes. 388.8 Mr. Sharp stated that the landlords on the committee had informed him that they gain entry for fire insurance inspectors and exterminators presently with no problem. 388.9 Director Bumpass stated that he felt the committee considered this an administrative problem to be solved by the fire inspectors in the same manner they inspect businesses in town, etc. He asked Mr. Poage how these inspections were handled. 388.10 Mr. Poage stated that they contacted the owners and asked if the inspectors could come either by phone or by knocking on doors and made arrangments for a convenient time. 388.11 Mr. Agee asked who would be responsible for maintaining the smoke detectors. Director Bumpass stated that it would be the tenant's responsibility. February 2, 1982 389 Mr. Agee further addressed the combustible material section of the 389.1 proposed ordinance. He stated that he felt no landlord would knowlingly have this type of material on their property. However, tenants could have anything in the apartments that landlords were unaware of. Mrs. Tom Lavender asked if the proposed ordinance would apply to places 389.2 built outside the city limits that were later annexed by the City. City Attorney McCord stated that the proposed ordinance would apply to any 389.3 rental unit within the corporate limits regardless of annexation date and would apply to areas that are annexed in the future. He further stated that the ordinance would apply to rental units regardless of when they were built. Director Lancaster asked what the differences were between the proposed 389.4 city ordinance and the state ordinance. He stated that he was concerned about having two different guidelines. Director Bumpass stated that the proposed ordinance should include all 389.5 rental units regardless of size or age in the City of Fayetteville. The state fire codes and ordinances only apply to dwellings with 15 or more sleeping accommodations. Director Lancaster asked if the committee that drafted the ordinance 389.6 would agree to delete the number "15" from the proposed ordinance; therefore, the ordinance would apply without discrimination. City Attorney McCord stated that the state fire code was mandatory for 389.7 rental units that house more than 15 people, and the City cannot require a lesser standard than the state law requires on those units. State law does not address rental units for less than 15 people, so the City can set their own standards for areas not covered by state law. A member of the audience stated that he did not know if this proposed 389.8 ordinance would lessen the state standards, but that it may have some additional requirements, which was one of the stated purposes of this ordinance, to provide protection. He stated that he felt the inspection of every property that the proposed ordinance would apply to would be a tremendous problem. He asked if the proposed ordinance could be amended to read in such a manner that inspections would not be required, but that tenants could request an inspection. He stated that he felt the ordinance was a good one and that the protection is needed, but he felt it created a tremendous problem of inspections by a few people. He stated that he had heard that if the two fire inspectors could not handle the large number of inspections by the proposed date, the rest of the department would be involved. He stated that this would be asking the firemen to do something that was not their job. He stated that he felt a good system would be for the landlord to have the responsibility of explaining the ordinance to the tenant, and it would be the tenant's responsibility to request an inspection of.a possible violation. Director Bumpass stated that there was a provision calling for a notice 389.9 to be posted in the rental units that stated the tenants did have the right to request an inspection. The audience member stated that he was worried about superflous inspections 389.10 of those people that have complied with the law. He stated that he felt there was no reason to create an inspection problem when it was unnecessary. Director Bumpass stated that if the City could get in to inspect property 389.11 that was not covered by the state fire codes, then perhaps potential fire hazards could be detected and alleviated. The audience member stated that he felt the tenants would report 389.12 violations and request inspections. An audience member stated that he felt there were more small units in the 389.13 City that met the fire codes than larger units. February 2, 1982 390 390.1 City Attorney McCord stated that he felt several good points had been brought out about the difficult administrative problems associated with the proposed ordinance. He stated that if the Board thinks this is a valid point, the paragraph discussing the size and the number of 15 units could be omitted. He stated that the part in the proposed ordinance was article 3, section 9-30, paragraph (a) that could be deleted and would help alleviate superflous inspections. Tenants could then complain when there is a violation and request an inspection. 390.2 Director Sharp stated that the question was asked the Fire Chief if inspections could be conducted with the existing manpower, and the Fire Chief had stated that this was possible. 390.3 Mr. Agee stated that the Fire Department was planning on hiring additional firemen. He asked if the hiring of these people was to enfore this proposed ordinance or for what reasons if the department presently had all of the manpower to devote to numerous inspections. 390.4 Mayor Noland stated that the City was employing more firemen in order to lower the fire rating from a Class 5 to Class 4, which would help everyone in the city by lowering fire insurance rates. 390.5 City Manager Don Grimes stated that the firefighters from the substations make inspections presently. They take the truck with them and carry portable radios. If there is a call, they are just as available with the truck to proceed to the fire as from the fire station. 390.6 It was confirmed that there would not have to be an additional inspection when a rental unit was vacant before it could be re -rented. 390.7 Director Lancaster stated that he was worried about the tenants having to buy fire extinguishers. He stated he felt the ordinance would be discriminating. 390.8 Mr. Jerry Sweetser explained the "15 and over" clause in the ordinance. He stated that this was intended to mean something like a dormitory or a house that has more than 15 people that sleep in it. He further stated that the intent of the ordinance was to require each apartment to have a fire extinguisher (or each dwelling unit). Mr. Sweetser went on to say that as a landlord, he would really prefer not to have any ordinance at all, but he did feel the proposed ordinance was a good one and would be beneficial to Fayetteville. 390.9 Mayor Noland asked the City Attorney if he thought that the proposed ordinance should be compared to the State Fire Code for clarification before Board action. The City Attorney stated that he felt it should. Mayor Noland stated that a motion to table might be in order for this issue. 390.10 City Attorney McCord stated that if the Board agreed with the rest of the proposed ordinance except for the part dealing with fire extinguishers, this part could be deleted without disturbing the remainder of the ordinance. He stated that the section on fire extinguishers could be amended back into the ordinance at a later date. 390.11 Director Osborne stated his reservations to the proposed ordinance. He was worried about this ordinance being applied to just tenants and just apartments. He asked why not extend the fire protection to every residential dwelling in the City. He felt the ordinance should be uniformly applied. He also stated that he was concerned about the requirement for a tenant to furnish a fire extinguisher because there were probably a lot of tenants that cannot afford or do not want a fire extinguisher. He also stated that there was some substandard housing in this city, but he felt that there was a need for this type of housing for some individuals. In addition, he was concerned about applying the ordinance to every dwelling regardless of date of construction. He felt that the ordinance should be imposed on every building 1 1 1 O oe Q a • February 2, 1982 391 constructed after the date the ordinance is passed. He stated that there are a lot of buildings that do not meet the requirements of two means of ingress and egress. He stated that he felt it is an individual's right to choose where he lives and the conditions thereof. He further stated that he was worried about the mandatory requirements in the proposed ordinance. He agreed with the spirit of the ordinance and felt that the Fire Department believes that this is the right thing to do. However, with today's economy and the state - of the rental market in Fayetteville, these mandatory requirements would push the cost of renting in Fayetteville up because, in the long run, these types of requirements are passed on to the tenant. He further stated that he felt this ordinance would require a minimum standard for all rental property which would be very costly to the City by driving out some of the current residents and affecting the labor market, etc. Director Sharp stated that some of Director Osborne's points were discussed 391.1 by the committee. He stated that the rental of housing is a business which would require different standards than non -business owner -occupied dwelling units. This was the explanation for not applying the ordinance to all dwelling units. Director Sharp further stated that the fire extinguisher issue had been discussed and decided that it would be the tenant supplying the extinguishers now or paying for them several times in the long run through increased rental rates. He stated that the fire inspectors had informed the committee that an extinguisher could be purchased from one of the local discount stores for about $10 to $12. Director Bumpass stated that originally the fire inspection fee was planned 391.2 to be $15. But, upon discussion, they had decided that a smoke alarm and a fire extinguisher could be supplied for about $20. He stated that the extinguishers only had to be rated for type "A", "B", and "C" fires and of no particular size. Dr. Anthony De Palma stated that anything smaller than a 6 pound fire 391.3 extinguisher was just a false sense of security and of no actual benefit in fighting fires. Director Bumpass stated that it was the landlord's responsibility to put in 391.4 the smoke detector and the tenant's responsibility to maintain it. The smoke detectors were considered lifesaving devices while the the extinguishers were considered property saving devices. He stated that the committee felt by putting the responsibility of supplying the extinguishers on the tenants, this would eliminate some of the abuses of extinguishers at the landlord's expense. He stated that cost minimization was a major factor considered during the discussions. He further stated that there were some landlords that were not qualified to know what a fire hazard was, and the inspections would be to their benefit. He also stated that by inspection, the landlord could be made aware of a fire hazard created by a tenant and alleviate a potential fire. He stated that Fayetteville had been fortunate and not had severe property or death losses from fire, but an ordinance of this type could help insure minimizing any possibility of future loss. Director Osborne stated that his main objection was the fact these things 391.5 were being imposed upon the people whether they wnated them or not; that the Board was substituting their judgment for that of the people of the community. He stated that he realized the proposed ordinance was for the benefit of tenants, but he preferred some sort of an educational program rather than more requirements being imposed on people. Mayor Noland asked if the Board preferred to table, amend, or pass the 391.6 proposed ordinance. Director Bumpass stated that he preferred the ordinance be tabled and let 391.7 the City Attorney study this proposed ordinance and make amendments or vote it down as the Board sees fit at that time. Director Bumpass made this an official motion, and Director Sharp seconded the motion. February 2, 1982 392 392.1 City Attorney McCord stated that he felt it was a good idea to further study the ordinance. He stated that for the most part he was satisfied with the legality of the ordinance, but he wanted to examine the aspect of any inconsistency with what the state fire code required for larger rental properties. He stated that the City does have the authority to apply this ordinance to preexisting buildings. He stated that it was the Board's decision to decide whether they want an ordinance of this type applied to all dwellings or rental units or to the ones built after passage of the ordinance. 392.2 City Manager Grimes stated that he had encouraged the fire inspection bureau to get into an ordinance or fire prevention program of this sort. He felt the City does have a definite need for this type of program. He stated that in normal times, when students come to Fayetteville, they have to take anything in the way of an apartment that they can find because of the lack of available facilities. He stated that some of the units were terrible. He felt the City has an obligation to try and get somthing on the books to take care of the young people that come to Fayetteville. 392.3 Upon roll call, the motion to table passed unanimously. MSP WAIVER/WATSON STREET PROPERTY 392.4 Mayor Noland introduced a request for a waiver from the literal requirements of the Master Street Plan for property located on the south side of Watson Street, between Rollston and St. Charles Avenues. 392.5 Mr. Newton Hailey stated that the request was for a delay until Watson Street is widened or until the call of the City. He stated that the property owners had no problems with giving the dedication at this time, and they plan on installing new sidewalks. However, the property owners feel at this time the new sidewalk would create an unnecessary traffic condition. The Ozark Guidance Center has stated that they would be willing to cooperate with this project in the future. He stated that the sidewalk would be put back at least 6 feet. Mr. Hailey stated that there was a good three foot sidewalk at this location presently, and he requested Board approval to use that sidewalk. 392.6 Director Bumpass moved to grant the request for an execution of a bill of assurance taht the curb gutter and widening would be developed at the call of the City. 392.7 Director Henry stated that this was actually a temporary referral. 392.8 Director Lancaster seconded the motion. He further stated that he felt Watson would not need to be widened in the near future. 392.9 Director Todd stated that he felt Watson Street was too narrow now, and with the addition of a new apartment complex, a larger traffic problem would be created. 392.10 Mr. Hailey stated that Watson Street was narrow, but he did not expect it to be widened in the near future because some of the present structures were already so close to the road as not to leave any room for widening. 392.11 Director Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, moved to table and refer this to the Street Committee. 392.12 There being no further discussion, upon roll call the motion to table passed unanimously. SIGN APPEAL/ROCKY MOUNTAIN SNOW CREAM, INC. 392.13 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign ordinance by Rocky Mountain Snow Cream, Inc., which would allow Rocky Mountain to have roof signs on each side and end of each trailer. 1 1 r-- 1 0 cn 0 1 February 2, 1982 393 Mr. Carl Robertson distributed materials to the members of the Board showing the proposed design of the signs. He stated that the trailers were designed in conjunction with the State Health Department and the Inspection Department so that the trailers could be either temporary or permanent. They can be hooked to city sewers or be self-contained as a mobile unit. He further stated that one of the reasons for the signs on top of the trailers was to cover up the air conditioning units. Director Lancaster asked if the use of the trailers as a business of this type was legal in the City of Fayetteville. City Attorney McCord stated that he knew of no prohibitions against them. Mr. Robertson stated that the units had already been approved by the Health Department and the Inspection Department. He further stated that the bands could be put around the top of the units without words, but it would be an expense of little benefit as compared to putting advertising on the bands. City Attorney McCord stated that if this trailer was considered a building, then the sign would be considered a roof sign. The sign ordinance only deals with buildings. So, if this was not considered a building, then no variance is needed. He further stated that if the unit was considered a building, then the standards in granting a variance for a roof sign are where the applicant demonstrates practical difficulty in utilizing a wall sign. DirectorOsborne asked the City Attorney if it would be proper in determining if the unit was a building to consider the fact that it has four wheels. City Attorney McCord stated that the Board had the right to consider any fact they deem necessary. Mr. Robertson stated that he was aware of the way to be considered temporary which was to move the unit every 14 days. However, this would be an inconvenience and unnecessary expense to incur in ordernot to need a variance. Director Lancaster stated that he felt this issue of determining whether the unit was a building or not needed to be settled before a decision could be made on the sign variance appeal. Director Todd, seconded by Lancaster, moved to deny the appeal. Director Osborne stated that the Board was referring to the unit as a building, but the agenda was referring to the unit as a trailer. Mr. Robertson asked the City Attorney if the units were declared buildings by the Inspection Department and if the units stay mobile, which puts the units out of the jurisdiction of the Inspection Department, could the signs then be placed on the roof of the units because of no variance being needed. He further explained that if they had intended for their units to be completely portable then he would not have had to come to the Board because he would not need a sign variance. He stated that he was trying to be straightforward. Mr. Freeman Wood, building inspector, stated that the building code would probably define the unit as a structure and not call the unit a building or a trailer. However, a building permit would have to be issued for the unit to sit on the property for anything beyond a temporary time of 10-14 days. Director Todd stated that his motion for denial was based upon the criteria the City Attorney informed the Board that was to be applied to this request. He stated that he did not feel that this request was a hardship situation. He stated that the sign on top could be put on the sides, and the air conditioner could be covered up some other way. There being no further discussion, the motion to deny the appeal passed unanimously. SALES TAX/PROPOSED SALES TAX "CAP" Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the Board Finance Committee regarding a proposed resolution opposing the imposition of a $25 county sales tax "cap". 393.1 393.2 393.3 393.4 393.5 393.6 393.7 393.8 393.9 393.10 393.11 393.12 393.13 393.14 393.15 393.16 February 2, 1982 394 394.1 Director Bumpass questioned Section 2 of the proposed resolution. He asked if the Board could establish some sort of guileline and/or some point in the future for reviewal and reconsideration of the "cap" after a proper lapse of time to enable some accurate forecasts. 394.2 Director Henry suggested adding a Section 4 to the proposed resolution which would read that after one year's experience with the sales tax, a review of the cap be considered by the Quorum Court. 394.3 Director Osborne stated that was what he had in mind. After one year, then the Board could ask the Quorum Court to consider a "cap", but at this time he felt in favor of asking the Quorum Court to defer action until the first meeting in September. However, he stated that a lot of car dealers and other big ticket dealers stated that they were not sure that their business could survive a year without the cap. Director Osborne further stated that he was not sure that it was just the sales tax that was hurting their business rather the general economy. He stated that sales of automobiles were down in Washington County, but they were also down in Benton County, so this does not reinforce the cause being the sales tax. He further stated that he had a lot of sympathy for the big ticket and car dealer's position, but he did not feel that the Board should request the Quorum Court to impose a "cap" at this time. 394.4 Director Bumpass stated that he felt the merchants were asking if at any time in the future if Fayetteville was receiving more than $1.5 million from the sales tax revenue without a "cap", then would the City ever give their blessing to the Quorum Court to place the "cap" on the revenue. 394.5 Director Osborne stated that he felt the Quorum Court would act with or without the Board's blessing. He further stated that the people passed the sales tax without a cap, and it had only been six months that the tax had been collected. 394.6 Director Henry stated that she understood the merchant's economic problems associated with the added tax in addition to the present high interest rates, tight money, and general economic slump. However, philosophically she felt that basically a person that can afford to buy a more expensive item should pay a higher tax. However, this would not keep some of the merchants from going out of business. She stated that she had not been pressured by anyone. She stated that she had had a couple of calls from people expressing their opinions. She also knew that there were ways to get around the ordinance, and some people were doing this; therefore, the county is losing the additional tax and the initial sale and related tax. 394.7 Director Osborne stated that Finance Director Scott Linebaugh had checked with SWEPCO and the county would lose over $50,000 a year from this utility's larger accounts if the "cap" were imposed as it applied to monthly utility bills. Director Osborne further stated that he was concerned about not having more experience with the tax, especially taking into consideration the peculiar economic times we were currently experiencing. He also stated that he did not want to cause any of the car dealers any more problems than they currently have. 394.8 Mr. George Blackwell stated that he was opposed to the tax "cap" He stated that the people voted in favor of the tax. He stated that he would not go to another county to purchase a car. If the Washington County dealer made him a good deal, he would not go further to avoid the additional sales tax. He stated that if this "cap" was imposed, then it could lead to too many different interest groups wanting exemptions. 394.9 Mr. Gary McJunkin addressed the Board. He stated that he was vice president of a business in Springdale, Arkansas. He stated that they employed over 100 people presently. Last year he had purchased $1 million of equipment from a truck dealer. This year after the sales tax, they did not purchase, which caused them not to hire an additional 25 people. He stated that they also had offices in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Hindsville, Illinois, and the company 1 0 oe Q Q 1 February 2, 1982 395 could purchase equipment in Illinois and not pay any sales tax and bring the equipment to their Springdale office, He stated that their future purchases would not be made in Washington County. He stated that because of this, the company may be forced to lay off some of its present employees. He stated that the additional 1% tax was too much of an additional burden. He further stated that he could license all of his 22 vehicles in Illinois and not have to pay any Arkansas sales tax on the purchase of vehicles. He stated that this also hurt the Washington County merchants because they would be losing the business of his company and other companies that chose to avoid the Arkansas sales taxes. Director Osborne stated that as he understood the law, the company could still purchase their equipment in Washington County and take delivery in Illinois and avoid the Arkansas sales tax. Mr. Mcdunkin stated that this was correct, but the additional cost and inconvenience was expensive. Mr. Blackwell stated that the people had voted in this tax for the EMS and for additional money the cities and county need to operate. He stated that he was opposed to exempting the tax for special interest groups. Mr. Gary McJunkin stated that he had voted for the sales tax, but he had thought thatit had the $25 limit on it. Mr. Louis McJunkin, from the Quorum Court, addressed the Board. He stated that he was a member of the Finance Committee of the Quorum Court, and as such was concerned about the finances of Washington County and the cities of Washington County. He stated that he was concerend about sending potential customers out of Washington County to make their purchases, and then Washington County receive no tax. He further stated that he was concerned about sending trucking companies outside of the county and state to register their vehicles and pay taxes. This then hurts the road taxes as well. The 1% additional tax could change the buying habits of customers from shopping in Washington County to other counties. Washington County is turning its back on the merchants who helped Washington County impose this tax for additional revenues to run government, etc. He further stated that the merchants support community activities as well. He stated that it is now mandatory for any county that passes a county sales tax that the tax have a $25 limit on it. Mr. McJunkin addressed the revenue side of the tax. He stated that the county was giving $3 per person of this tax to support the ambulance service, and he felt this was beneficial. Projected revenues for 1982 are $550 million 1981 revenues were $520 million. So, in 1982 there will be approximately $35 million more in revenues, and 1% of this is $350,000. Fayetteville's 36.70% share of this revenue would be $18,350 over and above their budget. He also stated that the collection of revenues for October, November, and December was 17% ahead of projected. He further stated that Springdale went on record by a 7 to 2 vote to favor the cap, and Springdale City Council represents one- fourth of the population of Washington County. He requested that the Board go on record favoring the cap. Mr. McJunkin reported to the Board the results of a survey of business people in Fayetteville and Springdale. He stated that the survey included 364 merchants, and 245 or 67.30% wanted the cap, 56 or 15.38% were against the cap, and 63 or 17.30% were undecided. He stated that the for group would pick up about one-half of the undecided group bringing the total for the cap to about 75%. He stated that the change in retail business in Benton County since 1977 was 68.5%, and in Washington County the change was 51.8%. He stated that the tax would send more customers to Benton County and increase their percentage change while decreasing Washington County's change. 395.1 395.2 395.3 395.4 395.5 395.6 395.7 February 2, 1982 398 396.1 Mr. McJunkin quoted from the June 28, 1981, Springdale News stating that when the city versus county tax debate first came up, some Fayetteville officials considered opting for the city tax. However, to keep sellers from big ticket items from being at a disadvantage, the city tax would have to include the $25 cap. 396.2 Director Lancaster asked how the survey was conducted. Mr. McJunkin stated that it was a telephone poll. Director Lancaster then asked if the people would be willing to have an election and vote for the cap. Mr. McJunkin said that he personally would be agreeable to this. 396.3 Director Lancaster asked the City Attorney if it were possible for Fayetteville to impose a city tax in addition to a county tax. 396.4 City Attorney McCord stated that he understood that a city could not impose an additional tax when there was a county tax being levied, but he would verify this information. He further clarified that there would be a mandatory $25 cap on either a city or county sales tax if it were imposed at this time. 396.5 Director Osborne addressed Mr. Louis McJunkin's remark regarding the reported stance of the Fayetteville officials regarding the cap. He stated that the distribution of the county tax was so different from a city tax, that he personally would have not been in favor of a county tax if there had been a $25 limit on it. Under the city tax, Fayetteville would have collected 1% of every dollar spent in the City of Fayetteville, whereas under the county tax, Fayetteville's share is 36.7% of every dollar spent in the county. Fayetteville would have benefited more under a city tax rather than a county tax. 396.6 Mr. McJunkin stated that he was using this comparison in regard to big ticket merchants being uncompetitive because of no cap. He stated that if there had been a city tax, customers could have traveled from Fayetteville to Springdale to shop if there had been no cap. 396.7 Director Osborne asked if Mr. McJunkin could break down his survey between the Fayetteville and Springdale merchants. 396.8 Mr. McJunkin stated that there had been 225 Springdale merchants polled with 164 or 72.8% for the cap, 22 or 9.7% against, and 30 or 17.3% undecided. Of the 139 Fayetteville merchants polled, 81 or 58.3% for the cap, 34 or 24.4% against, and 24 or 17.3% undecided. 396.8 Director Osborne asked why only merchants were surveyed, and Mr. McJunkin replied that time had not allowed for further surveying. 396.9 Director Lancaster asked how many trucking companies in this area registered their fleets in Arkansas. 396.10 Mr. McJunkin stated that quite a few presently, but because of the 1% tax, the number was decreasing. 396.11 Director Lancaster stated that he had meant trucking companies that had offices in other states and only did business in Arkansas. He asked if it were not conceivable that the trucking companies would license their vehicles where they did not have to pay any taxes at all. 396.12 Mr. McJunkin stated that if the companies only had to pay $25 that he felt they would consider registering in Arkansas. 396.13 Mr. Blackwell stated that the survey covered no taxpayers only merchants. He stated that taxpayers were the majority, and they had voted for the tax, and it should be left until the voters voted to amend or change the tax. 396.14 A member of the audience stated that the car dealers had voted for the tax, but the other counties abandoned the sales tax issue and put the Washington County dealers at a disadvantage. He stated that the cap would help make them competitive. 1 1 1 February 2, 1982 397 Mr. Don Nelms, a Fayetteville car dealer, stated that if a car was purchased outside of Washington County and brought back for registering, 3% sales tax had to be paid rather than 4% if the car was purchased in Washington County. He stated that this was a big problem for car dealers and other merchants as well. Mr. Nelms further stated that if every other county had a $25 cap, then at a'point in time he felt Washington County would too. He stated that he felt Washington County should be projecting budgets based on the $25 limit in preparation of that time. He stated that Washington County cannot turn its back on the business people that create so many of the revenues that help this county operate. He stated that if a stand was taken and the cap imposed, then the momentum would swing and people's attitudes would be more positive and benefit the overall economy. He stated that this would help everyone in the long run.. Mayor. Noland asked if the proposed section asking certain time was a formal motion. Director Bumpass stated that at one time the county had been lead to believe that by imposing a cap, the loss to the City would be about 40%. However, after studying this issue, the 40% figure has been shown to be incorrect. He stated that he would be in favor of imposing a cap at some designated point in the future if a study was conducted and determined that the revenues would be around $1.5 million with a $25 limit. He stated that it was his understanding that initial revenues were running higher than expected. Mr. Nelms stated that he did not want to look for ways to get around the sales tax. He stated that he would be in favor of the $25 cap because it would be good for Washington County. He further stated that he felt the county would be losing revenues because of people getting around the tax if a cap is not imposed. He stated that after a year of people getting around the tax entirely, they would not be willing to impose a $25 cap. . Director Osborne stated that he felt the county would be losing some revenue by people avoiding the tax. However, he stated his concern about imposing a "cap" after only 5 month's experience without a cap. Mr. Nelms stated that he felt if the cap was imposed, then only about 10% or less would be lost taking into consideration the people getting around the tax. Director Osborne stated that if the cap was imposed, it could never be taken off. So, he would like to give the tax a chance without the cap before asking that the cap be imposed. Mr. Nelms stated that he felt in the long run it would cost the city more by waiting to impose the tax. Mr. Louis McJunkin commented about a Springdale mobile home dealer stating that he would sell Washington County residents homes from his Bentonville lot and Bentonville residents homes from his Washington County lot, and Washington County would receive no taxes. Mr. McJunkin stated that the Board had no control over the Quorum Court nor did he. Mayor Noland stated that this Board was just making a recommendation to the Quorum Court. Mr. Gary McJunkin stated that on a prior issue, Mr. Osborne had stated that he felt there were tenants that could not afford to furnish fire extinguishers, but here they were expected to pay the additional 1% sales tax on all purchases. Director Osborne stated that the difference here was that the people had voted on the tax, but the tenants were being forced to furnish fire extinguishers. Mr. Gary McJunkin stated that he had voted for the tax, but he thought that it had a $25 cap on it at the time. 397.1 for a reviewal at a 397.2 397.3 397.4 397.5 397.6 397.7 397.8 397.9 397.10 397.11 397.12 397.13 397.14 February 2, 1982 398 398.1 Director Sharp stated that he was a businessman and had not been polled in the survey. He stated that he had purchased a $24,000 truck, and by going to Illinois he could probably have saved $240. He stated that the truck he purchased had come from a local dealer and right after the warranty expired, the motor went out, but the local dealer worked with him and probably saved him several thousand dollars. He stated that he felt it would be foolish to purchase his equipment elsewhere. He further stated that some residents had commented to him that they had voted for the tax and did not want a cap. He also commented that he felt he had a better quality product and lower prices that would insure people buying from his Washington County business, and this could hold true for other Washington County merchants. 398.2 Mr. Glen Clark, owner of a construction steel business in Springdale, addressed the Board and stated that the sales tax presently imposed on Washington County was not the same thing that had been voted on. He stated that the present tax was an amended form. He further stated that when the vote was held, any material that came into Washington County was subject to the tax. In the amended form, a contractor outside of the county can deliver goods into Washington County and only has to pay 3%. He stated that he had been for the tax in its original form, but was against the tax in its amended form. 398.3 Mayor Noland stated that the motion was to accept the resolution as it was circulated and adding Section 4 that after a year of collecting the sales tax, a review of the cap be instituted and consideration be based upon the study. 398.4 Director Osborne stated that he felt an amendment to the resolution should be added stating that if the cap is imposed, it should be done so by a popular vote of the people. Director Osborne proposed this as a Section 5 amendment to the resolution. 398.5 City Attorney McCord stated that he felt the two amendments should be voted on separately. 398.6 Section 5 would be if the Quorum Court determines that a cap is needed, then the proposal would be placed on the ballot for the vote of the people. 398.7 Upon roll call, the Section 5 amendment passed unanimously. 398.8 Mr. Nelms asked that the Board make no recommendation at all, dust include the Section 5 amendment in the resolution. 398.9 Director Sharp stated that he respectfully disagreed with Directors Henry and Bumpass. He stated that he felt Mr. McJunkin and others could take care of the matters Section 4 is addressing. 398.10 There being no further discussion, upon roll call the vote on Section 4 passed by a vote of 5 to 2, with Directors Todd and Sharp voting in the minority. 398.11 Mayor Noland, seconded by Sharp, moved the resolution as amended. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 19-82 APPEARS ON PAGE log OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x) BUILDING LEASE/FULBRIGHT INVESTMENT COMPANY --TEMPORARY CITY HALL 398.12 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a lease/purchase agreement with Fulbright Investment Company for temporary quarters for city hall activities. The agreement would provide for a one-year lease beginning in the spring of 1982, with two 6 -month renewal options. The monthly payments of $450 would not apply toward the purchase price of $80,000. 398.13 Director Todd, seconded by Noland, moved the resolution. 398.14 Upon roll call, the motion passed 5 to 0, with Directors Sharp and Bumpass absent at roll call. RESOLUTION NO. 20-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 110 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV 1 Y February 2, 1982 399 BIKE FUNDS/ADDITIONAL BIKEWAYS GRANT FUNDS Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Bicycle Task Force that an application be authorized for additional bikeways grant funds. He stated that 25% would be •coming from City funds and about 75% from state funds. Mark Risk of the Bicycle Task Force stated that Fayetteville, Pine Bluff, and Ozark had been awarded funds initially. Fayetteville has made the most progress. Ozark has failed to, comply with the contract obligations, and their funds have reverted back to the State Highway Department. He stated that these funds were for a one-time project and if not requested, they would be returned to the federal highway department. He stated that the force proposed to use the money for several purposes, but wanted to utilize it most advantageously. He stated that they had until March 1 to submit a proposal of how to utilize the funds. He stated that the force had proposed to (1) sign existing routes better, (2) sign additional routes already designated, and (3) promotional efforts to increase bicycle usage. He stated that he had comments from people that there were no people using the routes. He stated that there were not too many people riding bikes on snow and ice. He stated that he had gone on the routes and checked the usage, and there were several people using the routes. He further stated that bikes were an increasing form of transportation. He stated that the Task Force felt that Fayetteville had a very good chance of receiving funds. Mr. Steve Mitchell of the Arkansas Highway Department stated that Fayetteville had a very good change of receiving the funds. Director Todd asked if the matching funds had to be cash money or could contributions be substituted. Mr. Risk stated that contributions could be used as matching funds. Director Osborne stated that he though that it was possible that the whole $4,075 could be in-kind contributions. City Manager Grimes stated that about one-half of the total could be counted on as contributions. Director Osborne stated that if the project was to pave bike trails or stripe existing trails, etc., then the City crews could do this, and out-of- pocket money would be minimized. He stated that he felt the budget could include this, and that more bikes would be used in the future necessitating projects of this type. Mayor Noland asked if a 4' sidewalk could be put on the side of Highway 45 and put bike signs up designating it as a bikeway. Mr. Risk answered in the negative because according to the specifications from the state highway department, the bikeways have to be 8' wide to accommodate two-way bicycle traffic. Director Lancaster asked if the additional signs were really necessary considering the existing signs and maps. Mr. Risk stated that safety was the main concern of the Bicycle Task Force and by putting up signs safety for bike riders is increased. He stated that the signs had elevated the awareness of the City of Fayetteville 200%. Director Bumpass moved to authorize the application for additional funds. Director Sharp seconded this motion. It was added to the motion and the second for the Task Force to use as many in-kind funds as possible. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Lancaster voting in the minority. Director Sharp asked what it would cost to do some planning of bikeways separate from the roads. Mr. Risk stated that the bike committee had not addressed this, but several possibilities did exist in Fayetteville. He stated that a professional study would cost quite a bit, but after the bike committee completed the present grant project, then they could look into the possibilities. 399.1 399.2 399.3 399.4 399.5 399.6 399.7 399.8 399.9 399.10 399.11 399.12 399.13 399.14 l February 2, 1982 400 400.1 Director Bumpass stated that this could be a possible project for the fifth year architect students at the University of Arkansas because they get involved in projects of this sort. 400.2 Mr. Risk further suggested the possibility of giving developers credit for "green space or recreational space" by developing bikeways in their developments. These would be paved trails. SCHOOL REQUEST/TENNIS COURTS 400.3 Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Fayetteville Public Schools for permission to have four tennis courts installed on park property leased to the City; and for city participation in the cost. 400.4 City Manager Grimes stated that he had discussed this with Mr. Vandergriff on several occasions. He explained that two of the existing courts were having to be torn out because of the addition to the high school. Mr. Grimes recommended taking the action to grant permission for the courts. He further stated that the school was requesting participation in the cast of the courts. He stated that this probably would be eligible for community development funds, but time -wise the moving of CD funds to this porject would be restrictive. Also, the City did participate in the cost of the original construction of the two courts being torn out. He further stated that the total cost would be around $20,000 to $25,000 for the courts for the city's part. He stated that there needed to be two motions --one for approval of the courts and the second for the cost participation. 400.5 Director Todd stated that this would seem to fall under Parks and Recreation and wondered if it had been considered by this committee. 400.6 City Manager Grimes stated that it had, and Parks and Recreation does support this and asks that the City try and find funds for participation. He stated that Parks and Recreation had agreed to use their part of the tax money if no other funds were available. 400.7 Director Todd stated that as he understood this matter, the City would be building two new courts. He stated that the school was merely replacing two that were being destroyed due to the school expansion. He stated that he could not see the "sharing" of the project between the City and the school. 400.8 Mayor Noland moved that the tennis courts be constructed on the land that the City has leased from the school, and Director Osborne seconded this. 400.9 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 400.10 Director Todd made a motion to participate in the cost of construction of the tennis courts contingent upon the money being taken from the Parks and Recreation sales tax money. Director Lancaster seconded this motion. 400.11 City Manager Grimes stated that the motion be made subject to the reconfirmation by the Parks and Recreation Board on the use of the sales tax funds. Directors Osborne and Lancaster confirmed this. 400.12 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. EASEMENT GRANT/NORTH STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BOX CULVERT 400.13 Mayor Noland Introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an easement with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, for the construction of a box culvert over North Street, west of the railroad tracks. He stated that this would be a permanent easement of .03 acres and a temporary and construction easement of .06 acres. 400.14 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved the resolution. 400.15 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 21-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 116 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIY 1 1 Pe'bruairy 2, 15982 401 SEWER APPEAL/R & P ELECTROPLATING Director Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the Water and Sewer 401.1 Committee, regarding a request by R & P Electroplating for an extension to the deadline for complying with the city's sewer use ordinance. He stated that he had been asked to defer this until the first meeting in March. Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, moved to table. 401.2 Director Todd asked if the net effect was simply what the company was 401.3 asking anyway --delay. Mayor Noland explained that the problem was a change in engineers because 401.4 the previous engineers felt that they had a conflict of interest. Director Osborne stated that this was a valid request for a delay because of 401.5 changing engineers. Director Todd asked if there was a deadline that had already been passed. 401.6 0 He stated that this was a serious subject and grew more serious with time. 01 Mayor Noland stated that the Water and Sewer Committee turned this down 401.7 CD about three or four months ago and was now being appealed to the full Board. Director Todd asked why the appeal had not come up the following week 401.8 Q after it had beenuturned down. Director Osborne stated that charges could still be filed against this 401.9 Q company for violating the ordinance. Director Todd stated that he was ready to vote on the appeal. 401.10 Mayor Noland stated that this could be done, but he felt that the company 401.11 and their engineers should be present to defend their case. Director Osborne stated that as he understood the situation, the company 401.12 was saying that the federal people had reduced their standards, and they were requesting that the City reduce theirs. Director Henry, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table this item for 401.13 two weeks. Upon roll call the motion to table for two weeks passed unanimously. 401.14 BRIDGE WORK/CONSTRUCTION PRIORITIES Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing an agreement between the 401.15 City and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department, regarding the Federal Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program; and a resolution listing bridge replacement priorities and authorizing the execution of contracts. Director Sharp stated that this could be broken into two parts --(1) does 401.16 the Board want to take the Street Department's recommendation that the City enter into the agreement of understanding with the State Highway Department for the construction of bridges and (2) the priorities. Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, moved to accept the agreement. 401.17 City Manager Grimes stated that the bridge is the immediate project. He 401.18 stated that in the resolution the four projects were listed in order of priority. Director Sharp stated that the Street Committee recommended bridges be 401.19 placed in the order listed in the resolution. The total funds necessary are $390,000 which is more than the budgeted $250,000, so some reallocating funds would be,necessary. He stated that number one is the North Street Bridge at Skull Creek for $175,000. Number two is the Appleby Road Bridge for $60,000. This priority is to be reviewed after 60 days if current attempts to establish a street improvement district for Appleby Road are not successful. Number three is the Old Missouri Road at Mud Creek bridge for $95,000. Number four priority is Old Wire Road across from Mud Creek just west of Highway 265 for $60,000. He stated that some of these would not be eligible until October 1982, but work needed to be started immediately on North Street. Director Todd asked what was the significance of October 1, 1982. 401.20 402 402.1 Mayor Noland stated that some of funds until this time because of some which they were not aware of. 402.2 City Manager Grimes stated that p work started before October 1. February 2, 1982 the bridges would not be eligible for of the highway department criteria erhaps priorities could be shifted and 402.3 Director Todd asked if the City would receive more than $250,000 after October 1. 402.4 City Manager Grimes stated that the City would not get more funds until the next year's allocations were granted. 402.5 Director Todd asked if the City would be taking funds away from bridges available after October 1, 1982, by using the money on different projects before this time. 402.6 City Manager Grimes stated that he did not think so. He stated that this $250,000 was from the current year's funds. 402.7 Director Todd asked how the Old Missouri Roadat Mud Creek bridge advanced on the priority list. 402.8 Director Sharp stated that based on the list of criteria, it was moved 402.9 up, including traffic count, danger, number of accidents, etc. Director Todd stated that his primary concern was that Old Wire Road at Overcrest is at the bottom of the list and out of the running, and he was more familiar with this and felt it was very critical. He stated that at one time it was item 2 and now it was number 6. 402.10 Mayor Noland stated that the highway engineers were not aware of some of the possibilities until the City called them to the engineers' attention. The eligibility was then reevaluated for some of these locations. 402.11 Director Todd stated that his concern was that even with next year's budget, the City would be out of funds before they got to items 5 and 6. 402.12 Director Henry made a motion to move Old Wire at Overcrest up to priority number 3. 402.13 Mayor Noland stated that this was not eligible until after October 1. 402.14 Director Osborne stated that the list be approved contingent upon Old Wire Road at Overcrest being moved up the minute it is available for funds assuming numbers 1 and 2 are finished at that time. 402.15 Mr. Tony Latrechia addressed the Board and stated that he thought the priorities were based on the condition of the bridge. He stated that the condition of the bridge of Appleby was bad. He stated that he thought that was why it was moved up on the priority list. 402.16 Director Osborne stated that the Board was proposing to leave the bridge where it was located on the list. 402.17 Upon roll call the resolution regarding the bridges was approved 7 to 0. 402.18 Mr. Wade Bishop asked if the Appleby Bridge at Skull Creek should exceed the projected cost of $60,000 then what would happen. He stated that it was his fear that the cost would be considerably over the estimated amount. 402.19 Director Osborne stated that it was priority number 2, and the City would either take it up again and appropriate additional funds or decide not to do it. 402.20 City Manager Grimes stated that the Board realized that these figures were estimates and could require adjustments. 402.21 Director Lancaster stated that while the present Board could not bind future city boards, if the neighbors build a new street at this location, then it would be foolish to allow the old bridge to remain as it is presently. 402.22 Director Sharp reported that the Street Committee recommended that sidewalks along 15th Street adjacent to Walker Park and College to 71 be included in the 1982 CD budget 402.23 Director Todd stated that this did not require any board action until the CD budget was considered. 1 1 "[-"12a16441+fltmdm Fe.: bruaTiary 2, '1982 Director Sharp further stated that he had a priority list of maintenance and construction street priorities for next year. He stated that the Street Committee saw no reason to change the list. City Manager Grimes stated that they could be approved when the Public Works Budget comes through. 403 403.1 403.2 RESOLUTION NO. 22-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 06 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XI V RESOLUTION NO. 23-82 APPEARS ON PAGE /3,A OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X/ V FAA LEASE/CENTER FIELD WIND EQUIPMENT AND CEILING LIGHTS Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk 403.3 O to execute an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration regarding the provision of airport space for center field wind equipment and ceiling lights. Director Lancaster stated that the old equipment was located where the 403.4 0) new terminal building is now, and it had to be moved. Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the 403.5 agreement. Q Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 403.6 RESOLUTION NO. 24-82 APPEARS ON PAGE /33 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X1V LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH CITY HOSPITAL Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk 403.7 to execute an assignment of a lease -purchase agreement to the City Hospital. City Attorney McCord stated that on December 15 the City authorized 403.8 a lease -purchase agreement with Mcllroy Bank to finance the first phase of improvements to City Hospital. The lease will be assigned to the hospital, and they will assume all of the obligaions except rent payments. The City does reserve the right to terminate the lease at any time. Director Lancaster stated that the City Board had pledged 10% of the city's 403.9 share of the 1% sales tax, and if the cap is placed on the tax, will this have any affect on this agreement. City Attorney McCord stated that this would not put the City in jeopardy 403.10 because the terms of the lease are one year, and the City can renew or not renew at any time the revenue source is insufficient. Mayor Noland, seconded by Sharp, moved to accept the resolution. 403.11 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 403.12 RESOLUTION NO. 25-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 138 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ,Z'/IV SIGN CASE/TEXACO, INC. City Attorney McCord stated that after a couple of years of litigation, the 403.13 plaintiffs had finally agreed to remove the existing nonconforming sign which is free standing. The Texaco station has requested that the roof sign at the Evelyn Hills site be allowed to remain. He further stated that he had drafted a consent decree that included this settlement, and he recommended accepting the settlement. Director Todd asked if it was possible to include in the agreement that 403.14 as long as the roof sign is in place that there be no other free standing signs, conforming or nonconforming, at that location. City Attorney McCord stated that he would have to get back with the 403.15 plaintiffs and settle this. Director Todd stated that in the past, nonconforming signs had been 403.16 allowed if that was the only sign. 1 1 February 2, 1982 404 404.1 City Attorney McCord stated that he felt this would be acceptable, but he would have to work this out with the plaintiff. 404.2 Director Todd made a motion to accept the settlement with the stipulation that with the roof sign, there would be no free-standing sign at that location. This motion was seconded by Mayor Noland. 404.3 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. CULTURAL CENTER 404.4 City Attorney McCord stated that the Board about six weeks ago had passed an ordinance abolishing the Northwest Arkansas Cultural Center Board of Trustees as a city committee, and they are in the process of getting their non-profit corporation tax-exempt status set up with the IRS. They are requesting that the effective date of the ordinance be extended because they have not received their tax-exempt status from the IRS. This ordinance will extend the effective date to March 15. 404.5 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. 404.6 Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, moved that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 404.7 Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE NO. 2792 APPEARS ON PAGE //o OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK '0/ LEWIS PROPERTY 404.8 City Attorney McCord stated that he had submitted a memorandum explaining the status of the acquisition of the Lewis Property. He stated that there had been some minor problems delaying closing, but he anticipated closing in about a week. ENGINEERING FEES/WILSON PARK SWIMMING POOL 404.9 City Manager Don Grimes stated that he had been requested by the Finance Committee to attempt to negotiate engineering fees for the proposed Wilson Park Swimming Pool. He stated that this had been done and a memorandum was submitted to the Board. 404.10 Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, moved to accept the engineering fees. 404.11 Director Osborne stated that Mr. Grimes had benefited the City through his negotiations. He stated that the fees do not include inspections, but are only for the design and preparation of plans and specifications of either the pool itself for $25,000 or for the pool and all related buildings plus a preliminary master plan for that end of Wilson Park. Director Osborne further stated that the pool plans would be detailed, but the master plan would be of a preliminary nature. 404.12 The engineer stated from the audience that it was their plan to develop enough of a preliminary plan so that the pool is well sited for future parking, access, etc. 404.13 City Manager Grimes stated that the City would have the option of hiring the engineers to do the inspection or not hiring them. 404.14 Director Bumpass stated that the plans are owned by the City. 404.15 The engineer stated that this agreement would get the City to the point of contract awards. 1 1 1 February 2, 1982 405 Director Osborne stated that he wanted to make sure the plans were detailed 405.1 enough so that the city engineer could pick up and handle the inspections in case of a shortage of funds. Director Todd asked if a time frame had been considered. 405.2 Assistant City Manager David McWethy stated that the pool could be in 405.3 operation the summer of 1982 if the City wished to pay the price. The best time to be excavating for the pool is in the dry part of the summer which is July and August, and this will make the overall cost lower than trying to rush the work. He further stated that the best way considered to do the work was to excavate this summer and finish the work in the early spring of 1982 so that the pool would be ready for the entire 1983 season. This would also delay for the longest period of time the spending of the sales tax money. O The engineer stated that he saw no reason why bids could not be received 405.4 about the first of July and by mid summer the pool could be under construction. CD He stated that the soil investigation work which was recently completed made some Q) references to serious water problems that deal with the wet season. He stated —43 that if the City tried to have the pool ready by this summer, then excavation would have to be done during the wet spring months, which would be the worst time for the pool. He further stated that the pool had to be constructed under the health department regulations. He stated that the health department was considering some new regulations, and this pool may be one of the first built under these regulations. He stated that these could cause some additional time requirements. Director Todd stated that he was concerned about getting a set of plans that 405.5 was so detailed that not every contractor could read them. The engineer stated that :he soil condition of the site dictated the type 405.6 of pool to be built, and he anticipated a set of plans that could be used by several people. Director Bumpass asked if the present pool would be closed during 405.7 excavation. The engineer stated that the new pool would not interfere with the 405.8 current pool. Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that three things were needed: 405.9 (1) approval of the engineering contract, (2) a decision on whether the Board wanted just 'a pool or a pool and bathhouse and concession, and (3) appointment of a three member committee as indicated below. Director Bumpass moved to amend the motion to go with the $38,000 proposal 405.10 which includes the bathhouse and concession facilities. Mayor Noland seconded this motion. It was confirmed that the concession facilities would be accessible from outside the pool facilities. Upon roll call the motion to accept the pool, concession, and bathhouse 405.11 contract passed 6 to 1, with Director Bumpass voting in the minority. Director Todd asked if any architects were involved in the bathhouse, 405.12 etc. It was confirmed that Hailey Powers would be working with the engineers in the design of this. Director Osborne stated that he felt the three person committee was a very 405.13 good idea. Director Osborne moved that the Mayor be authorized to appoint a three person committee authorized to make decisions binding the City consisting of someone from the City Manager's Office, the designee of the Chairman of the Parks Board, and a member of the Board. Director Lancaster seconded this motion. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 26-82 APPEARS ON PAGE /A{( OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV February 2, 1982 406 COMMITTEE VACANCIES 406.1 Director Todd asked about the advertising of the vacancies in the city committees. He asked if there was any reason why the vacancies could not be advertised immediately rather than waiting until March. He stated that he felt the ad hoc closing committee should be getting under way. Director Lancaster agreed with this point. 406.2 Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that he saw no problems associated with this. He stated that he already had 10 applications for the ad hoc committee and didnot know if the Board really wanted more. 406.3 Director Todd stated that it had been stated that the ad hoc committee would be advertised, and he felt this should be done. 406.4 An audience member asked if the vacancy on the energycommittee would be advertised as well. 406.5 Mr. McWethy stated that he thought this person was referring to the fact that the committee was supposed to be 8 persons and was now down to 5, and the Board had decided the last time that it was advertised for that there would be no appointments made to this committee. 406.6 Director Todd stated that they had appointed all of the applicants that they had at the time and decided not to readvertise at that time. 406.7 Director Sharp asked if Mr. McWethy felt he could get a balanced committee from the 10 applicants he currently had. Mr. McWethy confirmed this. Director Sharp further stated that if after advertising, no more applicants applied, then a balanced committee could be put together. PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS 406.8 Director Todd stated that he was proposing that the City Manager pursue an investigation of the feasibility of the public safety officer concept for Fayetteville, the estimated cost and benefit involved, and the legal problems that might need to be resolved, a proposed timetable, and an organizational structure and report back to the Board by March 1. 406.9 Director Todd made this a resolution which was seconded by Henry. 406.10 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. MINUTES 406.11 Director Henry stated that at 384 14 where it stated that "Director Henry's main objection was . . ." should be corrected to read that it was not Director Henry's objection, but the objection reported to her. 406.12 The minutes were then approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT 406.12 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:53 p.m. 1 1 r • AGENDA FEBRUARY 2; 1982 PAGE "B" EMPLOYEE AWARDS: Presentation by the Mayor of awards to the three Employees of the Month, for January, 1982. The "Employee of the Month" program was instituted by the City Board to recognize and reward those employees who have consistently given superior performance on the lob. Monthly winners are selected by a rotating committee of department heads and a representative of the City Manager's Office, and receive a certificate and a check for $150. Monthly winners are also eligible to compete for an Employee of the Year award. Pictures of last year's winners are on display outside the Directors' Room door. Employees of the' Month for January, 1982 are: Stephen Haile U tility Service Leadperson Water & Sewer Department K athy Morgan Parking Enforcement Officer Traffic Department Freeman Wood Assistant Inspection Superintendent Inspection Department aG/.2ACT 9 BONDS: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a Memorandum of Intent regarding the issuance of $2,000,000 in "Act 9" Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Mexican Original Products, Inc. Under the termsof this Memorandum, the City agrees to issue approximately $2,000,000 in Act 9 bonds to finance the expansion and equipping of facilities for Mexican Original. The company will pay off all of the costs of the bonds (including both principal and interest, the cost of issuing the bonds and financing and attorney's fees) through a lease or similar arrangement and the City will own the facilities until the bonds are paid off. Act 9 revenue bonds do not establish any liability whatsoever on the part of the City --in the unlikely event that Mexican Original should go bankrupt or default on the repayment of the bonds --nor is there any additional tax millage for the citizens to pay associated with this revenue bond issue. Listed below are similar Act 9 bond issues that have been approved in the past: Baldwin Piano & Organ, 1974; $2,000,000 Hackney Bros. Body Company, 1977; $1,200,000 Warren Tool Company, 1978; $3,000,000 Arkansas Best Freight, 1978; $500,000 American Air Filter, 1978; $3,200,000 FEBRUARY 2, 1982 PAGE "C" Norris Industries, 1979; $6,000,000 Fayetteville Plumbing & Heating, 1979; $310,000 Baldwin Piano & Organ, 1980; $2,000,000 American Air Filter, 1981; $6,000,000 Arkansas Western Gas, 1981; $1,000,000 3FIRE ORDINANCE: An ordinance imposing fire protection standards for the rental of residential property providing sleeping accommodations for less than 15 persons. Under the terms of this ordinance, the following major provisions will apply to the rental of all buildings providing sleeping accommodations for less than 15 persons: 1. After July 1, 1983 no person shall offer for rent such accommodations "unless the building...has been inspected by the fire department". 2. The owner of the building shall be required to install smoke detectors meeting minimum specifications and shall "inform each occupant of the location of ail smoke detectors, their method of operation and their required maintenance". 3. Tenants shall be responsible for installing and main- taining one Type ABC "portable, dry -chemical type, fire extenguisher"; and 4. Other regulations regarding adequate means of egress, storage of materials, separation by fire walls, and the installation and use of heating, air conditioning, and cooking equipment. Copies of the full regulations are available in the City Clerk's Office; the ordinance is recommended for approval by the Board Police & Fire Committee, and was formulated by an Ad -Hoc Committee whose members were: Jerry D. Sweetser--Landlord Frank Kerr --Landlord Fred Hanna --Landlord Leslie Oelsner--Tenant Gordon C. Floyd --Tenant Mary Anne Sennett --Tenant Larry Pogue & John Durham --Fire Department Freeman Wood --Inspection Department Ron Bumpass--Police & Fire Committee Chairman Frank Sharp --City Director 1 1 FEBRUARY 2, 1982 PAGE "D" MSP WAIVER: A request for, a waiver from the literal �i .l requirements of the Master Street Plan, for property located on the south side of Watson Street, between Rollston and St. Charles Avenues. Required improvements are the dedication of 10' of additional street right-of-way, widening the street by 6' and building or replacing a sidewalk on the south side. The developer is proposing to dedicate the right-of-way now and enter into a bill of assurances to the effect that the street widening will be done "when Watson Street is widened upon the call of the City". SIGN APPEAL- An appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance Petitioner: Rocky Mountain Snow Cream, Inc., by Carl Robertson and James Davis Proposed locations of the signs: In the Oak Plaza Shopping Center and at 908 Rolling Hills Drivew Zoning District: C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial" (first location) and C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" (second) Variance requested: Permission to allow a roof sign on each side and each end of a trailer Ordinance requirement: Roof signs are not allowed unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of characteristics unique to the property in question 6 SALES TAX: A recommendation from the Board Finance Committee regarding a proposed resolution' opposing the imposition of a $25 county sales tax "cap". 7 BUILDING LEASE: A resolution authorizing the execution of a lease/purchase agreement with Fulbright Investment Company for temporary quarters for city hall activities. The city is proposing to remodel the current administration building, and while the construction is going on, city hall offices will be relocated in an interim city hall to be built at the corner of Rock Street and Church Avenue. After the building is remodeled and re -occupied the interim city hall building would be used to house building maintenance machinery, police vehicle service areas, and the Traffic Department. The proposal before the Board would authorize a lease/purchase arrange- ment for the former JCPenney customer service building on the south FEBRUARY 2, 1982 PAGE "E" south side of Rock Street (between Block and Church) to house the Traffic Department shop and building maintenance activities while the interim city hall is occupied with offices. The noise, fumes, and dust of traffic sign making and wood- and metal -working machinery would be detrimental around office areas. The arrangement --tabled from the January 18 meeting to allow for further negotiation --would provide for a one-year lease beginning in the spring of 1982, with two six-month renewal options. The monthly payments of $450 would not apply toward the purchase price of $80,000. BIKE FUNDS: A request by the Bicycle Task Force that an application be authorized for additional bikeways grant funds. On June 3, 1980 the City Board authorized the submission of a $20,000 bikeways grant proposal, for construction and educational purposes, with the city paying 25% of this cost. Among the tasks to be accomplished under this grant were the creation of a Master Bikeways Map, showing where bike routes should be designated, both immediately and in the future; signing of routes; and the fabrication and installation of bike racks. Most of this work has been done and it has recently been learned that the state agency administering the program has an additional $12,225 available for distribution to qualifying communities. The Task Force is asking for authorization to apply for these funds, and a Board commitment that $4,075 in local matching funds will be available if the application is successful. 9SCHooL REQUEST: A request by the Fayetteville Public Schools for permission to have four -tennis courts installed on park property leased to the city; and for city participation in the cost. 10 EASEMENT GRANT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an easement with the Arkansas State Highway 8. Transportation Department, for the construction of a box culvert over North Street, west of the railroad tracks. SEWER APPEAL: An appeal of a decision by the Water 8 Sewer Committee, regarding a request by R 8 P Electroplating for an extension to the deadline for complying with the city's sewer use ordinance. f 1 13 a -war? faviv'T esti- FEBRUARY 2, 1982 PAGE "F" i 1 BRIDGE -•WORK: A resolution`authorizing an agreement between the city and the Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department, regarding the Federal Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program; and a resolution listing bridge replacement priorities and authorizing the execution of contracts. The Board Street Committee will be considering these two items at a meeting on Monday, February 1, at 3:00 PM --after this agenda is prepared and distributed. FAA LEASE: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration, regarding the provision of airport space for center field wind equipment and ceiling lights. 1 w OTHER BUSINESS. 1 1 MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the previous Board meeting. 16ADJOURNMENT.