HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-03-16 Minutes25
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, March 16, 1982
at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Directors Sharp, Noland, Bumpass, Henry, Lancaster, Todd, and Osborne;
City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Assistant City Manager McWethy, and
City Clerk Rowe; members of the press and audience.
CO ABSENT: None
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of
(� respectful silence.
CO APPLEBY ROAD/PUBLIC HEARING/PROPOSED STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Mayor Noland introduced a public hearing regarding the sufficiency of a 25.1
street improvement district petition for Appleby Road, from Bishop Drive to
Gregg Avenue.
Mr. John Lyle stated that after talking. with Jim McCord, he learned that 25.2
the law required certified letters to the owner of each parcel of property within
the proposed district. This was not done because he only learned of this
requirement. He requested that the notice be given and this item be tabled
until sometime in April.
Mayor Noland stated that it was the responsibility of the people forming 25.3
the district to send the notification. Mr. Lyle stated that the statute did
not specifically state who had to give the notice.
Mr. Jack Butt, representative of the organizers of the proposed Appleby 25.4
Road improvement district, asked that this motion be tabled until the
statutory notice requirements have been met.
Director Henry, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table until April 6, 25.5
the next meeting.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Director Todd pointed out the revised abstractors certificate that applied 25.6
to this district.
1
ANNEXATION
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance calling for a referendum on the 25.7
question of annexing certain territory into the City.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, 25.8
seconded by Sharp, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second
reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Todd and
Osborne voting in the minority, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for
the second time.
Mayor Noland, seconded by Sharp, moved that the rules be further suspended 25.9
and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the
motion failed by a vote of 4 to 3, with Directors Henry, Todd, and Osborne
voting against the motion. The ordinance remains on second reading.
Mayor Noland called for discussion on the proposed annexation sites. He 25.10
asked if there was anyone present to speak for Site 2. (A map of the proposed
sites is included in the agenda attached to these minutes.) No one was present
to speak concerning Site 2.
March 16, 1982
26
26.1 Mayor Noland called for discussion on Site 3. There was none.
26.2 Mayor Noland called for discussion on Site 4. There was none.
26.3 Mayor Noland called for discussion on Site 5. Mr. F. H. Martin asked
what widths were proposed on each side of Highway 16 --was it 600 feet on
each side. Mayor Noland stated that it was a little more than that.
26.4 Mr. George Blackwell had some questions regarding the proposed shape
of the site. Mayor Noland stated that this would square up, in essence,
the city's property in that area.
26.5 Mayor Noland called for discussion on Site 6. Mr. Blackwell stated
that he felt the area was not qualified to be taken into the City.
26.6 Mr. Grimes pointed out the small area of Site 6 on the map that was
proposed for annexation at this time.
26.7 Mayor Noland stated that since the ordinance remained on second
reading, there being further discussion, the item would be brought up at
the next board meeting.
26.8 Mr. bluest stated that the Quorum Court had a meeting and passed a
resolution to work on the zoning of the growth area. The County Planning
Board has been requested to present recommendations for the Quorum Court
at the next meeting to outline the steps required to zone the areas.
26.9 Director Todd clarifed why he voted against passing the ordinance to
third reading. In view of the Planning Commission renouncing their
recommendation regarding this, he felt the Board did not have enough
information regarding costs that the City would incur regarding these areas.
He felt there should be cost estimates of the possible services that could
be delivered by the City to this proposed area. He requested the City
Manager continue to gather this information to give the Board a better
basis to make a determination.
26.10 Director Todd asked the City Attorney specifically who would be
voting on each annexation site. Mr. McCord stated that each site would
be a separate ballot question. The people in Fayetteville would vote on
each site, and the people with property in each site would only vote on
that particular area.
CD HEARING/PROPOSED 1982 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT BUDGET
26.11 Mayor Noland introduced a public hearing on the proposed 1982 Community
Development Block Grant Budget. Mayor Noland declared the public hearing
open. (The list of the proposed projects may be found on page "D" of
the attached agenda.) Mayor Noland stated that he had received a question
regarding the Head Start program asking if people that use the facility
pay for day care on a daily basis or is the service free.
26.12 Mr. Dick Boyle stated that the services were free. He reported that
the income levels of the people eligible is so low that the people are
unable to pay. He stated that he had assurances from his regional office
that funds would be available to pay staffing and utility costs.
26.13 Mr. Blackwell addressed the Board in opposition to this project. He
expressed concern over financial reports and audits being submitted. He
was opposed to the "baby-sitting" idea associated with the project. He
felt there should be more regulations and restrictions, and that there are
other alternatives for working parents in regard to child care.
26.14 Director Todd stated that this proposed expenditure was only for a
building --not salaries or operating costs.
26.15 Mr. Blackwell stated he understood this, but he did not see why a
$125,000 building was needed. He felt the City should retain possession
of the building and land it is located on. The Board confirmed that the
City would retain possession.
26.16 A member of the audience made a request for railings along sidewalks,
specifically on Archibald Yell Boulevard.
1
1
1
March 16, 1982
27
Mr. Dick Boyle stated that a full financial disclosure had been made 27.1
to the Board when requesting this project funding. In regard to baby-
sitting, 56% of the parents are working, single parent, female families.
The child is at the Head Start Center for child development purposes, not
"baby-sitting" while the parent is at work. These parents had an average
annual income last year of $5,600.
There was general discussion regarding the eligibility of parents. 27.2
Mr. Boyle stated that he wanted to be able to build a building that met the
state and public health licensing requirements in the most cost efficient
manner and hoped that it would not reach $125,000. Mr. Boyle stated that
about 45 children would be served out of this new facility consisting of
a) approximately 3,200 square feet.
Mrs. Madge Hudgens asked about the possibility of funding for the drainage 27.3
project on Oakland Street. Mayor Noland stated that this project would be
very expensive.
(� Mr. Blackwell spoke regarding the EOA weatherization program. He 27.4
CO expressed his concern that some people were receiving these benefits that were
Q not eligible. He also spoke against the smoke detector program. Mr. Blackwell
stated he saw nothing wrong with the City making and accumulating a profit --that
is just good business.
Mayor Noland stated that this was government money that had to be spent 27.5
on these projects at this time --the funds could not be saved for a later date.
Mr. Bruce Davis stated that the funds the City contributes to the 27.6
weatherization program are matched at about a 7 or 8 to 1 basis by federal
funds. This program has worked with the CD program for the past four years
weatherizing homes in Washington County. He stated that 90% of the recipients
had to be 60 years of age or older. The applications submitted are reviewed
and turned into the state for reviewal for income eligibility. The funding
for the labor comes from the state Office on Aging, and this is the reason
most of the funding is required to be spent on persons 60 or older.
Mr. Blackwell stated his concern that young people should also receive 27.7
these benefits if they are eligible.
Director Todd asked why the administrative budget was reduced from $90,000 27.8
to $68 000. Mr. Mason stated that the budget was reduced due to the reduction
of a staff person and not purchasing an automobile that had been budgeted.
Director Henry asked how long the Community Development Block Grant 27.9
program was anticipated to last.
Mr. Mason stated that the Reagan Administration had proposed that the 27.10
1983 and 1984 budgets would be the same as 1982 --no increase. This program had
been set to be turned over tothe states in about 8 to 10 years.
Mayor Noland declared the public hearing closed. 27.11
Director Todd, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to adopt the 1982 Community 27.12
Development Block Grant Program.
• Director Bumpass stated that there would be additional times for reviewal 27.13
of the proposed projects. There could be some funding changes between the
programs depending on actual costs.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 27.14
Mr. Mason stated that he would need a designation of which sidewalks would 27.15
be installed before the papers could be submitted to finalize the funding.
The Board decided for the Street Committee to utilize their current priority 27.16
list and make this decision on the eligible areas.
1
RESOLUTION NO. 39-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 184 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
Res J14 -21J — udeE061 5/29/fd-_
RESOLUTION NO. 39-82A APPEARS ON PAGE 186 OF ORD. AND RES. BOOK XIV
March 16, 1982
2.S
ENGINEERING CONTRACT/MCGOODWIN, WILLIAMS & YATES--SIDEWALKS ON HAPPY HOLLOW
28.1 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City
Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services with McGoodwin, Williams
and Yates for sidewalks along Happy Hollow Road and a replacement pedestrian
bridge in Greathouse Park.
28.2 Mayor Noland stated that this particular engineer had been selected
based on the city's professional selection policy by the city committee.
28.3 Director Osborne stated he felt the $6,000 cost for designing the
bridge and sidewalks was too high. Mr. Mason stated that there was
extensive drainage problems that were required which made the project more
expensive.
28.4 There was some discussion about which portions of the project were to
be completed first. Mr. Mason confirmed that the area under consideration
was selected according to the priorities the Board had approved.
28.5 Director Todd asked if the estimates for the projects were current.
Mr. Mason stated that one of the estimates was about three times more than
the money allocated to the project.
28.6 Director Osborne stated that if this estimate was accurate, then he
felt the engineering fees should not be spent if the project would not be
able to be funded.
28.7 Mr. Mason stated that it was not possible to determine the cost without
bidding out the job, and this was not possible without plans.
28.8 Director Osborne proposed putting sidewalks back away from the streets
as was the method in years past. He expressed his concern over the danger
associated with the sidewalks being so close to the street.
28.9 Director Bumpass, seconded by Osborne, moved to refer this to the
Street and Sidewalk Committee for further consideration at the same time
28 10 priorities for sidewalks are being determined.
Upon roll call the motion to table passed unanimously.
PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICER
28.11 Mayor Noland introduced a report from the City Manager regarding the
feasibility of the "Public Safety Officer" concept for Fayetteville.
(Background information and a summary of City Manager Grimes' report may
be found on page "F" of the attached agenda.)
28.12 Mayor Noland stated that Mr. Grimes recommended that this concept
would not be adaptable to Fayetteville at this time.
28.13 Mr. Grimes stated that there were two particular parts he recommended
for the City at this time. Fire extinguishers should be part of the
equipment in all police patrol units. He requested consideration of
operating some fire patrol units out of the Central Station during certain
hours. If this concept is approved, then the additional fire personnel
could be hired. A proposal had also been made to get a commitment from
new hires to work inthe manner proposed in this report. He stated that
any new police hires should sign a statement that they would be willing to
cross -train in the event the full public safety officer program might be
adopted in the future.
28.14 Director Todd stated he felt the study was conducted in a professional
and objective manner. He moved that the recommendations of the City Manager
be adopted in regard to the cross -training of the new hires and the
provision for the fire extinguishers and patrol duty for firemen He
stated the anticipated $45,000 cost for this would include two new vehicles.
He also moved that the hiring of additional personnel take place. Director
Henry seconded this motion.
1
March 16, 1982
29
A member of the audience questioned part of the letter from Mr. Don 29.1
Hightower, Field Rating Representative of the Insurance Services Office.
He asked if the fire personnel were on roving duty, would they not be counted
as regular on -duty personnel would be, which might hurt the classification
rating.
Mr. Grimes stated that these people would simply be on patrol and would 29.2
go directly to a fire from their roving location. He stated that the letter
was dealing with the public safety officer concept when discussing how the
ratios of the manpower would be counted. He stated that he would clarify
this matter.
Mr. John Durham of the Fayetteville Fire Department addressed the Board. 29.3
CO He agreed with Mr. Grimes' recommendation not to proceed with the Public Safety
Officer program. He stated that the recommendations that Mr. Grimes had made,
CO however, were the basics of the public safety officer program. He stated that
this was still a consolidation of services. He stated that the cross -training
(� would put too heavy a burden on the police officers and firefighters. He
CO further stated that he did not feel there were enough personnel at Central
Q Fire Station to staff the department adequately and allow for roving patrols.
He stated that neither firemen nor policemen had the time to adequately
cross -train. He felt all facts should be thoroughly examined before a
decision was made. He stated that the National Fire Protection Association and
the National Chamber of Commerce stated that combining the two functions could
be detrimental financially in terms of life and property losses. Mr. Durham
stated that the failure rate for the PSO program was 99%.
Mayor Noland asked what Mr. Durham meant by success or failure. 29.4
' Mr. Durham stated that failure was where the service had been attempted 29.5
and failed.
Mayor Noland asked what he mean by failed --the people did not work or 29.6
they could not function in both responsibilities.
Mr. Durham stated the major reason for failure was economics which could 29.7
include property losses, costs to initiate the program, and costs to maintain
the program.
Mayor Noland asked him if he knew what the $45,000 was intended for. 29.8
Mayor Noland explained to Mr. Durham that the money was intended for fire
extinguishers for all police vehicles and for two vehicles for fire prevention
work.
Mr. Durham asked what would be the cost to cross -train the people. 29.9
Mayor Noland stated that the cost would be the same to train any other 29.10
fireman. Mr. Durham stated that the cost would be what it cost to train a
fireman or' police officer.
City Manager Grimes stated that the City was not proposing cross -training. 29.11
The police officers will be taught how to use a chemical fire extinguisher, which
every city employee should know how to do, and this is all of the cross -training
proposed.
Mr. Durham asked what was the proposed function of firefighters. 29.12
City Manager Grimes stated that the firemen on patrol would be patrolling 29.13
areas for possible problems instead of sitting in the fire station. ISO does
not say that all of the firemen have to ride the truck to the fires; they say
that the firemen have to be at the scene when the truck arrives.
Mr. Durham felt everyone wanted to run the programs in the most efficient 29.14
manner. He stated this would not mean waiting at the scene of a fire for the
patrolling firemen to arrive. This would be a typical example of a volunteer
fire department. Mr. Durham stated that the fire department was already lacking
in regard to ISO regulations both in terms of manpower and equipment for off-duty
March 16, 1982
30
or on-call firemen. He felt the fire and police departments were not so
lacking that the cross -training needed to be done
30.1 Mayor Noland asked Mr Durham if he had read Mr. Grimes' letter where
he made his recommendation. Mayor Noland read from Mr. Grimes' memo the
areas pertaining to what functions were recommended for the firemen. Mayor
Noland stated that these two departments were not going to have "dual
purpose" people as Mr. Durham indicated.
30.2 There was general discussion about what possibly could be expected of
the firefighters while on patrol.
30.3 Mr. Durham recommended hiring more police officers to do that job and
more firemen to be firefighters rather than cross -training. He stated the
cross -training would cause commend problems.
30.4 Mayor Noland stated that theproposed roving firefighters would be
under the direct supervision of the fire chief.
30.5 Mr. Grimes stated that a fireman actually spent 2-3% of his time
fighting fires. This is the national average. Mr. Grimes stated that the
City was trying to get the most benefit possible out of the taxpayer's money.
He indicated there would be no basic difference between a person sitting
in the fire department waiting on a fire call or a person on patrol waiting
for a call. The person would get to a fire at the same time or as quickly
as the truck reached the fire.
30.6 Mr. Durham stated that firemen were not just sitting waiting on a fire
call. They performed equipment maintenance duties, kept the station clean,
and studied street maps.
30.7 Mayor Noland stated that he was for progressive ideas and innovative
methods that would be beneficial to the fire and police departments. He
stated that the Board had a great deal of respect for all city employees
and departments.
30.8 Mr. Durham requested that the professionalism of the fire deparment
be maintained by not going into this new program. He felt there was no
reason to risk experimenting with this new program that is so prone to
failure.
30.9 Mr. John Dill, driver for the Fayetteville Fire Department, addressed
the Board and stated that if he was out patrollinganarea, there would be
no one to bring the fire truck to a fire.
30.10 Mayor Noland stated that the Fire Chief would make sure there was
manpower to get the equipment to a fire.
30.11 An audience member stated that the fire deparment was so understaffed
and sometimes they did not have one man per truck. He argued against the
patrolling concept
30.12 Mayor Noland asked how the firemen felt about the men that were out
making inspections and on fire prevention duties away from the station all
of the time. He asked if the department considered them professional
firemen.
30.13 He argued that they were, but they were not assigned to a truck or an
apparatus as the patrolling firemen would be.
30.14 A wife of a fireman addressed the Board regarding the "stray" bullet
that killed a man on Dickson Street. She stated her husband chose to be
a fireman and not a policeman and did not want to have to worry about her
husband performing both duties.
30.15 Mr. George Blackwell stated that the most dangerous civil job was that
of the firefighter and not the policeman.
30.16 There was some general discussion about implementing the program and
when a fireman would be required to patrol. It was decided that these
matters would have to be worked out by the Fire Chief.
1
March 16, 1982
Mr. Torturella, a past Chicago fireman, addressed the Board and urged
a thorough study of the affects a program of this sort might have.
There being no further discussion, upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously.
31
31.1
31.2
RESOLUTION 45-82 APPEARS ON PAGE AO/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X(U
PUD APPEAL/'SEQUOYAH SOUTH"
Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission 31.3
regarding a request for a waiver from the 250 foot minimum perimeter setback
requirements of "Sequoyah South", a Planned Unit Development (PUD) located west
of Sherman Avenue and north of East Huntsville Road on an abutting property
zoned R-1 "low density residential".
CO Mr. Dennis Becker, architect for the PUD, addressed the Board. He stated 31.4
that "R-2" rezoning was attempted regarding the setback requirements, and that
(� had been denied. He said this waiver was turned down by the Planning Commission
CO basically because the Planning Commission did not want to overrrule the Board
Q of Directors' ruling. Because Of the heavy .tree line, the housing cannot be
seen from the roads outside of the PUD. He stated that PUDs should be looked
at on an individual basis to determine the necessary requirements for each. In
this PUD, the developers have complied with all the requirements for PUDs
according to the Planned Unit Development Ordinance. For this PUD, the waiver
requested is for only 100 feet of setback rather than the 250 foot requirement.
It is felt that this PUD would enhance the neighboring property and not degrade it.
Director Lancaster asked about the major power line, and Mr. Becker pointed 31.5
out where it would be located.
Director Sharp asked if the property owner to the west of this project had 31.6
objected to the PUD. Mr. Becker stated that the property to the west was owned
by the property owner of the PUD; therefore, there was no objection.
Mr. Becker pointed out the existing tree line on his PUD map and showed 31.7
that the development was maintaining as much as possible the existing tree line
and only cutting down a minimum of trees. He confirmed that the property was
developed more densely the closer it was to Huntsville Road, as was the
recommendation of the planning consultants.
Director Bumpass asked how the park issue would be addressed in this PUD. 31.8
It was pointed out on the map where the park was proposed to be located. The
Parks Committee was waiting on the Board decision before making a final
decision regarding the park. The land for the park would be dedicated to the
City in lieu of a cash bond.
Mayor Noland asked if the Planning Commission had discussed splitting the 31.9
property and zoning part R-1 and part R-2. Mr. Becker stated that there had
been initial consideration of this, but the developers were concerned with an
overall development of the property and not two distinct pieces.
Mr. Richard Covey, a property owner adjacent to the proposed PUD, stated 31.10
he was in favor of the PUD.
Mr. Charles Pope, a property owner at 1632 E. 5th Street, stated that this 31.11
PUD would affect him, and he was against the development. He stated that the
proposed 127 units only had access by two streets, and one of them was already
caving in from the current amount of usage. He arged that a PUD was just
another name for an apartment complex. He expressed his concern that area
property might be developed in this manner if this waiver was granted which
could set a precedent. He stated the property owners in this area needed some
protection against too many multi -family complexes being developed.
March 16, 1982
32
32.1 Mrs. Dunnuck asked for some information regarding the original waiver
that was granted regarding the dead end street when the final plat was
submitted. She asked if the waiver granted to S & J Company regarding the
dead end street affected this property and the proposed PUD.
32.2 Mr. Rick Cowdrey stated that Rogers Drive was planned to be a connected
street if the area was developed.
32.3 Mrs. Dunnuck stated that the use of Rogers Drive was her major concern.
Rogers Drive is narrow and has no parking area. She stated that the ground
the street is built on is in bad shape, and she felt it would not handle
additional traffic.
32.4 Mr. Becker stated that not all 127 units would be built at one time,
which would cause a gradual increase in traffic not an initial flood.
Mr. Becker further pointed out that Rockwood Trail was the same width as
Rogers, and it handles a great deal of traffic.
32.5 Mr. Becker showed a map with houses arranged on the plat in the manner
that the present zoning would allow. It would involve cutting 80-90% of the
trees; the paving area would increase greatly; additional sewer and drainage
facilities would be required; the streets would be steeper; there would be
more erosion; and more dwelling units than with the proposed PUD.
32.6 City Attorney McCord informed the Board of the standards to be followed
under the ordinance to determine whether to grant the variance.
32.7 Director Bumpass moved to grant the variance which was seconded by Osborne.
32.8 Mr. Becker clarified that with the PUD there would be 124 units, and with
the standard subdivision zoning, there would be 137 units.
32.9 It was confirmed that the through street in the PUD would be dedicated to
the City and be a public street.
32.10 Director Sharp stated that Mr. Seddon, who had been against the PUD,
had informed him that he was now for the PUD.
32.11 Director Todd stated that he felt the units on the south end of the
project were multi -family housing, which is just another attempt to get
multi -family housing after their R-2 attempt failed. He felt the purpose
of the setback was to protect existing single-family residences which is his
concern.
32.12 Director Osborne stated he understood Director Todd's point, but the
land is different levels. Mr. Becker confirmed this and stated that the
units could not be seen from the street. It was confirmed that with the
present zoning, housing density would be greater than with the proposed PUD.
32.13 Director Bumpass stated that this PUD request met the standards for the
variance, and he felt that this development would be the best thing for this
particular area.
32.14 Director Lancaster asked about the possibility of shifting property lines
to meet the setback requirements. Mr. Becker stated thatthe property ownership
was under consideration of being changed; therefore, the property lines could
not be adjusted.
32.15 Mayor Noland stated he basically appreciated the concept but needed some
type of guarantee that the area would be developed as proposed. He also felt
that this was a way to circumvent the denial of the R-2 zoning. He felt if
he voted for this project, he would be voting against the Planning Commission's
recommendation that the area not be rezoned R-2.
32.16 Director Sharp stated he would like to pursue a bill of assurance being
given that the property would be developed as projected in the PUD, and that
the trees would remain.
32.17 Mr. Jim Stephens stated he would be willing to sign a bill of assurance
in this regard.
1
1
March 16, 1982
33
The motion was amended to include a bill of assurance. Director Osborne 33.1
further stated that the bill of assurance should include that the PUD would
be developed substantially as it was shown on the map, and that the number of
units not exceed 124.
The architect stated he would like to keep the units at 137 which is 33.2
the number allowed under the present R-1 zoning.
It was decided that the motion would be amended to allow a maximum of 130 33.3
units.
Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Todd voting against 33.4
the motion.
SEWER ALTERNATIVE DISCUSSION
CO Mayor Noland introduced the selection of the preferred alternative for 33.5
waste water treatment for the. City of Fayetteville; setting a date for a public
hearing to receive public comments concerning the selected waste water treatment
alternative; and authorizing the preparation of an Environmental Information
0 Document. Mayor Noland briefly outlined the four possible alternatives: (1)
the powdered activated carbon system that would flow to the White River, (2)
split flow to White and Illinois Rivers with the powdered activated carbon
system, (3) split flow to both White and Illinois Rivers with biological
phosphorus removal, and (4) biological phosphorus removal with all flow to the
Illinois River. The cost estimates vary between $42,000,000 and $46,000,000.
The Water and Sewer Committee recommended to the Board alternative number 3.
Mayor Noland stated that after the Board selects an alternative, there will be
a public hearing notice issued on April 8, 1982. An Environmental Information
Document (EID) will have to be prepared which would be put on deposit in
' various libraries and in areas where the information was developed. There
would be a full scale public hearing on May 24, after giving 45 days notice of
this hearing, on the selected alternatives. On June 1, a facility plan will
be submitted to Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.
Mayor Noland stated that when the Board had decided to go to the Arkansas 33.6
River with the effluent, the Board had not received a discharge permit or an
effluent standard for the Illinois River. Since that time, the level of
treatment that the effluent needs to go to the Illinois River has been made
available making this option available at this time.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 33.7
recommendation of the Water and Sewer Committee.
Director Sharp stated that he still had many questions, some of which had 33.8
been answered by the Water and Sewer Committee meeting and some by Mr. Carl
Yates. He had discussed this with citizens and other engineers to get different
points of view. He stated his major question concerned cost. Another question
concerned the advantages and disadvantages of the process of the powdered
activated carbon. He further stated he did not fully understand the total
present worth figures presented for the projects and how they were derived.
He has not seen any of the comments made by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the City submitted.
He stated some of the comments he had received from the various engineers was
that it was hard enough to operate one sewage treatment plant and would be
more difficult to operate two, as well as utilizing two rivers instead of one.
He stated there were comments made about putting effluent in the drinking
water; however, this system is how our society works. He stated there were
several intangibles with no possible answers at this time, such as how the EPA
will react to the city proposals. He further stated that he did not feel many
of these questions could be answered at this meeting, rather the decision
would require more time.
March 16, 1982
34
34.1 Mayor Noland asked if the Board wanted to table this issue for further
study.
34.2 An audience member stated that there were several people present that
would like to express their opinions.
34.3 Director Todd stated he felt the public hearing that was scheduled was
for discussion of the decision the Board would make tonight.
34.4 Mr. Carl Yates, engineer, confirmed that the documents submitted to
EPA would be preliminary drafts that could be altered, but they were to be
based upon a preferred method.
34.5 There was some general discussion regarding the necessity of selecting
an alternative at this board meeting and the possibility of changes after
the public hearing in May. It was confirmed that a decision on a preferred
alternative had to be made at this meeting so that the engineers could write
the EID for this alternative in order to give the necessary time before the
public hearing and final submission of the EID on June 1.
34.6 Larry Edmison, Director of Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control,
had a letter from the Oklahoma Commission of Health, Director of Water
Resources Board, and himself, to make available to the Board either before
or after the selection of alternatives (a copy of which is attached).
34.7 Mr. John Elrod, representative of the Illinois River Group, requested
that the Board keep an open mind in making their decision. He requested
sufficient time at the upcoming hearing for an engineer of their selection
to present their case.
34.8 The Chairman of the Oklahoma Scenic River Commission spoke against the
alternative selected by the Water and Sewer Committee.
34.9 Mrs. Schwartz asked if the estimate to utilize the White River included
the cost of changing the sewer lines or was the estimate just for construction.
34.10 Mayor Noland stated that rehabilitation costs of the existing sewer
plus some sewer line costs were included in the estimate.
34.11 There being no further discussion, upon roll call the motion to accept
the Water and Sewer Committee's recommendtion passed by a vote of 5 to 2,
with Directors Sharp and Henry voting against the motion.
PARKING CHANGE/METERS FROM SHORT- TO LONG-TERM
34.12 Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Traffic Superintendent and the
City Manager for authorization to convert the west two rowsof parking on the
lot west of Campbell -Bell, to combination short-term/long-term meters.
(Background information may be found on page "G" of the attached agenda.)
34.13 Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, moved to grant this request.
34.14 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
PARKING DECK/THIRD LEVEL DISCUSSION
34.15 Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of a recommendation from
the City Manager that the City proceed with the construction of a third level
on the downtown parking facility adjacent to the Continuing Education Center
(CEC) and the Hilton Hotel.
34.16 City Attorney McCord reported that there appeared to be a concensus
among the directors that construction should be contingent upon monetary
contribution by the developers of the Hilton Hotel for financing the third
level. This does create some legal problems; however, they are not insurmount-
able. Precautions have to be taken not to jeopardize the tax exempt status
of the tourism revenue bonds that financed the construction of the Hilton.
Discussion was held earlier about the possibility of leasing the surface
lot north of Mcllroy Bank to the developers of the hotel for an amount that
would result in a contribution toward the construction of the third level.
1
March 16, 1982
35
This cannot be done because this would jeopardize the tax exempt status of
the revenue bonds. Mr. McCord stated the most practical method to handle the
financing of the deck would be for the City to lease up to 25% of the number of
spaces in the parking facility to the developers for a specified monthly
lease payment that would result in a fair contribution toward the debt service
requirements on that facility. This system would not jeopardize the tax
exempt status on the outstanding hotel tourism revenue bonds. If this is
acceptable, Mr. McCord recommended issuing $210,000 of parity bonds which would
not increase the pledge of CEC surplus funds. He further stated that this
would be consistent with Director Sharp's proposal that should any revenues
other than net parking revenues including lease payments received from the
Hilton Hotel developers be required to actually be expended to meet debt
CO service requirements, then these expenditures would be treated as an interest
bearing loan to be repaid when outstanding bonds were redeemed.
CO Director Lancaster asked what the difference was between the original 35.1
low bid and the current cost estimate for the third level.
0 Mr. McCord stated that the difference between the two and three levels 35.2
CO was $198,000 as submitted by Brennan Boyd Co. The current cost is $234,000.
Q The architect stated he felt the increased costs were justified. The costs
are increasing every day because the current project is progressing where
it will cost more to add the third deck as time goes on.
Mr. John Marinoni explained that the reason for this increasing cost is 35.3
because the project has now progressed past the point of continuing the flow
of work to a third deck.
There was some general discussion concerning the increasing costs. Director 35.4
Lancaster stated he agreed with the need for the third level, but he felt some
of the costs were out of line.
Mr. McCord stated that some of the representatives of the hotel have 35.5
indicated a willingness to help contribute to the construction of a third level.
Mayor Noland asked if a figure had been derived that would be an 35.6
adequate amount to cover the cost of the bonds.
Finance Director Scott Linebaugh stated that projections had been made 35.7
incorporating a normal rate0of increase over the period of time that would
be an adequate amount.
Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to take this issue 35.8
off the table to allow discussion.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 35.9
Mr. Linebaugh confirmed that the projections he had made did not include 35.10
any funds from the Hotel, Motel, and Restaurant Tax (HMR).
Director Todd asked what was the annual debt service amount. 35.11
Mr. Linebaugh stated that it was $3,000 per month which would be paid off 35.12
in 10 years on the principal amount of $210,000. This was for the third level
only. The projections are based on 91 spaces at 250 days per year at $1.00
per day which would generate $22,750 per year. With a rate increase to $1.75
per day, the revenue would be $39,800 per year. Estimated expenses are $6,000
per year. The average net revenue per year would be about $20,000. He stated
that the occupancy projections were based only on an 8 -hour day with no
turnover per space which is a conservative figure because there will normally
be a turnover on spaces.
Director Todd asked if there had been changes proposed in regard to the 35.13
valet lot which would result in the loss of that revenue.
Mr. McCord stated that the revenues would not be lost; the revenues are 35.14
based on actual usage as opposed to a lease agreement of a lump sum per month.
There was general discussion regarding revenue and financing of the deck. 35.15
March 16, 1982
36
36.1 Director Todd asked what the monthly figure to be collected from the
Hilton was proposed to be.
36.2 Mr. Linebaugh stated he had been working with $2,000 per month plus
$2,100 per month for the use of 70 spaces.
36.3 City Manager Grimes reported his recommendation regarding the monthly
lease amount. If 25% of the spaces were rented to the hotel, he suggested
an escalating figure --the first year - $2,500 per month; the second year -
$3,000 per month; and the third year - $3,500 per month. He suggested the
fee level off at the $3,500 point, but the contract should include a clause
stating if the going rates for other parking stalls increase, then the lease
figures would go up accordingly.
36.4 Mr. McCord stated that the $3,000 per month would meet the debt service
requirement of the parity bonds for the third level. Mr. McCord stated
that Mr. Grimes' figures included the revenues that would have been realized
off the 70 spaces leased to the Hilton had they not been leased plus a
contribution from the hotel.
36.5 Director Todd asked what was the revenue currently being received from
the valet lot. Mr. Grimes stated that it was $30 per month per stall for
approximately 50 stalls. Mr. McCord stated that these revenues were pledged
to the CEC bonds and were not available for financing the parking facility.
36.6 Director Sharp stated that 70 spaces was the maximum that could be
leased to the Hilton. The requirement was 250 spaces, but the Hilton had
asked for 710 spaces.
36.7 Mr. McCord stated that the requirement for the hotel was 250 spaces and
for the CEC the requirement was about 60 for a total of about 310. If the
third level is constructed, it combined with the surface lot north of the
bank would create at least 340 spaces which would be in excess of the zoning
requirements.
36.8 Director Todd asked if the valet lot could be handled as a separate
question or was this somehow lined with the third level. Mr. McCord stated
there was no link. The only thing committed was the revenues from the
surface lot currently used as a valet lot that were pledged to the CEC bonds.
The manner of operation may be changed by the Board at any time.
36.9 Director Todd asked if the proposed monthly lease payment had been
determined. Mr. Grimes stated that his figures were a suggestion. He
suggested an escalator because the Hilton was just getting started and
front end costs are usually great.
36.10 Director Lancaster asked how the 70 spaces would be separated from
the rest of the spaces not leased to the Hilton.
36.11 Mr. McCord stated that the mechanics of the actual working arrangement
could be determined at a later date.
36.12 Director Todd stated that the figures Mr. Linebaugh came up with really
had no meaning because the City would not be getting any money from the
spaces leased to the Hilton.
36.13 Mr. McCord stated this was not correct because the City would be
getting money from the spaces. Mr. Grimes' figures took into account the
revenues the City would have realized were there no lease plus an additional
sum as a contribution from the hotel. He stated Mr. Linebaugh's figures
also assumed no turnover rate in the spaces, and in actual operation, the
turnover ratio would be greater than 1.
36.14 Director Todd asked if the people using the 70 spaces were having to
pay to use the spaces in addition to the City receiving money from the
Hilton for these spaces.
1
March 16, 1982
37
Mr. McCord stated that the theory was that the Hilton would have the 37.1
right to use 70 spaces for the lease payments they make. These payments include
what the City would have realized were there no lease plus a contribution
toward the facility from the hotel.
Director Osborne stated that the City worked very hard to get the CEC and 37.2
Hilton built in Fayetteville. He felt everyone was excited about the prospects
of the "re -life" of the square. He resented everyone not having parking spaces.
He stated that this deck would be a municipal parking deck --not the Hilton's
deck. The deck is needed by the City, not just by the Hilton. He wanted to
know what happened to the concept that the Board was supportive of the downtown
square being revitalized and putting a third level on the deck. He remembered
when a five -level deck was considered, and now a third level is such a controversy.
Mayor Noland stated that this proposal has gotten away from the original 37.3
CO concept looked at in the previous meeting that involved hotel -motel revenues.
The feeling of the Board at that time was not to get involved with HMR revenues
(� for the third level project. This proposition discussed tonight was almost
CO a self-supporting proposition.
QDirector Osborne stated he really did not care how the deck was financed, 37.4
but the parking is needed.
Director Osborne made a motion to follow Mr. Grimes' proposal of leasing 37.5
25% of the spaces to the Hilton and issue parity bonds. Mayor Noland seconded
this motion. This motion is basically on the concept of the third deck. The
concept would include if any money is used from CEC or HMR taxes that it would
be an interest bearing loan and be put back into the performing arts center fund.
Upon roll call the motion to approve the concept passed unanimously. 37.6
' City Attorney McCord stated that a resolution which would implement the 37.7
recommendation that should any funds other than net parking revenues be expended
to meet debt service requirements, then the expenditures would be treated as an
interest bearing loan. Mr. McCord read the proposed resolution.
City Manager Grimes asked if the resolution was not too broad. He stated 37.8
there was a chance that some state sales tax rebate funds could be returned,
and there was no commitment to put these into the performing arts fund. These
funds were to be used to meet debt service requirements for a convention facility.
Director Todd made an amendment that after repayment of the indebtedness 37.9
to the general fund by the CEC fund, then the remaining CEC funds could be put
into a performing arts fund.
Director Sharp, seconded by Henry, moved the resolution as amended. 37.10
Finance Director Linebaugh asked if this resolution would eliminate using 37.11
any of the excess money for advertising. Director Todd stated that only half
of the funds were pledged to CEC, so part of the other half could be used for
this purpose.
Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass absent at 37.12
at roll call.
RESOLUTION NO. 40-82 APPEARS ON PAGE /(7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
Mr. McCord introduced an ordinance authorizing the issuance of parity
bonds to finance the third deck. Mr. McCord read the ordinance for the first
time. Director Sharp proposed a wording change to read that the facility would
be for patrons of the downtown area rather than for Hilton use only.
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended
and the ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed
by a vote of 5 to 1, with Director Todd voting against the motion and Director
Bumpass absent at roll call.
37.13
37.14
March 16, 1982
38
38.1 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director
Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further suspended and
the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion
passed 6 to 1, with Director Todd voting in the minority, and the City
Attorney read the ordinance for the third time.
38.2 Director Todd stated he would like to get settled how the bonds will be
paid off before they are issued.
38.3 City Attorney McCord stated that the Board could adopt a resolution
authorizing the execution of a lease for 70 spaces in the downtown parking
facility at a monthly rental consistent with City Manager Grimes' recom-
mendation, but not less than an amount sufficient to meet debt service
requirements on the outstanding bonds and authorizing Mr. Linebaugh's final
approval of this figure.
38.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to adopt a
resolution as Mr. McCord had just outlined.
38.5 Director Todd asked if the debt service was then $3,000 per month on the
parity bonds.
38.6 It was confirmed that this was correct. Also, the City would be
receiving more than $1.00 per day per space under the proposed terms of the
lease with the Hilton.
38.7 Director Lancaster asked if there was a cut-off point so that if Mr.
Linebaugh determines the project is not financially sound. Mr. McCord stated
that the items approved at this meeting could be repealed and stop the progress
of the project. Mr. McCord stated that Mr. Linebaugh should confer with the
Hilton developers as soon as possible to see if they will agree with an amount
that he determines would meet the debt service.
38.8 Upon roll call the resolution passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 41-82 APPEARS ON PAGE jgq OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
38.9 Mayor Noland stated that the ordinance to issue parity bonds was on third
and final reading.
38.10 Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2798 APPEARS ON PAGE 120 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xiI
38.11 City Attorney McCord read an ordinance waiving competitive bidding for
the construction of the third level. Mayor Noland, seconded by Bumpass, 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.
38.12 Director Henry, seconded by Noland, 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 final time.
38.13 Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2799 APPEARS ON PAGE /.Z'/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x/(
38.14 City Attorney McCord introduced an ordinance that would affect the
pledge of net parking revenues. He explained that in order to pledge on -
street parking revenues, there has to be some street improvement. In this
particular instance, when the parking facility was constructed, Meadow Street
was widened by about three feet in that particular area. This is being used
to authorize the pledge of on -street revenues.
1
March 16, 1982
39
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director 39.1
III Bumpass, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance
be placed on second reading.
City Attorney McCord stated that this ordinance changed the pledge from 39.2
net parking revenues to include all parking revenues and not just off-street.
This ordinance basically pledges all net parking revenues.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read 39.3
the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Henry, moved
that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and
final reading.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously,aid the City Attorney read 39.4
CO the ordinance for the final time.
CO Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. 39.5
ORDINANCE NO. 2800 APPEARS ON PAGE /25 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK k//
U
CO Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved a resolution authorizing a 39.6
change order in the contract to include construction of the third level.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 39.7
RESOLUTION 42-82 APPEARS ON PAGE /Q5 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X P1/
SIGN APPEAL/CARTER'S CENTRAL TIRE
Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the sign 39.8
ordinance for Carter's Central Tire.
Mr. Bill Carter stated that he needed a sign at his new location at the 39.9
corner of Spring and College Avenue. The sign has to be placed on the northeast
corner, and according to Mr. Dietzen, a variance is needed. He requested a
free-standing sign be allowed.
Mayor Noland asked what size sign he was wanting to use.
Mr. Carter stated he was considering one between 25 and 30 square feet.
Director Osborne recommended a variance not to exceed 30 square feet at
30 feet high and conditioned upon all other free-standing signs on the property
being removed before the new one is erected. Director Henry seconded this.
Mr. Carter asked if there were any objections to hanging the Phillips
sign underneath the canopy over the gas pumps. Mr. Osborne stated not as
long as it complied with the sign ordinance.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
1
39.10
39.11
39.12
39.13
39.14
REZONING/BURGE PROPERTY ON NORTH STREET
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning property located on the south 39.15
side of North Street immediately west of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks.
City Manager Grimes read the ordinance for the first time. Director Osborne,39.16
seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed
on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and Mr. Grimes
read the ordinance for the second time.
Mayor Noland, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further suspended 39.17
and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll call the
motion passed unanimously, and Mr. Grimes read the ordinance for the last time.
Director Osborne moved the passage of the ordinance and acceptance of the 39.18
proposed bill of assurances. This was seconded by Director Henry.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2801 APPEARS ON PAGE /01,18 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X//
March 16, 1982
40
LANDSCAPE POLICY
40.1 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution expressing the policy of the Board
of Directors regarding the conservation and establishment of natural resources.
Mayor Noland stated that this was recommended by the Planning Commission.
40.2 Director Sharp stated that this was the result of an ad-hoc committee
of the Planning Commission that included citizens. This resolution was
basically a written policy of what the City is currently practicing.
40.3 Director Todd requested that the word "possible" be changed to "feasible"
in relation to city policies and operations.
40.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, made a motion to approve the
resolution with the wording change.
40.5 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 43-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 197 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
DOG ABUSE POLICY
40.6 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance providing that it shall be unlawful
for any person to abuse a police dog.
40.7 City Manager Grimes read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be suspended and the
ordinance be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously, and the City Manager read the ordinance for the second time.
40.8 Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, 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 Mr. Grimes read the ordinance for
the final time.
40.9 Mr. George Blackwell suggested the ordinance be worded to include any
animal the police department may sometime acquire.
40.10 It was decided that the ordinance could be amended later if necessary.
40.11 Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously.
ORDINANCE NO. 2802 APPEARS ON PAGE /29 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )C((
STREETLIGHT CHANGEOVER
40.12 Mayor Noland introduced the request for approval of the changeover of
residential streetlights from mercury-vapor to high -pressure -sodium fixtures.
(Further information may be found on page "I" of the attached agenda.) Mayor
Noland stated that the change would give more light for an expenditure of
about 137,000 less kilowatt hours per year.
40.13 Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that the change would provide 100%
more light for 50% more money than the mercury-vapor lights. This change would
be for all residential SWEPCO streetlights except for the "hi -hat" metal
pole type. There was $50,000 budgetedin the 1982 budget for streetlight
improvements. The amount paid per month would be based on a base rate for the
fixture plus the electric power consumed. The present base rate for these
150 watt high -pressure -sodium fixtures would be $3.80 per month. The mercury-
vapor 175 watt base rate is $2.40.
40.14 Director Lancaster stated he understood that it would take less power
to run the high -pressure -sodium light, but the base rate is higher. Mr.
McWethy stated the cost was higher because the cost for the fixture is higher
than the mercury-vapor fixture. Less per month is being charged for power
consumed because less is consumed.
40.15 Mr. McWethy stated that this was not being proposed as a money -saving
concept --rather as a means of obtaining more light.
1
1
March 16, 1982
Director Lancaster asked if all areas of
to be located really needed this much light.
was a policy decision for the Board.
Director Lancaster stated he felt change
it may not be necessary. He pointed out some
41
town where these are proposed
Mr. McWethy stated that this
41.1
was good, but in some instances 41.2
instances where people did not
want street lights at all --much less increased light.
There was general discussion concerning the possibility of moving the 41.3
distance of the light poles and/or changing requirements for lighting.
Mayor Noland asked if anything was being done to respond to the petition 41.4
from the people requesting that streetlights not be installed.
Mr. McWethy stated that this project had not been decided upon at this 41.5
time. A proposal had been requested from SWEPCO regarding the Ridgeway/
Shadow Ridge area, but nothing has been received, yet, and no decisions have
been made. When a proposal is submitted, the area people will be informed,
and if the majority does not want the lights, then it would be foolish to
install them.
Director Sharp stated that the people signing the petition stated they
had rather spend the money on a performing arts center rather than streetlights.
Director Bumpass asked if the changeover would be all at once, or done
as the old lights needed replacing. Mr. McWethy stated that they would not
all be changed at once, but more quickly than as the old ones needed replacing
or burned out.
Mr. Blackwell asked if the lumens would be adjustable. It was confirmed 41.8
that they were not.
Mr. McWethy confirmed that to date, all conversions to the high-pressure- 41.9
sodium lights have been on major thoroughfares.
Director Todd stated that he could well understand that some people 41.10
preferred not to have a light, much less a brighter light installed.
Mr. McWethy suggested authorizing the changeover, and then if there are 41.11
instances where people do not want the brighter lights, then work out some-
thing at that point. He further commented in regard to the request from
Debbie Nation to remove a streetlight. He stated that Ms. Nation's neighbors
were happy with the light. The City has put a shield around the light and
painted part of it black, and Ms. Nation has indicated that this has solved
her problem.
Director Henry stated that she had heard positive reports from the lighting 41.12
of that particular neighborhood. Director Bumpass stated that Ms. Nation's
circumstance was unusual due to the location of her house.
Director Lancaster moved to authorize the changeover, but if there are 41.13
people who do not want the new lights, then don't change the old ones. Mayor
Noland seconded this motion.
Director Bumpass asked if any money would be saved in the long run due 41.14
to this changeover. Mr. McWethy stated that this was not represented to be
a money -saving concept.
Director Todd asked if it would be logical to run an ad in the newspaper 41.15
explaining this proposal and requesting comments before the lights were installed.
Mr. McWethy stated that this could be done, but asked what should be 41.16
done if only one person in the neighborhood called against the light and the
rest of the neighbors might not call but could be for the changeover. Mr.
McWethy stated he would prefer removing the lights if there was a problem
later rather than running an ad of this type.
Director Todd asked if the power company would keep the same rate if less 41.17
lights were purchased. Mr. McWethy stated he did not know but would find out.
Mr. McWethy stated that due to this, it might be better to place an ad before
changing any lights.
41.6
41.7
March 16, 1982
42
42.1 Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, made a motion to table until the
next meeting. It was decided to advertise and gather the comments for the
next board meeting.
42.2 Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Mayor Noland voting in
the minority.
CITY HALL COMMITTEE REPORT
42.3 Mayor Noland introduced a report from the City Hall Committee regarding
bids for the construction of an interim city hall.
42.4 Director Lancaster asked if the original estimates were far short, or
were there additions to the original that resulted in the increase in
estimates.
42.5 Director Sharp stated that the result was due primarily to increased
design features.
42.6 Mr. McWethy stated that the options listed on the committee's report
ranged from a first class type building with brick exterior to leasing the
old Woolworth Building. The cost of leasing the Woolworth Building for one
year would be a substantial portion of the cost of building the best building.
42.7 The major decision regarding a new structure would be whether the
exterior walls should be painted concrete blocks or brick and whether southern
glass, earth burms, and landscaping should be included.
42.8 Director Osborne pointed out that the area of the interim city hall
building was a developing area with attractive buildings, He felt the City
owed an attractive building to the rest of the property owners of the area.
42.9 Director Todd stated that he thought the costs for strictly appearance
should be closely watched. There was some general discussion about what
features the building should or should not have.
42.10 Director Bumpass stated that because the actual cost figures were so
much higher than the proposals he felt that the interim project and the
renovation project should be looked at together and determine the actual
costs for the whole project.
42.11 Mr. Linebaugh confirmed that the amount of increase over the proposed
cost figures was $75,000. This was due, however, to the directors' decision
to add brick exterior and some glass additions.
42.12 Director Osborne stated his concern regarding postponing the project.
The cost of delay is a serious matter.
42.13 Director Lancaster stated he felt the decision on the interim building
should be decided and the project started.
42.14 Director Bumpass, seconded by Henry, made a motion to table until
the next meeting in order to look at the actual costs of both the interim
city hall building and the renovation of the present building. He further
stated that all of the possible options needed to be considered.
42.15 The City Hall Committee was requested to get together with the architect
to determine the most accurate figures for the total project.
42.16 Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Todd and
Osborne voting in the minority.
LAWSUIT/JOHNNY JAMES V. SKYWAYS & CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE/NOISE PROBLEM
42.17 Mr. Gordon L. Cummings, attorney for the plaintiff, addressed the Board.
He stated that the City was reluctantly brought into this lawsuit. The
most equitable solution is sought to be fair to both Skyways and the
surrounding residents.
42.18 Mr. Cummings presented the Board with a recommendation for settlement
(which is attached).
42.19 Mr. McCord stated that he felt the Board should have an opportunity to
1
1
GORDON L. CUMMINGS
ATTORNEY AT LAW
34 EAST CENTER
FAYETTEVILLE. ARKANSAS 72701
TELEPHONE (5011 N3-1400
March 5, 1982
James N. McCord
P.O. Drawer F
Fayetteville, AR 72702
Re: Johnny James, et al. v. Scheduled
Skyways, Inc. and the City of
Fayetteville, Washington County
Chancery No. E 81-1296 and Civil
No. CIV 81-1233
Dear Mr. McCord:
On behalf of my clients in both of the above pending
lawsuits, I have been authorized to dismiss with prejudice
the City of Fayetteville from both of the above suits if
the City will pass an enforceable ordinance prohibiting
stationary engine run -ups at Drake Field between the hours
of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. daily. Such an ordinance
would give my clients and dozens of other residents in
the area of Drake Field, 8 hours of uninterrupted sleep,
and still allow Skyways 16 hours each day in which to per-
form run-up maintenance. I believe this is reasonable for
everybody concerned.
We need to resolve this problem as quickly as possible.
GLC: r J
•
cc: Tilden P. Wright III
Sincerely,
• (-
Gordon L. Cummings
Attorney for Plaintiffs
1
March 16, 1982
study the response and proposed settlements, and he proposed including this
material in the next board meeting agenda to allow time for study.
Director Todd stated he would like to have the results of the airport
noise study when deciding the terms of this settlement. It was confirmed
that the study would be available by the next board meeting.
Director Osborne made a motion to table until the next board meeting if
the noise study is available at that time, if not, then table the issue until
the second meeting in April. This was the concensus of the Board.
AMENDMENT TO FIXED BASE OPERATOR LEASE - (A.t,ni,rltfi
Mr. McCord stated that the Airport Committee was recommending that the
lease be modified to authorize general aviation maintenance in the old hanger
for Skyways aircraft during those hours that the general aviation mechanic is
(Y) not on duty, which would be normal business hours (8 a.m. to 5 p.m.) Monday
through Friday, provided that such maintenance does not interfere with customers
U of the fixed base operation.
There was general discussion about Scheduled Skyways and Fayetteville
CO Flying Service regarding whether or not they were considered separate entities
or the same for this particular purpose.
Director Henry stated that this amendment would require maintenance of
FRO standards. This aMendment-Would give the option for service of Skyways'
planes after regular hours,
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved to approve this resolution.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 44-82 APPEARS ON PAGE ,19g OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Mt/
43
PROPOSAL TO CHANGE BID POLICY
Director Osborne made a motion for the City to submit bid requests to
car dealers in surrounding counties not just Washington County. This would
benefit the City by saving taxpayers' money to get the lowest bid. He stated
this would enable the Washington County companies and residents to determine
if the 1% sales tax has affected the actual costs of merchandise.
Director Lancaster proposed submitting bid specifications to the Board
along with bid tabulations.
Director Todd seconded Director Osborne's motion.
Director Bumpass took issue with singling out car dealers. He asked if
bids would be taken outside the county on all items purchased and if investments
would be offered to qualifying banks and savings and loans outside the county.
He agreed with Director Lancaster that this policy would be "rubbing salt in
the wounds" of the Washington County car dealers.
Director Osborne stated he did not like the principle of leaving the
county, but in dealing with taxpayers' money, he wanted the best possible
business deals.
Director Lancaster amended the motion to require a copy of the specifica-
tions come back with the bid to the Board. It was confirmed that this should
apply to vehicles only.
Director Bumpass stated that the City has received some bids from
Springdale on vehicles.
City Manager Grimes pointed out that these bids were for trucks that
Fayetteville dealers could not supply.
Director Bumpass stated that the Fayetteville car dealers did not
resist the sales tax. He felt this should be recognized.
43.1
43.2
43.3
43.4
43.5
43.6
43.7
43.8
43.9
43.10
43.11
43.12
43.13
43.14
43.15
44
Marcy 16, 1982
Director Osborne stated that the City was exempt from sales tax,
and this issue he proposed has nothing to do with the sales tax issue.
Director Bumpass stated if this policy change was done because of
some of the dealers pushing for the proposed "cap" then this policy change
would be wrong.
Upon roll call the motion failed 3 to 4, with Directors Todd, Osborne,
and Sharp voting for the motion.
PARKING LOT NORTH OF MCILROY BANK
Director Todd asked what would be done with this lot.
City Manager Grimes stated that he felt something would be worked
out. Currently the City is receiving $30 per month per space for seven
days per week from the lot. He felt something could be worked out on the
valet spaces. A management contract with the Hilton may be required.
MINUTES
Mr. McCord had the following changes: At 426.0, the word "taxes"
should be deleted. On the third line, the word "used" should be "issued".
At 427.5, the last line should read " . . . debt service reserve fund
requirements."
Director Osborne had the following changes: At 429.13, the name
should be "Wuest" not "Reese". The paragraph numbers should be "429.13
and 429.14" not "420.13 and 420.14."
Director Todd had the following changes: At 445.14, the name of the
board should be added to read "Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority
Board members."
With these changes, the minutes were approved as submitted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:52 a.m.
AGENDA
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "B"
1APPLEBY ROAD: A public hearing regarding the sufficiency of a street improvement
district petition for Appleby Road, from Bishop Drive to Gregg Avenue.
U nder this proposal the affected property owners would pay the
cost of the street improvements (31' pavement width and the
associated costs for concrete curbs and gutters, a sidewalk, and
storm water drainage) while the city is being asked to replace the
bridge over Skull Creek under a federal -funds program.
A map showing the property included in the im proveriment district
is on the next page.
The specific item before the Board is a determination as to
whether the improvement district petition does in fact contain
the signatures of the owners of the majority in assessed value of
the property within the district. A certificate from Greer
Abstract Company indicates that the assessed value of the property
in the district is $178,143 and that the petition signers own
property with an assessed value of $168,596.
If the City Board determines that the petition is sufficient the
D irectors will pass an ordinance establishing the district and will
appoint three property owners as a Board of Commissioners of the
D istrict. (The petitioners have requested that Paul Martin, Wade
B ishop, and David Bedmar be the appointees.)
From that point the improvement district matters will generally
be in the hands of the Board of Commissioners. One of their
first actions will likely be to retain an attorney to advise them and
to take care of the paperwork involved. The Commissioners will
also be responsible for employing an engineer to formulate plans
for the construction and prepare cost estimates for having the work
done. Once the improvement district is formed the Board of
Commissioners, in the course of performing its duties, will have the
authority to expend funds in the name of the district, and, if for
one reason or another the planned street improvements are not
done, these preliminary costs will be apportioned and levied against
the property in the district.
As soon as the Board of Commissioners has made its plans and has
determined the cost of the street improvements, the City Board will
appoint a three-person Board of Assessors from persons who do not
live in the district to decide how much each property owner will pay
for the improvements. These proposed assessments are subject to
appeal to the City Board of Directors, but if no objection is made
the assessments will be levied against the property and the proposed
construction will be done.
Once the street is improved the Fayetteville Street Department will
maintain it as a paved street at no further cost to the property
owners.
C
X
1
Lai
PAGq
Olt '•;TEARS
WREN CIRTLE
Le -
NIGHTINGALE
REDWING CIRCL
J
SWALLOW
---i
MASONIC
C•
LO GVIEW ST
BERT
MARDI
IE. MALINDA Dq,L3
MATT Ry =L.
DN:VE -'I
TMEATES
ST
DRAKE
KANSAS
ADGBC STREET
>
z
SHrp
WENDY BROOKE
1
LANE IPVT.I
x
z
PROP.:
ITOWNSHIP 'I ROAD
(11 1r;3 ' 11lf-
•
1
1
2
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "D"
•
.
sy. ;1,11-
ANNEXATION:
1i
ANNEXATION: An ordinance calling for a referendum on the question of annexing
certain territory into the city_
For something over a year the City Board has considered, at
various meetings, the concept of annexing seven different areas
into the city. (A map showing the general locations is on the
next page; more detailed maps are in the City Clerk's Office.)
At the last meeting the Directors decided to refer areas 2-6
to the voters at the May 25 primary election; further considera-
tion of areas 1 and 7 will be given at the April 20 meeting.
PUD APPEAL: An appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission regarding a request
for a waiver from the 250' minimum perimeter setback requirements of "Sequoyah
South", a Planned Unit Development located west of Sherman Avenue and north of
East Huntsville Road, on and abutting property zoned R-1 "Low Density Residential".
CD HEARING: A public hearing on the proposed 1982 Community Development Block
Grant Budget.
This is the last in a series of three meetings on the subject.
On February 16 the members of the Community Development
and Housing Committee and the general public presented
various requests and suggestions for the use of some $500,000
in CO funds. At that time the Directors "weeded out" those
requests that were clearly ineligible for CD funding, or which
has so little City Board support that they would not be further
considered.
At the last meeting the Directors reviewed the remaining items
and decided on the ones listed below:
Installation of sidewalks in low -
and -moderate -income areas 25,000
Installation of a sidewalk along
15th Street, from Walker Park
to Campbell Soup 40,000
Construction of a building for
"Head Start" 125,000
Street construction around City
Hospital 40,000
Washington Mountain Park develop-
ment 50,000
BOA weatherization funds 3,500
Floor covering for Shelter for
Victims of Domestic Violence 2,500
Smoke detectors for low -and -moderate
income families 4,000
•
---continued---
•
1
ma '}___ arm" __ /._ �•1' •
: t-1`.. 11 $` r 1.
fir
` .•
%
+ r `' • k k fie
;-
,
1
�, e -Y
.T' —�y�
I. Li
1 4- c1 v�--.
- _. ^- A• •
! .I
( :. - i;
•
;4 1. • . -
.1 .
_4s_r :k.
.�.r.�
r. ;-
.. ; <�
c•
•
1
�Y�
14
La
- .• .1•. .
•
s
x
1-
z
z
•
•
=F -
•
•:;- __
•
.'-- J,(
•
•
-▪ _ -o-
11, ,:
sy1
k-_1__
•1. '1. •
:.d.:.
•
.I 1. •, u Y.'..
' 1 •
•
' • �_.. .
•
•
•
,. .
1 '
:'•
I. .1'...✓
•
•• 1 •,
-Y • Y -a 7i
•
•
1
: '•1
_r 1..
• �:. !.
�J 1
•
. ! .
•
•
•
O `J
u jmow;
z
CD 1O
H w
Q o
X ET)
W Z
Z O
Z U
w
J Z
CO D
VJ Q)
(f} a
O I/1:2
a
1
1
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "F"
1
Walker Park softball &
soccer fields
Street construction on Oakland,
Berry & Eagle Streets
Administration
Contingencies
Housing rehabilitation
Total
25,000
100,000
68,000
50,000
26,363
559,363
ENGINEERING CONTRACT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk.
to execute a contract for engineering services with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates,
for sidewalks along Happy Hollow Road and a replacement pedestrian bridge in
i
Greathouse Park.-
6 PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS: A report from the City Manager regarding the feasibility
of the "Public Safety Officer" concept for Fayetteville.
Approximately six weeks ago the City Board instructed the City
Manager to investigate the feasibility of the "PSO" concept for
Fayetteville --a proposal under which Public Safety Officers would
patrol the city and respond to calls as either police officers or
firefighters, as situations required.
In his report the City Manager is recommending that "we should
not attempt to launch into the Public Safety Officer program"
--at least as it is being administered elsewhere --because our
crime rates and fire losses are significantly less than they are
in Texarkana (the only PSO city in Arkansas), and because of
the potential adverse effect that such a move might have on the
city's efforts to secure an improvement in our fire class rating
--which is used to determine fire insurance premiums of the
citizens.
The City Manager is, however, suggesting that police patrol cars
be "equipped with very basic firefighting equipment and all police
personnel could be trained in its use" as well as the possibility
that under some circumstances fire personnel could patrol areas
around the fire station. "These units," the City Manager noted,
"would have radio contact with the Police Department and, while
not being police officers as such, these patrolling firefighters could
give us needed eyes, ears, and added visibility in these areas."
Implementation of the City Manager's recommendations on the
subject would cost approximately S45,000.
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "G"
PARKING CHANGE: A request by the Traffic Superintendent and the City Manager
for authorization to convert the west two rows of parking on the lot west of
Campbell -Bell, to combination short-term/long-term meters.
At the November 3, 1931 City Board meeting the Directors
authorized 40 spaces of long-term (all day) parking on the
"First Place" parking lot and indicated that additional
short-term/long-term parking could later be authorized along
the west two rows (46 total spaces) of parking on the lot
west of Campbell -Bell.
The need for such additional spaces would be demonstrated
when the 40 spaces on the First Place lot were consistently
filled to 80% capacity for two full weeks without interruption,
excluding holidays and weekends, or ten business days.
The Traffic Superintendent reports that from February 10 to
March 5 (when the counting was discontinued) there was no time
during this period (24 days, less 9 for weekends and holidays)
that there was a daily average of less than 32 cars (80% of 40)
in these spaces.
PARKING DECK: Further consideration of a recommendation from the City Manager
that the city proceed with the construction of a third level on the downtown
parking facility adjacent to the Continuing Education Center and the Hilton Hotel_
According to a memorandum presented to the Board at the last
meeting, construction of this third level would add ninety
parking spaces. The estimated construction cost of $228,000
would be funded with the issuance of revenue bonds, and the
proposal at the last meeting was to pay off the bonds with "net
parking revenues from City -owned off-street parking lots,
exclusive of those parking revenues pledged to the CEC bonds,
plus 50% of surplus monies in the CEC pledged revenue fund."
The entire parking deck "will be open to the general public and
will provide patron and employee parking for the Continuing
Education Center, Hilton Hotel, and downtown businesses."
To implement construction of this third level the following
actions will need to be taken:
1. Adoption of a resolution authorizing the
Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a change
order in the city's contract with Brennan -Boyd
Construction Company to authorize the con-
struction of the third parking level; and
2. Adoption of an ordinance authorizing the issuance
of the revenue bonds.
1
1
i
i
1
w:10rear'1
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "H"
1 1
�SIGN APPEAL: An appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance.
V Petitioner: Carter's Central Tire, by Bill Carter
Proposed location of the sign: 123 North College Avenue
Zoning District: C-3 "Central Business District Commercial"
Variance requested: Permission to erect a 40 -square -foot sign,
31' high, at a point 11' from the Spring Street right-of-way,
on a lot already containing an existing free-standing sign.
Ordinance requirements: No more than one free-standing sign
per lot and no free-standing signs higher than 30'. A 40 -square -
foot sign requires a 30' setback from street right-of-way; no
signs are allowed closer than 15' from street right-of-way and
at that setback the maximum size is 10 square feet in area.
1®?REZONING: An ordinance rezoning property, as requested in rezoning petition R82-3.
Size of parcel: 1.05 acres
Location: On the south side of North Street, immediately west
of the Burlington Northern railroad tracks.
Petitioner: Jack and Jorgia Burge
Change requested: From R-3 "High Density Residential" to
1-1 "Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial"
Planning Commission action: Recommended APPROVAL, 6-1
Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission
on March 7. Planning Consultant Larry Wood presented a
report on the request, and told the Commissioners that the 1-1
zoning was not recommended as it "is not consistent" with the
recommendations of the General Land Use Plan, and because
R -O "Residential -Office" zoning --alternatively proposed by
Wood --would allow "a use of the property more consistent with
the General Plan and more compatible with the nearby residential
uses."
Speaking on behalf of the request, Mr. Burge pointed out that
all of the area is on leased railroad right-of-way and that the
North Street widening project was going to take 16' off of the
north of his building, leaving a street shoulder with a 60°
slope onto the tract.
11
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "I"
To enable him to replace --somewhere else on the land --a
portion of the building being taken, Burge requested "the
same thing you did for Ranco", referring to a previous
zoning change for the property west of his.
It was pointed out that the Ranco petition included a Bill
of Assurances excluding certain activities, and Mr. Burge
offered to enter into a similar arrangement.
There being no public opposition expressed to the zoning charge,
a motion to recommend approval of the R-3 to 1-1 change and
acceptance of the Bill of Assurances passed 6-1, with
Commissioner Stockdell in the minority and Cullers and
Hunnicutt absent.
LANDSCAPE POLICY: A resolution expressing the policy of the Board of Directors
regarding the conservation and establishment of natural resources.
Considered by the Planning Commission on March 7 and
unanimously recommended for approval.
1 DOG ABUSE: An ordinance providing that it shall be unlawful for any person to
abuse a police dog.
1 STREETLIGHT CHANGEOVER: Approval of the changeover of residential streetlights
from mercury-vapor to high -pressure -sodium fixtures.
In previous actions the city authorized the changeover of
main -thoroughfare streetlights from the older mercury-vapor
lamps to energy-efficient high -pressure -sodium fixtures that
give significantly more lumens per watt.
This phase would convert all SWEPCO-served streetlights in the
city except the "top hat" decorative lamps on aluminum poles.
While the higher acquisition cost of the sodium fixtures means
that the city's yearly electric bill for streetlights will increase
by 50% --from $24,510 to $36,811 --the light output per street-
light will increase by 100%, from 8,000 to 16,000 lumens per
light.
1
i
111
MARCH 16, 1982 PAGE "J"
SEWER ALTERNATIVE: Selection of the preferred alternative for waste water
treatment for the City of Fayetteville; setting a date for a public hearing to
receive public comments concerning the selected waste water treatment alternative;
and authorizing the preparation of an Environmental Information Document.
i
The Water & Sewer Committee will be meeting at 3:00 p.m.
on Monday the 15th --after this agenda is prepared and
distributed --to consider these items.
15CITY HALL: A report from the City Hall Committee regarding bids for the
construction of an interim city hall.
16OTHER BUSINESS
1"7MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the previous Board meeting.
18ADJOURNMENT.
12,
1
March 15, 1982
City Council Members
Fayetteville, Arkansas
Dear Council Members:
The State of Oklahoma is very appreciative of the opportunities that the City of
Fayetteville has offered us to comment during your 201 planning for upgrading
Fayetteville's sewage treatment facilities. We hope our comments have been constructive
but, also, clear regarding our concerns about possible discharge alternatives and their
potential impacts on Oklahoma's streams and rivers. Your citizens committee, city staff
(particularly Betty Tyler) and your consultants have been very cooperative in keeping us
informed, and in receiving our comments in the neighborly spirit in which they were
offered. We thank you and commend you for this.
At this time, as you on the City Council face the final decision on your Facility
Plan, we would like to once again reiterate our primary concerns regarding the possible
alternatives. These concerns are numerous and have been specifically expressed in our
past correspondence and statements on this issue. In brief, we believe our concerns are
best summarized in two major points applicable to any of the discussed alternatives
(including the "SWEPCO Alternative") that would impact Oklahoma's waters:
1. In 1977, the Oklahoma State Department of Health completed a study of the
Illinois River in Oklahoma (including some study of Lake Frances) and its
major tributaries. This study clearly showed that the River itself could not
handle additional loading either directly or from upstream discharges.
(Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology studies have also
confirmed that the Illinois River in Arkansas is not suitable for additional
loading.) The study further showed that increased loading through tributaries
to the Illinois River would also be environmentally unacceptable. Virtually
every remaining 201 alternative for Fayetteville, except discharge to the
White River, would result in increased loading to the Illinois River or its
tributaries. For this reason, we remain opposed to these alternatives including
the "SWEPCO Alternative".
2. Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards designate the Illinois River and most of
its tributaries as "little a" streams which means that they fall under special
condition (a) in the standards which precludes any increased load or new
discharge to these streams. Although we realize the discharge points being
considered by your city are in Arkansas, we believe the resulting loads would
cause violations of Oklahoma's Water Quality Standards. For this reason, we
remain opposed to discharge alternatives impacting these streams. Our
opposition on this basis includes the "SWEPCO Alternative".
1
r
City Council Members
March 15, 1982
Page 2
We again thank you for the opportunity to comment and for the cooperative
relationship we have enjoyed during this process. If we can be of help in clarifying any of
our concerns, please advise.
cc: Governor George Nigh
Sincerely,
// Joan K. Leavitt, M.D.
sioner of Health
es Barnett, rector
klahoma Water Resources Board
Lawrence R. Edmison, Director
Oklahoma Department of Pollution Control