HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-04-06 Minutes1
45
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, April 6, 1982,
at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Directors Noland, Bumpass, Henry, Lancaster, Todd, Osborne, and Sharp;
City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, Assistant City Manager McWethy, and
City Clerk Rowe; members of the press and audience.
CO ABSENT: None
CO
CALL TO ORDER
U Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of
respectful silence.
CO
EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH/MARCH
1
Mayor Noland introduced the three employees of the month of March and 45.1
presented James W. Johnson, Larry McCawley, and Clyde Randall with a
certificate and a check and noted the comments their supervisors had made
about their job performance.
APPLEBY ROAD/PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Mayor Noland introduced a public hearing regarding the sufficiency of a 45.2
street improvement district petition for Appleby Road, from Bishop Drive to
Gregg Avenue.
City Attorney McCord stated that the Board had considered the petitions 45.3
requesting an improvement district formation at the last meeting, but it had
been tabled at that time to allow compliance with statutory requirements of
personal notice to all property owners within the district by certified mail,
return receipt requested. An affadavit had been filed late the afternoon of
April 6 with the City Clerk by one of the proposed commissioners of the district
setting out the procedure followed in an effort to comply with the statutory
requirements. There had not been sufficient time to determine whether in fact
the statute was complied with. Mr. McCord's recommendation was to hold a public
hearing at this meeting, but no final action be taken until sufficiency of
petition can be verified. He further stated there was a statute that could be
construed as requiring that this proposed improvement district be referred to
the Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Mayor Noland declared the public hearing open regarding the sufficiency of 45.4
the petition. He pointed out that the statement from Greer Abstract Company
indicated that assessed value of the property in the district is $337,192 and
the petition signers own property with an assessed value of $178,143. The major
issue is whether or not the people who have signed the petition do represent
more than 50% of the assessed valuation of the district.
Mr. Jack Butt, attorney for the proposed improvement district, addressed 45.5
the Board. He stated that notice of the hearing had been published two weeks
prior to the hearing as statutorily required. He stated that he had tried to
comply with the requirements of the statute. He further stated that the issue
was to determine whether property owners owning 51% of the property had signed
the petition. There could be subordinate questions as to whether a signature
represents a property owner or if the the owner signed under some sort of
46
April 6, 1982
fraudulent pretense. The petition and abstractor's certificate speak for
themselves. There is one correction in the agenda --there are five lots on
either side of Peg Lane that are included in the district which were not
indicated on the map.
46.1 Mr. John Lisle, attorney representing approximately 20 property owners
who were opposed to the district, address the Board. He stated that the
question of the sufficiency of the petitions actually was a two part question:
(1) Have 51% of the property owners in the district in fact signed the
petition and (2) Are the boundaries lawful boundaries under Arkansas statute?
Mr. Lisle pointed out on a plat map he had prepared where the district was
to be located and who owned the property located in the district. He stated
that the property that is already developed into lots, some with houses, was
assessed at a higher rate than the non-developed (or farm -type property).
The residential lots were not located right on Appleby; therefore, their
benefits will be decreased and their assessments to pay for the improvements
would be lower than the property with frontage on Appleby Road. However,
their value was included in obtaining the 51% required to form the improvement
district. He stated Mr. Bishop had stated he had 52.5% of the assessed value
as signers on the petition, which was $9,547 more than what the law required
to approve the district. Mr. Lisle distributed copies of Arkansas Statute
20-101 and stated that according to the statute, the Board had no authority
to establish a district except under rules of the statute. The property had
to be benefited, according to the statute, before it could be included in a
boundary of an improvement district. He stated that the property owners that
would not be benefiting should not be compelled to pay for improvements to
benefit another property owner. He questioned the reason the boundaries were
drawn on the improvement district as they were. He suggested that the lines
were drawn to include the property owned by Mr. Bishop. Mr. Lisle stated
he felt that it was unconstitutional that the law stated once a name was on
a petition, it could not be removed. He stated there were five people that
wanted their names taken off the petition. Legally they can only be removed
if the property owners signed•the petition because of fraud, misrepresentation,
deceit, or somthing of this nature. He states these five people, Mr. Abercrombie,
Mr. Hutson, Mr. Olinghouse, Mr. Walters, and the Williams sisters, stated
that no one had informed them what the improvement district would cost. He
stated that the costs could be considerable to build a road that would comply
with city standards and codes. Mr. Lisle further stated that property owners,
including Mr. James who had just submitted a request for removal from the
petition, represented $29,250 in property. This would reduce the percentage
of property owners to 43% of the assessed value. Mr. Lisle requested a
decision from the Board regarding the sufficiency of the petition. He stated
if the petition was considered to be insufficient, then there would be no
need for further consideration or a Planning Committion Meeting, etc.
46.2 Mr. McCord stated that Mr. Lisle had pointed out several technical
legal issues, but he would like to point out in written memorandums the case
and statutory law to the Board for their consideration. He stated all people
desiring to speak regarding this issue should do so at this meeting, but a
decision by the Board should be made after studying the various related laws.
46.3 There was discussion about having the people wishing to have their names
removed from the petition either submitting in writing or addressing the Board
expressing their reasons for wanting their names removed. It was confirmed
that Mr. Lisle did represent all of those people. Mr. McCord stated that a
written explanation of their reasons would be satisfactory to him.
46.4 Mr. Butt requested if the reasons were not lengthy, the proponents of
the district present at the meeting would like to hear the reasons.
1
April 6, 1982
47
Mr. Lisle stated that he had expressed their reasons, but if any of 47.1
the people had additional reasons, they could outline these. The main
reason was that misrepresentations had been made that the improvements
would cost little or nothing because they were at the end of the district, and
the benefits would be paid for by other people who received more benefits.
No one had told the property owners specifically what improvements would
be made. He stated that the property owners would have to pay for engineering
fees to determine the feasibility of improvements even if the improvements
turned out not to be feasible.
Director Osborne stated that this was the manner in which every 47.2
improvement district was established. Mr. Lisle stated this was correct, but
he felt many of the people in the district did not realize that they would be
CO assessed these costs and would be forced to pay them even if the improvements
CO were not done.
Director Bumpass asked Mr. Abercrombie who had approached him and what 47.3
the people told him that brought the petition to him. He asked if Mr.
(„) Abercrombie had signed the petition.
CO Mr. Abercrombie of 372 Margaret Place addressed the Board. He stated he 47.4
was informed that the assessment to him would be little or nothing. He also
was not aware of the property on the west end of Appleby possibly being
developed by Mr. Bishop. He did not want to pay for developing someone else's
property. He confirmed that he was told the district was to pay for the
improvement of Appleby Road, but he was not given any figures regarding his cost.
Mr. Butt asked Mr. Abercrombie if there was any information given to him 47.5
by opponents of the district that caused him to request the revocation of his
signature from the petition. Mr. Abercrombie stated he had been told about
the pending deal regarding the propery on the west end of Appleby. He stated
that there had not been any specific figures quoted regarding costs.
Mr. Rodney Hutson, 384 Margaret Place, addressed the Board and stated he 47.6
was talked into signing the petition because he was led to believe his payment
could be little to nothing. His occupation is a school teacher, and little to
nothing to him was $50 per year. He stated at the general meeting regarding the
district, the estimated cost was $250,000, but now the estimate was $350,000.
Director Bumpass asked if Mr. Hutson felt he would use Appleby to go to 47.7
Johnson Road rather than using Highway 71. He asked if this improvement would
improve the quality of life for people in that area. Mr. Hutson stated it would
be convenient to use the road, but did not feel that it would be fair for him to
have to pay for the road because his house was two blocks from Appleby.
Mr. McCord stated that there was existing Arkansas Supreme Court case law 47.8
indicating that once a petition was filed, a name could be withdrawn only upon
evidence of good cause consisting of fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, duress,
etc. He suggested requesting the people wanting their names removed to address
the Board at this time only if they were relying on some other reason.
Mr. BuddyOlinghouse, 331 Pharris, addressed the Board. He stated Mr. 47.9
Bishop had approached him requesting his signature on the petition. Mr. Olinghouse
had asked how much the cost would be, and Mr. Bishop told him that the people
right on the road who would be benefiting the most would pay the greatest amount.
He stated Mr. 011inghouse's cost would be little or possibly nothing. This was
why he signed the petition. The reason he wanted his name removed was because
Mr. Jim Powell approached him and gave him a ballpark figure of $1,000 per year
for Mr. Olinghouse's cost. The cost "could" be $1,000 per year --not "would".
If this figure was correct, then he felt the facts had been misrepresented,
but if the cost would be little or nothing, then there had been no misrepresenta-
tion.
April 6, 1982
4S
48.1 Mr. Lisle stated there were many property owners being brought into the
district that would receive little or no benefit in order to obtain the
required 51% to primarily benefit a small minority of property owners. He
stated if the property not on the road was subtracted from the percentage of
signers, then the resulting percentage would be 25% of the people having
signed the petition.
48.2 The resident of 2931 Peg Lane addressed the Board in favor of the district.
He stated the residents of the area would benefit. Mr. Bishop would have to
pay his share of the costs for the property he owned. Also, Mr. Powell's
property value would increase. He stated he would use the road probably twice
a day. He felt he could locate more people willing to sign the petition to
bring the percentage above the 51% mark. He felt the actual costs should be
calculated before the improvement district was turned down.
48.3 Mr. David Bednar, 351 Pharris Drive, stated that in the early stages of
planning the district, the proponents had consulted with city officials and
were specifically advised that ballpark figures should not be used. In
previous districts, people living on the outside boundaries of a district had
been assessed relatively little or perhaps nothing for their share of the
costs. He stated that the proponents had been careful to point out to the
residents that this was the previous precedent for improvement districts. No
deceitful means had been used to obtain signatures.
48.4 Mr. Hutson stated he was led to believe his payment would be little or
probably nothing and based his signing the petition on this. He did not know
how this improvement would benefit his home. He further stated that the
boundaries for a district were usually 200 feet from the improvement, and his
house was 700 feet away.
48.5 Mr. Butt stated that legal services, engineering fee, or any costs were
never incurred before a district was formed; therefore, the cost to each
resident was not determined until after the district had been formed. He
stated there were approximately 20 names on the petition, and this road would
benefit all of the area residents. The opponents of the district who told
the residents that their cost would be $1,000 per year were incorrect because
the cost could not be determined at this time. The petitioners requesting
revocation of their signatures were arguing both sides: (1) because of their
benefits they would have to be paying too much and wanted their names off the
petition and (2) since they would be receiving no benefits, their names should
not be on the petition. The proponents of the district had done their best
to inform the residents of the proposed improvements. The people protesting
the road improvements were actually the ones that would receive the most benefit.
48.6 Mr. Wade Bishop addressed the Board stating he resented the personal abuse
he was receiving as well as the complete disregard for facts and truth. He
stated he had tried to be fair and had held a public meeting with members of
the city staff present to answer questions. This meeting was not required.
He was unaware that it was wrong to own property in an improvement distrct,
and he expected to pay his fair share of the costs the district incurred, He
resented the fact that one person had been inciting the petitioners by telling
them that their assessments would be $1,000 which caused them to want
revocation of their signatures, and after obtaining revocation requests, he
later called them back and stated he had refigured and their assessments would
be $250 per year. He further resented the fact that the opponent of the
district had informed the residents that the City was to build a two-lane
bridge, but Mr. Bishop was not pleased with this and wanted a larger bridge.
He had never requested a larger bridge. He stated one of the property owners
was not complaining that his property was not worth a great deal and would
have to pay too much for the improvements. However, when an easement was
1
•
April 6, 1982
49
required during a previous improvement, the property owner stated that this
easement was taking the best lot from the property that he was planning to
develop. He further stated he owned property beyond the boundaries of this
proposed district. Also, he had no plans to purchase any property from
Mr. Martin.
There was general discussion regarding how the boundary lines were 49.1
drawn.
A member of the audience stated he had never purchased anything without 49.2
knowing the cost, and he did not want something forced upon him when he did
not know how much it would cost. Director Osborne stated this was the way
the districts were handled according to the law.
Mayor Noland declared the public hearing closed. 49.3
CO Mr. McCord stated that the issue should be referred to the Planning 49.4
CO Commission to determine whether the district would comply with the Master
Street Plan and other comprehensive plans. Director Bumpass, seconded by
Henry, moved this proposal.
(� Mr. Butt pointed out that the district would not include sidewalks as 49.5
CO was indicated in the agenda.
Q It was confirmed that the improvement district would have the power of 49.6
condemnation for widening the road, and the district would have to pay for
the purchase of property.
Director Todd asked if the Board would be waiving sidewalks by forming 49.7
the district. It was stated that this was not the case. The sidewalks would
be required as the property was developed unless a plat was brought in for
development in which case the sidewalks would be required at that time at the
cost of the developer.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 49.8
CLOSING HOURS
Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the Ad -Hoc Closing Hours 49.9
Committee regarding the establishment of a uniform closing time for "private
clubs." (Additional information is on page "C" of the attached agenda.)
Director Bumpass summarized the events of the ad-hoc meeting and 49.10
recommendation in regard to a closing hour. (Additional information and a
committee member list are on pages "C" and "D" of the attached agenda.) The
recommendation could be stated in four points. First, there was additional
criminal activity occurringafter the hours of 2 a.m. The recommendation was
for the closing hour of 2:30 a.m., and proposed penalties were outlined.
Second, the recommendation encompassed the fact that the acts complained of
could happen at any time during the night. Therefore, additional visible police
authority in the area of Dickson Street or any private club was requested.
More active enforcement of state statutes regarding the sale of alcohol to
intoxicated persons and minors was recommended. Also, self -policing from
within the clubs would be requested to help eliminate an atmosphere that was
conducive to violence. Third, the Dickson Street ssue was quite clear --
there are a lot of problems.. The committee recommended that retail merchants
as well as tavern and private club operators be encouraged to for a merchants'
association and perhaps a pool of money for off-duty police patrol. Fourth,
there needs to be communication with the Alcoholic Beverage Control Commission
(ABC) on what the role of local law enforcement should be in enforcing state
statutes in the private clubs. ABC appears to be more concerned with enforcing
their own rules rather than the basic problems of serving alcohol to minors
and intoxicated persons.
Director Bumpass moved the recommendation of the committee as it relates 49.11
to closing hours and the penalties.
April 6, 1982
50
50.1 Director Henry made a motion to amend the original motion to a 1 a.m.
closing hour. Director Sharp seconded because of the inequity that taverns
have to close at 1 a.m. This closing time would then be uniform for taverns
and private clubs.
50.2 Director Bumpass stated the committee had not addressed that specific
issue. There was a difference between a tavern and a private club that
served food and as an adjunct served alcoholic beverages. Fayetteville was
the only city in the state that collected the hotel, motel, and restaurant
tax and did not have liquor by the drink.
50.3 Director Sharp wanted to know if the merchants not associated with
private clubs were being asked to pay additional money --over and above the
taxes they currently pay --for police protection. Mr. Bumpass stated that they
were being encouraged to work together to solve a problem. Director Bumpass
further stated he felt a 1 a.m. closing hour would have a significant negative
impact on the economics of private clubs.
50.4 Director Osborne felt that 2 a.m. was a reasonable time. The new Continuing
Education Center participants ask what is available for entertainment in
Fayetteville after conventions and programs are over when considering
Fayetteville as a site for a function. He did not agree with making clubs
close when taverns do because he felt this would be government imposing
standards on private industry rather than letting competition govern.
50.5 Director Bumpass made a comparison between closing a retail merchant
because of too many crimes to closing a private club.
50.6 Director Henry disagreed with the comparison. She quoted the ABC that
their intent was "to regulate closing a controlled and potentially harmful
industry." By not having a closing hour, more intoxicated drivers were on
the road. She also felt private clubs could not be compared to other
businesses because of the affects of alcohol on drivers, etc.
50.7 Director Lancaster stated there had already been another violent crime
on Dickson before 2 a.m. since the March 30 meeting of the ad-hoc committee.
50.8 Director Bumpass stated that the closing hour was not a magic answer
to solve all problems, rather it was only part of a solution. He felt the
police department was requesting a vote of confidence from the Board before
beginning enforcement of certain state statutes.
50.9 Director Osborne stated they did not need a vote of confidence to
enforce the law.
50.10 Director Bumpass stated the Police Chief was wanting to know how much
of his personnel should be devoted to the problem, specifically what were
the priorities for his department. He further stated there were several club
operators that had expressed a willingness to have uniform policemen in their
establishments.
50.11 Mr. Bill Cooper, owner of Buck's Cellar Door, addressed the Board and
stated the problem with private clubs was not the closing hour but rather the
lack of enforcement of existing laws and with club management. He felt it
was unfair to penalize all private clubs for a few clubs causing all of the
problems. He argued that tourism would be adversely affected if alcohol was
not served after 12 or 1 a.m. He was against being told when to close.
50.12 Director Lancaster made the point that to be a member of a private club,
a person merely had to purchase a membership at the door when requesting entry.
He felt there was really no difference between this and any other type of
business. Any club could be a private club if they so desired.
50.13 Director Sharp pointed out that taverns and private clubs were in direct
competition with each other, and the taverns have to close at 12 and 1 a.m.
because of state law.
1
1
1
April 6, 1982
51
Mr. Tom DeMont, student body president at the University of Arkansas, 51.1
addressed the Board. He stated that the health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens should be considered, and this included some 15,000 students. He
felt if the 1 a.m. closing hour was passed, then people would simply go
somewhere else to drink.
Director Henry pointed out that the average age of the students was less 51.2
than 21 which was the legal age to drink. Some of the students are illegally
obtaining alcohol in taverns and clubs. Therefore, there are not 15,000
students affected by the proposed closing hour.
Mr. DeMont stated that if the closing hour was 2 or 2:30 a.m., then 51.3
perhaps the people would go home rather than somewhere else to continue
drinking. He argued against penalizing everyone for the Dickson Street problem.
CO Director Henry asked Mr. DeMont if he hada part-time job, and he 51.4
CO confirmed that he did at Buck's Cellar Door. Mr. DeMont stated that he was here,
however, in the capacity of student body president. Director Henry stated that
the ad-hoc committee was selected on the basis of occupation in order to try
( ) and get a broad spectrum of people for a non -biased decision. There were two
[� people on the committee that have secondary jobs associated with private clubs
that was not listed on the application form and the selection committee was
unaware of. Because of this, she did not feel compelled to abide by the
decision of the committee.
Mr. Chris Simpson addressed the Board and stated he represented the 51.5
people that would be kicked out of the private clubs at the closing hour if
it is enacted. He answered Director Henry's question by stating he was 19
years old. He stated that private clubs sold entertainment and atmosphere,
and liquor stores sold liquor. The closing hour would force people to stock
111 up on liquor and keep it in their cars and put more drunk drivers on the road.
He felt this would be more detrimental than if the problems were concentrated
on Dickson Street. He felt a closing hour would not keep minors from getting
liquor.
Mr. Tx Trumbo, chairman of a student body community affairs committee at 51.6
the University of Arkansas, addressed the Board and argued against the
closing hour and for freedom of choice. He stated the crime rate was increasing
everywhere, and he did not feel the closing hour would make any difference. He
stated that the people causing the problems and committing the murders would not
be affected by a closing hour. He further argued that running a club as a
"business" made no difference to a person crazy enough to kill someone. He
suggested some type of city ordinance regarding gun control or registration.
A member of the audience pointed out that the committee Mr. Trumbo 51.7
represented was not a faculty or administrative committee.
Mary Bassett addressed the Board. She and her husband own a private club 51.8
and run it as a business. She had felt the 2:30 closing hour would be
approved, and she was against a 1 a.m. closing because this would be devastating
to their business.
Director Bumpass stated Mr. Bassett had served on the ad-hoc committee, 51.9
and the club had paid over $15,000 in taxes to the City. Mr. Bumpass further
stated that the revenue the City receives from clubs should be considered.
The general feeling among the clubs is that 1 a.m. would be detrimental to
their business.
Mr. Fabian Tompos, co-owner of River City Amusement, stated he understood 51.10
the reason for the curfew was the crime on Dickson Street. He stated that the
second to the 1 a.m. closing hour motion was made because of taverns having to
close at 1 a.m. He felt there were personal opinions involved in this decision
that had nothing to do with the problems that existed.
April 6, 1982
52
52.1 Upon roll call the motion to close at 1 a.m. failed by a vote of 2 to 5,
with Directors Henry and Sharp voting for the motion
52.2 Director Osborne made a motion for the last call to be at 2:00 and doors
locked and patrons out by 2:30 a.m. Director Bumpass seconded this motion.
52.3 Director Bumpass asked Mr. DeMont what the reasons were the committee
used in deciding not to have a last call time.
52.4 Mr. DeMont stated that they had felt it would be easier to enforce the
closing hour by saying the doors were locked rather than trying to enforce
a last call. A last call might encourage consumption in too short a time
period before being forced to leave.
52.5 Director Osborne stated his motion was aimed at eliminating stockpiling
of drinks. He stated the police would take care of the people that drank too
much right at closing time.
52.6 Director Sharp asked if an amendment to close at 2:00 would be acceptable.
Director Osborne preferred the last call time be included.
52.7 Mr. McCord stated the last call time could be overly broad and enforcing
would be more difficult to enforce than a closing hour. The ordinance he had
drafted would provide it unlawful for an owner, operator, or any employee of
a private club to serve or permit consumption of drinks after the time specified
rather than lock doors. Director Osborne agreed with Mr. McCord's wording.
52.8 Director Lancaster made a motion to cease operation at 2 a.m. according
to the proposed ordinance Mr. McCord had prepared. He requested the ordinance
be permanent rather than temporary, and the Board could amend the ordinance
if so desired at a later date. Director Osborne seconded this.
52.9 Upon roll call the 2 a.m. closing time passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with
Director Bumpass voting in the minority.
52.10 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the
ordinance be placed on second reading. Director Osborne stated he found it
personally irritating that so few clubs were causing a lot of problems and
a hardship on a lot of people and other clubs not causing any problems. He
hoped the police department would make an effort to patrol the clubs causing
problems.
52.11 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read
the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, 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 Bumpass
voting in the minority. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the final
time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Director
Bumpass voting against the ordinance.
52.12 Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, moved the emergency clause of
the ordinance. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Bumpass
voting in the minority.
52.13 Director Bumpass stated he was concerned about the means of carrying out
the remainder of the ad-hoc committee recommendations. He felt the police
department wanted to know that enforcing the laws regarding serving intoxicated
persons and minors was a priority with the community and Board. There was
discussion about the proper manner to let the police department know of the
Board's feeling regarding the enforcement of these laws.
52.14 Director Osborne stated he would like to let the police department handle
the situation themselves and not pass a resolution.
52.15 Director Lancaster asked what grounds the police department had regarding
entry into a private club to enforce these laws. Mr. McCord stated a search
warrant would be required if entry was refused. It was confirmed that minors
could legally be physically in a private club, but not drinking alcoholic
beverages.
1
1
1
April 6, 1982
53
It was the concensus of the Board for the police department to enforce
the laws regarding minors and intoxicated people.
After an intermission, City Attorney McCord stated that a correction
needed to be made. When a private club application is awarded, the club owner
consents to search by police; therefore, a search warrant would not be required
by the police to gain entry.
ORDINANCE NO. 2803 APPEARS ON PAGE /3O OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X7/
ANNEXATION
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance calling for a referendum on the 53.3
question of annexing certain territory into the City.
00 Mr. Newton Hailey, who had just come from the Quorum Court meeting, 53.4
addressed the Board. The Quorum Court adopted the plan for the Fayetteville
growth area. The Planning Board recommended public hearings throughout the
area, and after these were held, return to the Quroum Court with the concensus
U and a simplified version of the zoning ordinance for that particular part for
only commercial, residential, and agricultural lands. The Court did pass a
Q resolution that the steps the Planning Board had taken to date and were proposing
to take met with their favor and encouraged the Planning Commission to move
on as rapidly as possible.
Director Lancaster asked what affect this would have on the possible 53.5
annexation sites into the City.
Director Osborne stated he felt there had been discussion about the need 53.6
for zoning control in the county, and the step the Quorum Court had taken
would achieve the desired results.
II/opportunityDirector Bumpass asked what affect this would have on the proposed 53.7
annexation ordinance. He asked if the Planning Commission was asking for an
to develop this further before the City attempted annexation.
Mr. Hailey stated this was basically the case. The people on Highway 45 53.8
East had expressed a desire to take the necessary action themselves without
going through the Planning Commission. Mr. Hailey felt that the people should
be given this opportunity.
Director Osborne asked what was the latest date possible for City action 53.9
in order to get this question on the ballot. Mr. McCord stated the election
commission requested 30 days advance notice; therefore, the second meeting in
September would be enough notice.
Mayor Noland stated he did not feel that the Highway 112 area and the area 53.10
adjacent to the airport were controversial. He asked if these should be voted
on now or wait on the whole annexation question until September. It was
confirmed that the City has to pay a proportionate fee each time a city
question is on an election ballot, and it would be less expensive to combine
the annexation questions into one.
Director Osborne stated that Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Horne had stated their 53.1T
willingness to have their property south of the airport brought into the City;
therefore, he felt there should be no election on something where there was no
controversy. Mayor Noland stated the same was true for the University property.
Director Osborne made a motion that the area on Highway 16 West be extended 53.12
from the center of the highway for z mile south and ; mile north and run from
the present city limits all the way to Double Springs Road.
Director Todd asked what affect this would have on fire protection costs. 53.13
Director Osborne stated his motion was for this area to be studied for
annexation, and the proposed he withdrawn if the costs were not feasible.
Director Osborne made a motion for the areas not brought in by petition 53.14
in the mean time, be continued until the second meeting in September.
53.1
53.2
April 6, 1982
54
54.1 Mr. McCord stated that since the ordinance was left on first reading
at the previous meeting, the motion should be to amend the ordinance as
read to allow for addition to the annexation site to be considered.
54.2 Director Todd stated he understood the proposed annexation sites were
a result of a planned phase method of annexation. He felt Director
Osborne's motion would be accelerating the phases. Mr. Hailey confirmed
that the study had been conducted over a year ago.
54.3 Director Osborne stated that he preferred his motion to be a consideration
rather than an amendment for the annexation ordinance. He moved to table
the ordinance until the second meeting in September which was seconded by
Director Bumpass.
54.4 It was confirmed that the area around the airport did not include the
areas around Wilson Hollow Road and Black Oak Road.
54.5 Assistant City Manager McWethy asked if the motion to table was to
apply to Sites 1 and 7 which were scheduled for the next board meeting.
Director Osborne that the whole annexation issue was to be tabled at this
time.
54.6 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
54.7 Mayor Noland asked that the University of Arkansas and the property
owners at the site near the airport be contacted about petitioning into
the City.
54.8 Mr. Wuest expressed his appreciation to the Board of Directors for
their consideration in dealing with the growth area plan.
FIRE ORDINANCE
54.9 Mayor Noland introduced the further consideration of the ordinance
imposing fire protection standards for rental residential property
providing sleeping accommodations for less than 15 persons.,
54.10 Mayor Noland, seconded by Bumpass, moved to table until the next
meeting. Uoon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
POLLUTION PROBLEM
54.11 Director Lancaster stated that Mr. Sonomon was requesting consideration
of the pollution problem on Dean Solomon Road. Mr. Sonomon stated he had
been informed that the City could not force the residents to connect to
the sewer system without first being located in the city limits, and this
was being delayed tonight.
54.12 Mr. McCord stated that the County Health Department could be requested
to make an inspection of the area.
PARKING DECK
54.13 Mayor Noland introduced the 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.
54.14 City Attorney McCord outlined how the City Board had reached the point
where matters were presently. In a memorandum dated February 23, 1982, the
City Manager recommended the construction of the third level by authorizing
the issuance of $210,000 in parity revenue bonds that would be secured by
the same pledged revenues that were pledged for payment of the initial
$381,000 bond issue to finance the construction of the first two levels.
These revenues consist of net parking revenues and one-half CEC surplus
revenues. He stated one question that had been raised concerned the exact
wording on the ballot at the election where the voters approved the local
HMR tax. Based upon the election certificate from the county election
April 6, 1982
55
commission, the wording was as follows: "For or against an ordinance levying 55.1
a 1% tax upon the gross receipts of restaurants, cafes, cafeterias, motels, and
hotels, and creating a city advertising and promotion commission which shall
determine the use of revenues so raised." The City was then to issue bonds
if the Advertising and Promotion Committee approved the use of HMR revenues
to construct the deck. He stated the question had been raised concerning
whether or not the committee had ever approved the use of the tax revenues to
finance the parking facility. In an affadavit from former mayor David Malone
stating he had served as chairman of the Advertising and Promotion Committee
and chaired a meeting at which the committee approved the use of HMR tax proceeds
for a convention center and a parking facility. The action taken at the last board
meeting was an ordinance to approve the parity bond issuance, and the authoriza-
CO tion of a change order to construct the third level conditioned upon the Finance
CO Director approving a lease with the owners of the Hilton Hotel providing for
revenues under which the third level would produce sufficient revenues together
U with lease revenues from the Hilton to meet debt service requirements for the
m additional bonds. The Finance Director determined that the monthly lease
Q payments from the hotel owners would need to be approximately $4,100. The
owners were informed of this and have responded negatively to the city
proposal. Another question had been raised regarding whether or not projected
revenues would be sufficient to meet debt service requirements on the facility
as a whole --all three levels and $591,000 in bonds. The answer to this is yes.
Mr. Charles W. Greener, General Partner with the University Hilton Partners, 55.2
Ltd., addressed the Board. He stated that after the City decided to build the
CEC, the Hilton decided to go ahead with the hotel. At the time the hotel was
' built, acquiring additional land around the site was impossible. A 300 car
parking facility was proposed at that time to be built adjacent to the hotel
that would serve the immediate problem of the downtown area and circumvent the
solution to other parking situations involved with the new developments of the
downtown area. He stated the Hilton had offered to pay more than the proportionate
share than the typical outside user would pay for the parking spaces. He stated
the City was basically offering 70 spaces at a cost of $4,100 which was about
2.5 times what the outside public would be paying. He stated the Hilton would
be subsidizing 80% of the uti ization of the spaces on a monthly basis. The
Hilton would be guaranteeing that the 70 spaces were occupied 80 to 85% of the
time that they were available. He stated that the parking would greatly benefit
the success of the CEC, Hilton, and the downtown area. Delay in building the
third level would be more costly in the long run and create more problems.
Director Todd asked who made the "prior understandi.nr.w.ith the hotel 55.3
regarding building the three level facility. He had not been a part of any
commitment and was not aware of any of the board members making such a
commitment.
Mr. Greener stated when the project was initiated, there was a "marriage" 55.4
between the City, the Hilton, and the University regarding the CEC. The under-
standing came about either through direct communication with the board meetings
or members of the city staff that there would be a three-level parking
facility constructed. A parking variance had been granted to the Hilton which
spoke specifically to a 300 space facility to be built adjacent to the Hilton
and CEC. This was relied upon when the decision was made to locate the hotel
at its present location.
Director Todd stated that this was a reiteration of what Mr. Greener had
already stated.
Mr. Greener stated that the Young-Hadawi study was very positive regarding 55.5
a 300 space parking garage adjacent to the Hilton and CEC. Director Todd stated
that the Board did not follow this recommendation.
April 6, 1982
56
56.1 Mr. Greener stated that irrespective of the positions taken earlier, there
was currently a shortage of parking spaces for the area. He stated this
shortage needed to be solved. He stated for the success of the CEC and
downtown merchants, this problem had to be solved.
56.2 Director Todd stated that this was not an arguable point, rather the
question was whether the third level would be self-supporting financially.
The costs for the total project were projected to be around $340,000 to
$350,000 at a cost of about $4,000 per space which he understood the Finance
Director proposed as a breakeven proposition according to board directive.
56.3 Mr. Greener stated he understood the question to be whether the parking
deck as a whole self -amortized itself on the revenues that were originally
pledged to it in addition to the revenues off of the parking garage. When
speaking of the garage as a whole rather than segregating the third level, it
would be self-supporting.
56.4 City Attorney McCord stated that the question had been raised regarding
what led the Hilton to believe that the City would construct a three-level
facility. He stated the question had not been fully answered, but he would
relay the facts as he understood them for the board's consideration. In the
late 1970's, the Young-Hadawi study was done. This study was submitted on
December 1, 1978, and recommended construction of a four -level, 290 space
structure on the present site. The estimated cost at that time was $980,000.
The feasibility study concluded that the revenues from the facility itself
would not provide sufficient coverage ratio to support the issuance of revenue
bonds for the garage alone, but the parking structure would at least breakeven
if not make some money and therefore carry its share of the bond package to
finance the proposed garageand the convention center. On May 29, 1979, the
City Board authorized an agreement with Young-Hadawi and Hailey -Powers to
construct final plans for the multi-level facility as recommended by Young-
Hadawi. The minutes reflect that upon preparation of final plans for the
parking garage and convention center, the City would advertise the bids for
both projects, execute a lease with the University for the convention center
and sell the bonds for both projects and award construction contracts for
both the convention center and the parking garage. Shortly thereafter the
city's financial adviser determined that due to the long delay between the
original conception of the project and cost estimates, the construction costs
had increased significantly due to inflation, the bond market had deteriorated
because of economic conditions which resulted in interest rates being higher,
and as a result, the City could not sell sufficient bonds to construct both
projects at the same time. As a result only the convention center was
constructed. He stated that it was up to the City Board to determine whether
these facts warrant reliance the hotel owners are claiming.
56.4 Director Sharp stated he had pulled minutes from the Board of Adjustment
meetings and in 1978 at a public hearing, he quoted a statement made by City
Manager Grimes, "Both the Continuing Education Center and the hotel will have
to be under contract with the City for their parking spaces before the
structure can be built."
56.6 Mr. McCord stated that there had been many concepts and proposals about
how this could be financially feasible. He stated at this time the concept
was that the parking garage would be self-supporting, and revenues from this
facility alone would support bonds issued to finance the facility. City Manager
Grimes' statement should be considered in that light. As the Young-Hadawi
study indicated, the revenues from the parking garage would not be sufficient
for the structure to be self-supporting, but it would carry its weight in a
bond package for both the convention center and the parking garage.
1
1
April 6, 1982
57
Director Bumpass agreed with Mr. Grimes that the reason the facility was 57.1
not constructed earlier was because the City did not have the money to proceed
with the project. He stated currently the City could afford to build the third
level, the time was right to build it, and if the City delays, the third level
may never be built because the first two levels would have to be shut down
during construction. Director Bumpass asked Mr, Linebaugh, Finance Director, if
the 80% subsidy figure for building the third level at $2,100 per month Mr.
Greener was quoting was accurate.
Mr. Linebaugh stated that the $2,100 per month was ignoring the interest 57.2
the City had to pay. The per space cost would actually be a little over $4,000
with the interest included.
Mr. McCord outlined the financial status. Projected net parking revenues 57.3
CO as presently pledged on the initial bonds and projected one-half CEC surplus
revenues as presently pledged would produce sufficient revenues to meet debt
service requirements on the outstanding bonds and the proposed parity bonds.
U Mr. Linebaugh stated this was correct. Mr. McCord pointed out that the Board
CO needed to consider that at the last meeting, Director Sharp moved and the City
Board adopted a resolution to the effect that any actual expenditures of CEC
surplus funds should be treated as an interest bearing loan to be repaid after
all parking bonds and previous loans were repaid. If this requirement is
mandatory, then the deck would not be self-financing because of the tremendous
amount of interest. However, if the resolution was rescinded to eliminate
the requirement of interest, the third level would finance itself.
Mayor Noland asked if the existing revenues would include the $2,100 per 57.4
month lease with the Hilton. Mr. Linebaugh stated it would.
Mr. Linebaugh stated that if the loan was made from the one-half CEC 57.5
surplus, essentially the loan would be borrowed in the amount of $800,000 over
a 10 year period with interest, which would total almost $1,200,000.
Director Henry stated that in Mr. Linebaugh's opinion, the present 57.6
proposal would be financially feasible and would pay for itself with the proposed
figures as long as it was not treated as an interest bearing loan. Mr.
Linebaugh confirmed this would be true over quite a period of time.
Mayor Noland asked what was the time period involved. Mr. McCord stated 57.7
the bonds were for 10 years. Director Osborne stated he understood that it
was for 72 or 8 years. Mr. Linebaugh stated the $800,000 would have to be
paid back. Mr. McCord stated the question was whether it would meet debt
servid'e.requirements, and Mr. Linebaugh stated it would.
Director Bumpass moved that the third level be constructed based upon 57.8
this proposal. Director Osborne seconded this. The HMR funds loan would be
treated as non-interest bearing. Director Bumpass asked if there had been other
loans from general fund that were not interest bearing.
Director Lancaster stated he could justify his vote on this issue because 57.9
when the original performing arts concept was voted on to take all of the
surplus after the CEC was constructed, then 50% of the excess had been committed
to the parking deck. However, there had also been 4% of the entire package
of the sales tax committed to the performing arts center that was not there
initially.
Director Sharp stated that the voters knew about the resolution pledging 57.10
funds to the performing arts center when they voted for the 4% tax going to
the same project.
Director Todd pointed out that 50% had not been committed to the performing 57.11
arts center, rather what was left over from the 50% committment to the CEC
project He further stated he did not feel that the question was whether or not
the project would meet debt service. He was concerned about taking away from a
5S
April 6, 1982
commitment that was made to the voters on the performing arts center. He
felt the Board had agreed about the necessity of parking andhad used the funds
to build the first two levels. A figure had been arrived at for this cost,
and he felt the Board was saying now to take the remainder of the 50% and
build a third level. He felt it was now a matter of priorities between the
third level and the performing arts center.
Director Osborne stated that the pledge to the third level was the same
50% that was pledged to the facility. Director Todd agreed, but stated that
when pledging that 50%, the Board did not think that all of it would be used.
Now the proposal was to use the balance of the 50% which may not be enough to
build the third level. He stated this was being compounded by not adding
interest to the funds being used.
Dean Hugh Mills of the CEC addressed the Board. He stated former mayor
Marion Orton commented that during the election when the HMR tax was being
considered in 1977, the people were really voting for a performing arts center
and had little or no interest in a continuing education center. He stated with
all due respect, that this was not necessarily true. He had made many
presentations campaigning for the tax, and there was never any significant
mention of the performing arts center in any of the discussions. It had been
stated that the performing arts center was probably a good idea and would
probably be good for Fayetteville and should be supported if sufficient funds
accrued. He was not opposed to an arts center. The City has quite an
investment in the Hilton and the CEC. Fayetteville is a unique situation, and
the opportunity was there to build a tremendous program in Fayetteville. He
agreed with Mr. Greener, except that the program was not moving as fast as it
should or that had been anticipated. He stated the lack of parking would
certainly hurt the future of the program in Fayetteville because the parking
situation is already a problem.
Mr. McCord stated he did not feel a precedent would be set regarding not
treating loans from general fund as interest bearing because had the project
been financed as originally contemplated, there would not be this surplus
The funds would have been used to meet debt service on the parking garage
The proceeds would be used inthe manner originally contemplated and approved
by the Advertising and Promotion Committee; however, it was the Board's decision.
Director Sharp stated as he understood the parking requirements, for
every 600 square feet of building, 1 parking space is required. There are
50,000 square feet in the CEC which would require 84 spaces. Twice this amount
has been built. The requirements for a hotel are 1 space per room. This
would mean 250 spaces for the Hilton. Therefore, it was not the CEC that
created a parking problem, rather the hotel.
Director Bumpass clarified his motion that the third level be
constructed and the loan be non-interest bearing.
Director Osborne stated that the Exxon station located next to the parking
deck had been sold, and he understood that a 4 -story office building would be
constructed there. This would necessitate more parking needs. He stated his
point that the square was on the move, and the Board has the opportunity to
help support it through the third level.
It was confirmed that there would be no additional pledge to the facilities.
Mayor Noland asked what affect this would have on the payout period
taking into consideration no interest on the loan.
Mr. Linebaugh stated that there would be about 10 years added to the
payout period. The payout period for the total amount would be about 25 years.
Mr. McCord stated when the parking district lots were paid off, then the
revenues from those lots would go to the City, which would significantly
reduce the payout time.
1
1
April 6, 1982
59
Mayor Noland stated he felt his responsibility was to continue the success 59.1
of the CEC. He agreed with Dean Mills that the performing arts center was still
in the view of this Board, but the primary responsibility was the CEC. He
felt that it was his job to insure that the people using the facility were
happy with the surrounding facilities.
Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Todd and Sharp 59.2
voting in the minority.
RESOLUTION NO. 46-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 202 OF ORD. AND RES. BOOK XIV
CITY HALL RENOVATION
Mayor Noland introduced a report from the City Hall Committee regarding 59.3
CO bids for the construction of an interim City Hall.
Director Sharp stated the City Hall Committee had met and agreed that the 59.4
original path should be continued. Due to the private investment in the area
and the concern regarding the overall appearance of the downtown area, the
0 recommendation was to build a building that would enhance the area. The
recommendation is for the $215,000 alternative which would include brick, south
glass, and berms. This was the low bid out of 6 bids for the desired structure
to be awarded to McMurtrey Cullers Construction Company.
Director Henry, seconded by Noland, moved to approve the City Hall 59.5
Committee recommendations.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 59.6
RESOLUTION NO. 47-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 0W OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK %/ l)
REZONING/CORNER OF E. 15TH ST. & CURTIS AVENUE.
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in 59.7
petition R82-5. (Additional information may be found on page "F" of the
attached agenda.)
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director 59.8
Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance
be placed on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with
Director Henry absent at roll call. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance
for the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, moved that the rules be further 59.9
suspended and the ordinance be placed on third and final reading. Upon roll
call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Henry absent at roll call, and
the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time.
Director Bumpass asked if the $8,000 per acre price was based on any 59.10
appraisal or upon the city cost in the project.
Mr. Dale Christy stated that the price was based on what the Industrial 59.11
Park Committee felt was a fair appraisal of the property taking into considera-
tion its limitations. Mr. Christy stated the parcel was very limited in its
scope of use. It was a triangular piece of property with street setbacks from
both Highway 16 and Curtis Avenue and a utility easement on the other side.
Mayor Noland asked if there could be a provision that if the property was 59.12
not used for the intended purpose, then the property would be resold to the
City. Mr. Christy stated this almost had to be included because there was a
bill of assurances that it would be used for the purpose for which it was sold,
and it could be included in the contract.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 59.13
ORDINANCE NO. 2804 APPEARS ON PAGE 132 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X//
1
April 6, 1982
60
INDUSTRIAL PARK SALE TO GREENWOOD FOOD STORES, INC.
60.1 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution approving the
Park tract of 1.94 acres to Greenwood Food Stores, Inc.
60.2 Director Todd, seconded by Osborne, moved to adopt
60.3 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 48-82 APPEARS ON PAGE A/O OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
SIGN APPEAL/RICHARDSON OIL COMPANY
60.4 Mayor Noland introduced a sign appeal by the Richardson Oil Company for
two of its locations of Texaco stations. (Additional information is on page
"G" of the attached agenda.)
60.5 Mr. Richard Hipp addressed the Board and spoke in favor of the appeal.
The request is for two roof signs like the roof sign on their 1501 N. College
location. The big signs had been removed as well as the smaller signs, and
there is presently no advertising. There was no way to practically conform
with the ordinance because if attempted, the signs would be too far back and
the motoring public could not see them. The proposal was to install roof
signs at these locations. He confirmed that this roof sign would be in lieu
of any other signs.
60.6 Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved to grant the appeal.
60.7 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
STREET RECOMMENDATIONS
60.8 Mayor Noland introduced a series of recommendations from the Board Street
Committee. (Additional information on each item may be found on pages "G"
and "H" of the attached agenda.)
60.9 Item 11.1 - Willoughby Road - Director Sharp stated that this area was
part of a small subdivision about 1 mile from Highway 71 South. There was a
bill of assurance that the sidewalks would be installed at the call of the
City. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, moved to grant the postponement.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
60.10 Item 11.2 - Holly Street - Director Sharp stated a waiver of the require-
ments along with a bill of assurances at the call of the City was recommended.
Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, moved to grant the waiver. Upon roll
call the motion passed unanimously.
60.11 Item 11.3 - One Mile Road and Highway 62 West - Director Sharp stated this
was a 2 -part development. The first part was contingent to Highway 62 West
and the second part was farther north on One Mile Road. The Planning
Commission recommended that the street be built at the same time as the
second phase. Until the street is built, the Street Superintendent sent a letter
stating the sidewalk would be destroyed when the street was constructed.
60.12 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to waive the sidewalks on
One Mile Road until the call of the City. Upon roll call the motion passed
unanimously.
60.13 Director Sharp stated the committee had requested a board decision on
the development of the rest of the area. A four -foot paved shoulder on the
right-of-way was to be built by the Highway Department This would not meet
city requirements for a sidewalk, but it was much better than trying to walk
on the road. He stated the question was whether the City would consider
the four -foot wide paved shoulder as an adequate sidewalk along a paved highway.
60.14 Director Bumpass asked if it would be a four-laned highway and what the
speed limit would be. Director Sharp stated the plan was for a five-laned
road, and the speed limit was currently 50 m.p.h. but could change after
completion.
sale of an Industrial
, for $8,000 per acre.
the resolution.
April 6, 1982
61
Director Osborne did not consider a right-of-way as a sidewalk. Director 61.1
Sharp stated the Street Committee recommended that if the Board wanted a
sidewalk constructed that it be built after the highway was completed.
Director Bumpass made a motion not to consider the four -foot right-of-way 61.2
shoulder as a sidewalk, and that the City require sidewalks after the highway
is completed. Director Osborne seconded this motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 6.13
Item 11.4 - Waiver of Sidewalk at Corner of Storer & North Street - Director 61.4
Sharp stated the City had built a sidewalk on the east side of Storer, and there
was no sidewalk on the west side. The recommendation was for a postponement with
a bill of assurances that sidewalks would be installed at the call of the City.
CO Mayor Noland, seconded by Osborne, moved that the recommendation be granted.
c) Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
Item 11.5 - Razorback Road Sidewalk Waiver - Director Sharp stated that 61.5
Goldkist was moving in fuel tanks for underground burial. The Street Committee
V recommended a bill of assurance from Goldkist. Director Osborne, seconded by
CO Henry, moved to grant the waiver. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0,
with Director Sharp abstaining.
Item 11.6 - Happy Hollow Road - Director Sharp stated this was a Community 61.6
Development project. The bridge at Greathouse Park is sturdy. There was
$3,000 allocated to replace the bridge, but the cost would be $10,000. The
committee reviewed the engineering fees and determined they were reasonable.
The committee stated if the CD money was available, after the construction
bids have been received on the other streets, 7th, 9th, llth, 12th, and 13th,
then the project was recommended.
Director Osborne recommended putting this item on hold until the time after 61.7
the awarding of bids for the 7th through 13th Street projects to determine
if money is available for the project.
After general discussion, Director Osborne stated there was $17,000 left 61.8
over for this project. Mr. McWethy pointed this out and requested the Board
approve this funding for the project. He recommended building the sidewalks
in that area until the funds were exhausted. Director Osborne moved to allocate
the $17,000 to sidewalks and leave the bridge alone at this time. This would
include the engineering on Happy Hollow Road. Mayor Noland seconded this motion.
Director Todd asked how much had been budgeted for Happy Hollow Road 61.9
sidewalks and if an additional $17,000 was needed.
Mr. McWethy stated that apparently the money was needed because of the 61.10
extensive drainage problems in the area. He felt the taxpayers' money was
better spent by taking the Greathouse Bridge out of the CD program. This
would enable the City to use volunteer labor and other means to construct a
bridge.
Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass absent at 61.11
roll call.
Item 11.7 - Industrial Park - Director Sharp stated this required no board 61.12
action. City Manager Grimes felt it did because the Board had not said the
City should install sidewalks and streetlights in this area. Mr. Grimes asked
if the City was going to take the responsibility of notifying Warren Tool and
American Air Filter and inform them that they would not have to install the
lights in view of the fact that it was part of the requirements at the time the
park was developed and the City failed to do it.
Director Sharp stated this would be paid for out of revenues as the lots 61.13
were sold in Industrial Park.
Director Osborne asked what was wrong with the principal of letting the 61.14
developers install lights as they developed the property.
April 6, 1982
62
62.1 Mayor Noland stated the new developers would, but this matter dealt with
business already located in Industrial Park. Mr. Grimes stated the ordinances
existed, but the City was not enforcing them at the time the older lots were
developed.
62.2 Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, moved to install the sidewalks and
streetlights.
62.3 Director Todd stated he felt Industrial Park should be developed under
the same principal as the rest of the City in regard to lights and sidewalks.
62.4 City Manager Grimes stated that the new developers were being treated
the same as in any other area of the City.
62.5 Director Todd felt it was not fair for the City to install the facilities
at Industrial Park for the older developers because when an existing house
requested expansion, the owner would be forced to comply with current ordinances.
62.6 Mayor Noland stated this differed because the industries were not planning
an expansion which would necessitate compliance with the ordinances. The
City was currently placing streetlights and sidewalks in some residential areas.
62.7 Mr. Grimes stated the proposal was for the City to develop Industrial Park
now as it should have before the industries were built as revenues are acquired
from sales in Industrial Park.
62.8 Director Todd felt this action was precipitated by a couple of industries
that were concerned about having to install the lights and sidewalks.
62.9 Mr. Grimes stated the action was not necessarily precipitated by the
industries' concerns. He stated his sense of fairness told him that if the
City was supposed to have installed the facilities and did not, then it would
only be right for the City to do so now. Mr. Grimes further stated there was
several industries concerned about the expenditures required for sidewalks.
New industries discuss this problem with the older industries before deciding
on locating in Fayetteville. This should be considered for the growth of
the community.
62.10 Director Todd stated he did not see the difference between this and if
perhaps Campbell Soup stated they were upset and did not want to have to
install the facilities.
62.11 Director Osborne stated that Director Todd had a point that it was not
quite fair to require a homeonwer to install the facilities because the
developer did not, but the City would install the facilities in Industrial Park.
62.12 Mayor Noland stated the difference was that the City was the developer
that failed to install the facilities.
62.13 Director Osborne stated he wanted to withdraw his motion and further study
the problem. He asked what the total cost would be because this would have
an affect on an answer. He stated he would like to refer this to the Street
Committee.
62.14 Item 11.8 - 15th Street - Director Sharp stated the $25,000 would insure
that the project would be completed. Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne,
moved to approve the money to be included in the CD budget. Upon roll call
the motion passed unanimously.
STREET CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT/7th, 9th, llth, 12th, & 13th STREETS
62.15 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the award of a construction
contract for improvements to 7th, 9th, llth, 12th, and 13th Streets. These
were authorized by the Board under the 1981 CD Budget.
62.16 Mayor Noland, seconded by Bumpass, moved that the CD recommendations be
approved. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 49-82 APPEARS ON PAGE ala OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )0V
1
1
April 6, 1982
63
AIRPORT PARKING
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing an amendment to an 63.1
agreement with Air Terminal Parking Company regarding revenues from the
Drake Field parking facility.
Director Todd asked why the amendment was necessary if there was already 63.2
an agreement of this sort in the present contract.
Mr. McCord stated that according to the agreement, paragraph (2) provided 63.3
for a minimum guaranteed fee or the percentage fee whichever was the greater
amount computed for each year and set out the minimum guaranteed fees to start
at $42,500 and go up to $65,000 in the fifth year. It also specified percentages
that 50% of the gross receipts in excess per year after $100,000 was a graduated
percentage depending upon revenues. Paragraph (5) authorized in the event of
CO suspension of commercial operation resulting in a decrease in enplanements, the
CO monthly guaranteed fees should be abated proportionately on a mutually agreed
and negotiated basis. He asked if negotiations had taken place.
Mrs. Ede Hogue, Airport Manager, stated Mr, Grimes had met with Ron 63.4
(_) McDonald a few weeks ago and discussed this. She understood that the agreement
CO was 50% of gross until such time as revenues begin to pick up or inflation
Q decreases. Mr. McDonald has assured her that at that time, the original amount
specified in the agreement would be paid.
Mr. McCord suggested a resolution authorizing a modification of the existing 63.5
agreement in accordinance with the recommendation of the Airport Manager.
Mayor Noland, seconded by Henry, moved this resolution.
Director Todd asked if this 50% was the approximate level that was started 63.6
with at the beginning point. Mrs. Hogue stated that based upon current gross
receipts, it would not be; it would be less than what was originally paid the
first year. The agreement started in August of 1980 but was signed on April
15, 1980.
Director Todd asked if there would be a provision in the agreement that . 63.7
the original provisions would automatically kick back in at some certain level
of receipts or enplanements. Mr. McCord stated that the modification would
contain this provision.
City Manager Grimes stated he would get back with Mr. McDonald and work 63.8
this out. It was decided that Mr. McDonald could not continue to operate at
the present level with the current payments. Director Todd asked if the City
could continue to operate with this present level of activity.
Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass absent 63.9
at roll call.
Director Todd made a motion that the Board be provided with a status 63.10
report on airport operations and recommendations for ways to improve the
volume of air traffic. Director Osborne seconded this motion.
Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass absent at 63.11
roll call.
RESOLUTION NO. 50-82 APPEARS ON PAGE c?/9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X/ V
PARKS TRACTOR AND AIRPORT TRACTOR
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an 63.12
equipment rental agreement with Williams Ford Tractor and Equipment Company
for the lease of a tractor and cutter for the Parks Department and a tractor
and cutter for the airport.
Director Henry asked if the City was better off leasing this equipment 63.13
rather than an outright purchase. She asked about warranties and maintenance
agreements.
April 6, 1982
64
64.1 Purchasing Officer Mackey stated that the City was better off with a
lease agreement. The lessor takes care of any major breakdowns, but the City
would take care of daily wear and tear maintenance. Director Henry stated
that this policy needed to be stated in the agreement.
64.2 Mayor Noland, seconded by Henry, moved that both of the lease agreements
be executed with the provision that the maintenance costs be stipulated.
64.3 Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass absent
at roll call.
RESOLUTION NO. 51-82 APPEARS ON PAGE as I OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )0V
LANDFILL CONTRACT/SUNRAY SANITATION
64.4 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a one-year extension in the landfill contract with Sunray Sanitation.
64.5 Director Henry recommended the adoption of the extension option. Director
Henry, seconded by Noland, moved to approve the contract.
64.6 Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass absent
at roll call.
64.7 The Board requested contract negotiations be started for two more years
with Sunray.
RESOLUTION N0. 52-82 APPEARS ON PAGE eAA 6 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIU
PAY PLAN
64.8 Mayor Noland introduced the review and approval of the revised 1982 Pay
and Classification Plan for city employees. Mayor Noland asked why there were
several scales that had no positions indicated.
64.9 Debbie Lemaster, Personnel Officer, stated that there were presently no
positions for these scales. Director Todd asked if the plan had been reviewed
by Dr. Schaeffer. He also asked if reducing the number of levels had been
considered.
64.10 Ms. Lemaster stated that Mr. Schaeffer had not reviewed the plan. She
stated that scales 1 through 9 were 212% apart and scales 10-31 were 11/2% apart.
The scale was in compliance with last year's plan.
64.11 Director Todd, seconded by Bumpass, moved to approve the pay plan.
64.12 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION NO. 53-82 Appears ON PAGE as n OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
BCBS AGREEMENT
64.13 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a Retention Fund Agreement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Arkansas.
64.14 Director Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to table this item.
64.15 Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
SOCIAL SECURITY OVERPAYMENT
64.16 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a contract with Profile Tax Recovery regarding the overpayment of
social security deductions on sick leave pay. Mayor Noland asked how many
dollars were involved.
64.17 Finance Director Linebaugh stated that there was no total amount computed.
This procedure had been done by Fayetteville Public Schools who received
$20,000 and Arkansas Western Gas who received $50,000. This was before the
25% fee was deducted for Profile Tax Recovery.
1
1
1
April 6, 1982
65
Director Todd asked for further explanation. Mr. Linebaugh stated that
the law was that social security was not to be withheld from employee sick pay.
The federal govertment passed a law that the employees had to be paid back any
social security incorrectly withheld. This was one firm that will go back to
1978 and compute how much is due each employee. He stated the City would be
receiving a credit on future social security payments. The employees would
receive their full contribution, and the City would receive one=half of its
contribution to social security.
Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, moved to approve the resolution.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
65.1
65.2
65.3
RESOLTUION NO. 54-82 APPEARS ON PAGE a36 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
m SHOP TOOL PURCHASE
co Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Finance Director for a budget 65.4
adjustment to allow the purchase of mechanics tools for the City Shop.
(.) Mayor Noland, seconded by Henry, moved to grant the request. Director 65.5
CO Lancaster asked what type of tools would be purchased. Mayor Noland stated
Q each mechanic would have their own set of tools, purchase a new diagnostic
machine, drill press, metal saw, and transmission jack.
Director Bumpass asked if the inventory control would prevent the new 65.6
tools from walking off. This was confirmed.
Assistant Finance Director Hausam stated that the tools would be placed 65.7
in locking cabinets, and each mechanic would be responsible for his own tools.
He stated there would be a periodic inventory of the hand tools.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 65.8
RESOLUTION NO. 55-82 APPEARS ON PAGE a32 OF ORIDNANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
EASEMENT REDUCTIONS/777 CLIFFSIDE DRIVE
Mayor Noland introduced a request by Carlos and Janette Treat for three 65.9
reductions in utility easements in the area of 666 Cliffside Drive.
A member of the audience addressed the Board and stated that approval 65.10
had already been received from the utility companies involved. The Board of
Adjustment had approved the reductions, and there had been no opposition from
the neighbors.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, 65.11
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
Attorney read the ordinance for the second time.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Henry, moved that the rules be further 65.12
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.
Director Todd stated the request was reasonable and would set no 65.13
precedents due to its unusual circumstances.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 65.14
ORDINANCE NO. 2805 APPEARS ON PAGE /33 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(if
VEHICLE BIDS
Mayor Noland introduced Bid #484 for police patrol cars and inspection
department pickups. He stated the bid was for 8 police cars at $9,399 each
from Lewis Ford and for 3 inspection department pickups at a cost of $7,047
each from Jim Ray Chevrolet.
65.15
April 6, 1982
66
66.1 Mayor Noland, seconded by Todd, moved to award the bid.
discussion about why there was no bid from Jones Olds & GMC
cars.
66.2 Director Todd asked what the miles per gallon were for
Mackey, Purchasing Officer, stated the police cars averaged
pickups averaged 16 m.p.g. for city driving.
66.3 Director Osborne asked what size cars were being purchased. Mr. Mackey
stated they were 'ntermediate size. The cars are LTD -S, a special police
package, rather than the Fairmonts that had been discussed. It was determined
that the smaller cars were not recommended due to increased danger associated
with the smaller size.
66.4 Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Todd voting in
the minority.
There was general
on the police
the vehicles. Mr.
13 m.p.g. and the
PROPERTY CLEANUP/949 BOONE STREET
66.5 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance authorizing and directing the City
Manager to have unsightly property conditions at 949 Boone Street abated.
(Further information is located on page "J" of the attached agenda.)
66.6 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time.
66.7 Mr. Eoff, owner of the property, addressed the Board and requested
additional consideration. He stated the property had been sold and the buyers
were to make the adjustments, but they backed out of the deal. Mr. Eoff had
discussed the property with Inspector Freeman Wood and was informed that the
house would be approved if it were brought into compliance with city codes.
He requested one more week to allow him to get a permit and begin bringing the
house into compliance with city codes.
66.8 The Board decided to leave the ordinance on first reading and allow
Mr. Eoff two weeks to take action on the property.
SAFEWAY
66.9 Mayor Noland introduced a request from Safeway for right-of-way variance.
66.10 Mr. Ken Mourton addressed the Board stating he had received a letter from
the Oakland office of Safeway that a tentative agreement for an 8 -feet right-
of-way to be granted on Lafayette. He requested the Board accept the
dedication of 8 feet on Lafayette and waive the 10 feet requirement that had
been requested on College Avenue on the basis that there was no intention to
widen College. He confirmed that this was the full frontage on Lafayette
the trust owned.
66.11 Director Osborne, seconded by Todd, moved to accept the 8 feet right-of-
way. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PRIORITY LIST
66.12 Mayor Noland stated that someone from the Board was requested to be on
the Head Start Planning Committee. He asked if there had been any preliminary
start on the planning of the facility construction.
66.13 Mr. Dick Boyle stated he had been waiting on the priority list to be
finalized. Particular times of the year were best for construction that would
least disturb the child development programs such as holidays, the end of May,
and the middle of August.
66.14 Mr. McWethy felt the City Board should have an interest in the planning
of the facility but no large committee was needed due to the standards required
for constructing the facility. Mr. McWethy stated he would be willing to
serve on the committee.
66.15 Mr. Boyle stated he would like to have Ms. Ivory Conley, Education
Coordinator for Head Start, to be a member of the committee rather than himself.
1
1
April 6, 1982
67
Mayor Noland stated the Board would decide at a later date what board 67.1
member would serve on the committee.
CD BUDGET ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL
Mayor Noland stated that a $75 expenditure over the budgeted $10,000 for 67.2
a CD house renovation needed to be ratified by the Board.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, moved to approve the request. Upon 67.3
roll call the motion passed unanimously.
CONDEMNATION/SEWER EASEMENT AND STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR RANDLE PROPERTY
City Attorney McCord introduced a resolution requested by the City Manager 67.4
to authorize the condemnation of sewer easement and street tight -of -way from
CO the Randle property on North Street.
CO City Manager Grimes stated the City had been working with Mr. Dave Randle 67.5
on this for some time, and the Highway Department estimate was $72,000 for damage
to the property. The Highway Department called and stated they had to have some
U action on the city's part or the City could possibly lose money associated
with this project. He stated he wanted to send the Highway Department a letter
stating the City had acquired 2 of the '3 parcels and filed condemnation for a
third one associated with this project.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, moved to approve the condemnation. 67.6
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 67.7
RESOLUTION NO. 56-82 APPEARS ON PAGE46742 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV
1
1
INTERIM CITY HALL ARTIFACTS
Director Sharp stated there were several items left in the property 67.8
acquired by the City for the interim building that the Washington County
Historical Society would like to have. He requested a resolution to donate
the books and records pertaining to Fayetteville and Washington County to the
historical society.
It was decided that only books, records, and photographs that could be 67.9
utilized in the historical society activities in relation to Fayetteville would
be donated.
Mr. Grimes recommended offering the University museum items for a special 67.10
collect after the historical society received their donation. This was approved
by the Board.
Security for the items was discussed, and the present system approved. 67.11
Director Sharp, seconded by Noland, made to motion to approve the 67.12
donations.
Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 67.13
WATER BILLS
Director Lancaster requested that the time period between when a water
bill was received by a customer and due to the City be checked into.
67.14
UNCOVERED TRUCKS/DEBRIS PROBLEM
Director Todd stated he would like to have something done about gravel 67.14
trucks, and other trucks that do not have covers and scatter debris on highways.
There was general discussion that there was a state law dealing with this
problem.
MIINUTES
Director Todd stated that at 27.8, the reduced budget was due to the
reduction of a staff person and not purchasing an automobile rather than
shifting accounts.
67.15
April 6, 1982
6S
68.1 Mayor Noland had the following changes: (1) Page 41.5 - the street
should be "Ridgeway" rather than "Ridgewood"; (2) Page 30.11 - the word
should be "so" rather than "no"; (3) Page 33.5 - the figures should be
"$42,000,000 and $46,000,000" rather than "$32,000,000 and $36,000,000";
(4) Page 35.3 - the word should be "past" rather than "passed".
SOLID WASTE MATERIAL
68.2 Director Osborne stated after the press conference, the solid waste
material would be deposited with Lewis Watts with the Regional Planning
Commission for their library, with the understanding that if the Planning
Commission was disbanded, the materials would be returned to the City.
68.3 Director Henry suggested placing one set in the Fayetteville Public
Library. Director Todd suggested placing labels on the material stating
it was the property of the City of Fayetteville.
ADVERTISING
68.4 Director Todd suggested not using full pages in the newspaper for
future public notices because of the confusion the last full page ad had
caused. Director Osborne suggested one-fourth page ads.
68.5
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:40 a.m,
1
1
AGENDA
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "B"
EMPLOYEE AWARDS: Presentation by the Mayor of awards to the three Employees
of the Month, for March, 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 job. 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 March, 1982 are:
James W. Johnson
Light Equipment Operator
Street Department
Larry McCawley
Patrolman
Police Department
Clyde Randall
Head Draftsman
Water & Sewer Department
2APPLEBY 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 improvement 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 $337,192 and that the petition signers own
property with an assessed value of $178,143.
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 Paul Martin, Wade Bishop,
and David Bedmar be the appointees.)
4
0
ar
\I ' -,E APRJ
•
1•.•
PRB
_ LIt
-
*REN CIRCLE
s
NIGHTINGALE
REDWING CIRCLE
SWALLOW
MASONI OR
LONGVIEW ST
I(ENRAY
BERT!
HA ROI
E. MALI NDA D
DRIVE - IN
THEATER
iN.
DRIVE
V
DRAKE
SHrq
kANSAS
ADOBE STREET
E NDY
LANE
BROOKE
I PVT.)
FARM
TOWNSHIP
PROP.I
ROAD
t'
a
•y,
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "C"
-}
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.
3CLOS6'(��
ING HOURS: A recommendation from the Ad -Hoc Closing Hours Committee
regarding the establishment of a uniform closing time for "private clubs".
Phis committee was appointed by
had the following members:
N ame:
Carlon Bassett
B utch Coger
Carl Collier
Tom DeMont
Joe Fennel
Wally Gieringer
D anny Villines
Ron Bumpass
the City Board on March 2, and
Representing:
Y'all Come Back Saloon
The Camera Shop
Collier Rexall
President, Associated Students
Jose's Restaurant & Private Club
The Old Post Office
Central Emergency Medical Service
City Board of Directors
At a March 30 meeting this group decided to recommend that an
ordinance be passed --for a six-month trial period --incorporating
the following provisions:
1. That all private clubs be closed --"patrons out and
doors locked" --by 2:30 a.m.;
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "D"
2. That the penalty for violation be a $500 fine for the
first offense, and for the second a fine of $500 plus
a two-day compulsory closing; and
3. That each subsequent violation carry a $500 fine and
an additional closed day (third violation, 3 days; fourth
violation, 4, etc.).
The Committee's vote was 5-3, with members Bassett, Villines, and
Fennel in the minority.
w 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 location is on the
next page; more detailed maps are in the City Clerk's Office.)
At the March 2 meeting the Directors decided to refer areas 2-6
to the voters at the May 25 primary election, and the ordinance
calling for a referendum was left on second reading at the March
16 meeting. Further consideration of areas 1 and 7 will be given
at the April 20 meeting.
FIRE ORDINANCE: Further consideration of 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 as presented at the February 16
meeting, 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 h: Iding shall be required to
install smoke detectors meeting minimum specifi-
cations and shall "inform each occupant of the
location of all smoke detectors, their method of
operation and their required maintenance".
3. Tenants shall be responsible for installing and
n-aintaining one Type ABC "portable, dry -chemical
type, fire extinguisher"; and
•
• :c1- < ?'
vY6
` "... 3.
:r :
C
1
C I
1: \S
-i—.
..:✓9'• '1 v.
SI I•
_ .'. •
•'•:r. fit .C•'�� ;
Lr
=u� i C'—
1141.•
• i 1:47
b
.v. c' .1- .4. C .0
. ., 1
('...0 1
C.
a1. •
.1:1 :I • .y
L...w J
.�' e.i 1 . c• •
•
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "E"
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 revised full regulations are available to the public in
the City Clerk's Office. The ordinance as it was presented at the
February 16 meeting was recommended for approval by the Board
Police & Fire Committee, and was formulated by an Ad -Hoc Committee
of tenants, landlords, and fire department representatives.
At the February 16 City Board meeting, however, the question was
referred back to the Ad -Hoc Committee for the resolution of
several points. This committee will be meeting on Friday, April 2,
after this agenda is prepared and distributed.
6PARKING 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 Hctel.
This item has appeared before the Board on several occasions;
most recently the third level of the deck was authorized
contingent upon a significant financial contribution from tte
Hilton Hotel toward the construction cost. Apparently an
agree m ert has not been reached on this point, and the City
Manager is suggesting that subsequent events come as a result
of specific Board action, rather than by default.
7CITY HALL: A report from the City Hall Committee regarding bids for the
construction of an interim City Hall.
This was tabled from the last meeting, so that the Committee
could review with the architect the most recent cost estimates
for the remodeling of the existing building.
The Committee is meeting on Friday, April 2, after this agenda
is prepared and distributed.
1
t
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "F"
A. r
REZONING: An ordinance rezoning property, as requested in rezoning petition R82-5.
Size of parcel: 1.94 acres
Location: At the northwest corner of East Fifteenth Street and
Curtis Avenue
Petitioner: Fayetteville Industrial Park Committee
Change requested: From R -O "Residential -Office" to C-1
"Neighborhood Commercial" or C-2 "Thoroughfare
Commercial"
Planning Commission action: Recommended C-1, 9-0
Considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission
on March 22, 1982. Planning Consultant Larry Wood had prepared
a report on the request, and noted that a 1974 land use study
of the area had proposed the R -O zoning for the parcel "to
establish a zoning transition from C-2 District along Happy Hollow
Road [to the east] to R-2 District in the mobile home park [west
of this tract]". Wood added that he felt "the existing zoning
pattern is sound" and therefore did not recommend either C-1 or
C-2.
Speaking on behalf of the request, Dale Christy, President of the
Chamber of Commerce and member of the I -Park Committee,
indicated that the parcel was once part of a larger tract that
had been split by the construction of Curtis Avenue, thus making
it more difficult to sell. There was a potential buyer far the
parcel if it could be rezoned to allow a "convenience grocery
store and possibly a car wash and gas pumps".
From the audience Mr. Roy Courdin, owner of the Shenandoah
Mobile Home Park, indicated that he felt the proposal was the
"highest and best use for it" and that if he could be assured
that the proposed development would in fact be what was done
then he "wouldn't oppose it at all".
Mr. Christy offered to enter into a Bill of Assurances to that
effect, and, there being no public opposition expressed, a motion
to recommend a zoning change from R -O to C -1 --and acceptance
of the Bill of Assurances --passed 9-0.
9I -PARK SALE: A resolution approving the sale of an Industrial Park tract.
The parcel is the one mentioned in the item above. The
prospective purchaser is Greenwood Food Stores, Inc., and
the recommended price is $8,000 per acre.
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "G"
10SIGN APPEAL: An appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance.
Petitioner: Richardson Oil Company
Proposed locations of the signs: 101 West Dickson Street and
508 North College Avenue
Zoning district: C-3""Central Business District Commerical" (Dickson
Street location) and C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial"
Variance requested: Permission to erect one roof sign at each location
Ordinance requirement: Roof signs are not allowed unless the Board
determines that there are practical difficulties in utilizing a
wall sign and that the variance will be in keeping with the
spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance.
11 STREET RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations from the Board Street Committee.
The Board Street Committee met on March 29, and will be
reporting on the following matters, among others:
1. A request for postponement of the requirements
to install a sidewalk along 466 Willoughby Road
(State Highway 156). Recommendation: A
postponement be granted contingent upon the
execution of a Bill of Assurances to the effect
that the sidewalk will be installed at the call
of the city.
2. A request for a waiver of the requirements to
install a sidewalk along property on the north
side of Holly Street just west of Lewis Avenue.
Recommendation: A postponement be granted
contingent upon the execution of a Bill of
Assurances to the effect that the sidewalk will
be installed at the call of the city.
3. A request for a waiver of the requirements to
install sidewalks along property located at the
corner of Highway 62 West and One Mlle Road.
Recommendation: A postponement be granted
for the One Mile Road sidewalk contingent upon
the execution of a Bill of Assurances to the
effect that the sidewalk will be installed at the
call of the city; and that the Board as a whole
consider the sidewalk to be located along
Highway 62 West.
1
t
12
1
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "I -I"
}
S=
4. A request -for a waiver of the requirement to
install a sidewalk along the east side of property
at the southwest corner of Storer Avenue and
North Street. Recommendation: A postpone-
ment be granted contingent upon the execution
of a Bill of Assurances to the effect that the
sidewalk will be installed at the call of the city.
5. A request for a waiver of the requirements to
install a sidewalk along the east side of property
located west of Razorback Road and south of the
Burlington Northern railroad tracks. Recommendation:
A postponement be granted contingent upon the
execution of a Bill of Assurances to the effect
that the sidewalk be installed at the call of the city.
6. Further consideration of a contract for engineering
services for sidewalks along Happy Hollow Road and
a replacement pedestrian bridge in Greathouse Park.
Recommendation: Full Board to consider this after
construction bids are received for Seventh, Ninth,
Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Streets. (See the
following agenda item, below.)
7. The installation of sidewalks and streetlights in the
Fayetteville Industrial Park. Recommendation: That
the city be responsible for these in the original
I -Park area.
8. That the $25,000 included in the 1982 CD Budget for
sidewalks be allocated to the Fifteenth Street
sidewalk project (in addition to the $40,000
originally budgeted), with any unused funds to be
reprogrammed for sidewalk purposes at a later time.
STREET CONSTRUCTION: Award of a construction contract for improvements to
Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, Twelfth, and Thirteenth Streets.
3AIRPORT PARKING: A resolution authorizing an amendment to an agreement with
Air Terminal Parking Company, regarding revenues from the Drake Field parking
facility.
14
15
16
17
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "I"
PARKS TRACTOR: A resolution authorizing the execution of an equipment rental
agreement with Williams Ford Tractor and Equipment Company, for the lease of
a tractor and cutter for the Parks Department.
AIRPORT TRACTOR: A resolution authorizing the execution of an equipment rental
agreement with Williams Ford Tractor and Equipment Company, for the lease of
a tractor and cutter for the Airport Department.
LANDFILL CONTRACT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to
execute a one-year extension in the landfill contract with Sunray Sanitation.
BCBS AGREEMENT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute
a Retention Fund Agreement with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Arkansas.
18PAY PLAN: Review and approval of the revised 1982 Pay and Classification Plan for
city employees.
19
20
SS OVERPAYMENT: A resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute
a contract with Profile Tax Recovery, regarding the overpayment of Social Security
deductions on sick leave pay.
SHOP TOOLS: A request by the Finance Director for a budget adjustment to allow
the purchase of mechanics' tools for the City Shop.
1EASinutEMENTilityeaseREDUCTIONS:mentsin A request by Carlos and Janette Treat for three reductions
2
the area of 666 Cliffside Drive.
A portion of the petitioners' request will be addressed in a
Monday, April 5 meeting of the Board of Adjustment. Only
the Board of Directors, however, can grant the reduction in
utility easements.
1
t
APRIL 6, 1982 PAGE "J"
VEHICLE BIDS: Award of Bid #484 for Police patrol cars and Inspection Department
g2zpickups.
23PROPERTY CLEANUP: An ordinance authorizing and directing the City Manager to have
unsightly property conditions. at 949 Boone Street abated.
This was first presented to the Board on December 15, 1981. At
that time the Community Development Director was requesting
authorization to initiate condemnation proceedings, so the city
could acquire the parcel, demolish the remains of the burned
house, and then either sell the lot or retain it for Greathouse
Park purposes.
1
The Board indicated that the Directors would prefer some
alternative to physically acquiring the tract, and the property
owner indicated that there were specific plans to begin the
rehabilitation of the house.
Nothing has happened in the three months since then, however,
and the City Manager is requesting authorization to proceed with
the property cleanup.
24OTHER BUSINESS.
2 MINUTES: Approval of the minutes of the previous Board meeting.
/'*ADJOURNMENT.
1