Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-05-18 MinutesIII MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, May 18, 1982,at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: DIRECTORS LANCASTER, TODD, OSBORNE, SHARP, NOLAND, BUMPASS AND HENRY; CITY MANAGER GRIMES, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER MCWETHY, CITY ATTORNEY MCCORD) AND CITY CLERK ROWE; MEMBERS OF THE PRESS AND AUDIENCE. ABSENT: NONE. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESOLUTION Mayor Noland introduced a resolution asking our national leaders to seek a halt to the nuclear arms race with Russia. City Attorney McCord read the proposed resolution. Director Sharp, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the resolution. Mayor Noland stated there were several people present that would like to discuss the resolution, and the Board had received several communications in favor of the resolution as well as phone calls. There had been several calls to the city o ffices requesting that the resolution not be passed. The Board then heard from members of the audience. Dr. Tom Kennedy, a historian, addressed the Board regarding the historic perspective of the proposed resolution. On behalf o f mankind and the "right to life" he encouraged the Board to approve the resolution. Dr. Mae Nettleship, a Fayetteville pathologist, ✓ epresenting the Physicians for a Social Responsibility, addressed the Board in favor of the resolution. She stressed the drastic affects of a nuclear war. The physicians group had held an international conference which was attended by 50 Russian physicians. From this conference the summary of the arguments against the use of nuclear weapons was published; therefore, this gives hope that international opinions can be changed. She stated Dr.David Crittenden was unable to attend the meeting, but he was in support of the resolution. Mr. Ronnie Woodruff addressed the Board in favor of the ✓ esolution. He stated the Presbyterian and Christian Churches had supported resolutions of this type in the past and were supporting officials to endorse the freeze of nuclear weapons. Ms. Ellen Shipley, member of the First United Methodist Church of Fayetteville, addressed the Board in favor of the resolution. She read parts of a letter from the Council of 86 1 87 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Bishops of the Methodist Church endorsing the nuclear freeze and arms reduction. Dr. David Williams addressed the Board in favor of the ✓ esolution. He outlined some affects a nuclear war would have on the environment which would result in death of mankind. He o utlined various detrimental affects the threat of nuclear war has on society. Reverend Fred Jones of St. Paul's Episcopal Church addressed the Board in favor of the resolution. He read excerpts from an archbishop's statement regarding a nuclear freeze and disarmament. He closed with the statement that Christians were ✓ equested to "think globally and act locally." Retired Army Colonel Jack Diggs addressed the Board apposing t he reslution becauce he contended that it would actually do no good. The resolution addressed the USSR and USA, but there are o ther countries that have nuclear weapons. He stated the military was suffering due in part to the fact that the composition of the military and the lack of progress in the defense powers of the United States. Mr. Larry Perkins addressed the Board against the ✓ esolution. He argued that the resolution should not call for a freeze because the U.S. Is currently inferior to the USSR. He had no moral argument regarding the aspect or stakes of a nuclear war. Richard Morris, a history student, addressed the Board in o pposition of the resolution. He argued that weak countries n ever attached strong countries. He further argued that the USSR would not agree to a freeze or reduction. Cecil Cogburn stated he felt everyone was against nuclear weapons. He felt the resolution would not do any good, but could d o some harm by encouraging the enemies and hindering the nation's leaders. He requested that the issue be tabled. Director Todd stated he had not heard anyone opposed to the spirit of what the resolution is concerned with. He stated there were alternatives to a freeze. He would like to have a ✓ esolution that would be acceptable to as many people as possible. He felt this should not be a political issue to separate people. He stated that whether a freeze or a mutual ✓ eduction was sought initially, either move would be a step in the right direction --no matter which was begun first. Director Todd further stated that the resolution did not mention any inspection procedures for verification of compliance. He felt this was a necessary part of a resolution of this type. Director Todd made a motion to amend the resolution to add "and all other nations" and not limit the scope to the USSR and the USA. He further added that the countries should seek a mutual reduction in nuclear weaponsand there should be a mutual inspection procedure necessary to verify compliance with the freeze and reduction. The final amendment would be to add that the intent of the resolution was to lessen the risk of nuclear f 1 88 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING war and eventual nuclear disarmament. Director Bumpass second ed D irector Todd's amended motion. Director Sharp pointed out that the majority of the people had agreed with the resolution as it had been worded. He felt these people should be checked with to see if the proposed wording was acceptable to them. Diane Blair, a signer of the petition, stated she had no objections with the proposed wording. An audience member, a representative of Arkansans for a Nuclear Weapons Freeze and Arkansas Ground Zero, stated speaking for the groups, she had no objections. Upon roll call the amendments to the resolution were approved unanimously. Mr. Cogburn suggested tabling this issue to allow time for public input regarding the proposed reslution He stated he felt there could be some harmful affects from this resolution. There being no further discussion, upon roll call the amended resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONy�64-82 APPEARS ON PAGE Og OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION �j_ BOOK V APPLEBY ROAD IMPROVMENT DISTRICT Mayor Noland introduced a discussion of the determination of t he sufficiency, or insufficiency, of the petitions requesting formation of an improvement district to pave Appleby Road. (Background information may be found on page "B" of the attached agenda. ) He stated the Planning Commission had determined that the improvement district and improvements would be in compliance w ith the master street plan. Both Directos Sharp and Lancaster stated they would abstain from voting onthis issue due to a possible conflict of interest. City Attorney McCord pointed out that it would take all five directors voting yes to move the ordinance to second and final ✓ eadings. To approve the resolution, it would take 3 of the 5. He further stated that at the previous meetings, there were three main issues that the Board needs to address. The first is whether any property owner who has so requested is entitled to have his signature withdrawn from the petition requesting formation of the improvement district. He supplied the Board w ith the applicable law dealing with this question. The second issue is whether after any signatures are permitted to be withdrawn, if any are so permitted, the remaining signatures constitute a majority of the assessed value of property owners w ithin the proposed district. The law is very clear that even though some signatures may be withdrawn, if the remaining signatures still constitute a majority of assessed values, the district should be formed unless the face of the petition clearly demonstates that there is a demonstrable mistake in the r MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 89 boundaries of the district to the effect that property that would be substantially benefitted by the proposed improvement has been omitted by the from the district. The Board does not have the ✓ ight to refuse to pass the ordinance creating the improvement district unless it is shown that a majority in value did not sign the petition or that there was an obvious mistake in the inclusion or exclusion of property receiving a substantial benefit from the improvement. This is the law as he understood it, and the councels for both clients had not disagreed with his o pinion regarding the law. Mr. Jack Butt, attorney for the proponents of the improvement district addressed the Board. He stated that it was u p to the proponents of the distict to determine the boundaries o f the district. Unless there is a patent mistake, the boundaries should remain as they were drawn. The boundaries, per se, are not a question for the Board to resolve. He stated all people within the boundaries of the proposed district would benefit and would be assessed a proportionate share of the cost. He stated the only way a person could get his name off the petition would be to prove that he was fraudently tricked into signing. A higher assessment than anticipated would not constitute fraud. The petition contains signatures representing 51% of the assessed value of the property in the district; therefore, the required number of signatures had been obtained. Director Bumpass asked if there was any possibility that the people outside of the district would be taxed. Mr. Butt stated they would not be taxed. Director Bumpass further asked if the tax assessment ran with the land. Mr. Butt stated that the tax would run with the land. City Attorney McCord stated that the assessment is a lump sum assessment for the assessors to collect. No more than 25% can be collected in one year. If the assessment is on a vacant lot, the statute provides that the commmissioner of the district can request the assessors to reassess no oftener than once a year if there are substantial improvements to the particular tract w ithin the district or destruction of improvements. Mr. John Lisle, attorney for the opponents of the district, addressed the Board. He stated there were five people wanting their names removed from the petition. If any three of the five is approved by the Board, then the petition would be insufficient. Mr. Lisle argued the fact that there were properties omitted from the improvement district that would be ✓ eceiving a substantial benefit from the district. He out lined on the map the areas that would be receiving benefit from the paving of Appleby Road that had not been included in the district. He argued that this was contrary to the law because it denies equal treatment to all parties involved. He stated the boundary lines should have been drawn to include all of the lots ✓ eceiving equal benefit. Mr. Tom Reed, a professional appraiser, addressed the Board. Mr. Reed stated that the property abutting Appleby would be receiving substantial benefit whereas the areas not abutting Appleby would be receiving a lesser degree of benefit. It would 1 r 90 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING be very difficult for any appraiser to determine how much any particular property not abutting the road would be benefitting. Anyone having the opportunity to use the road could be considered ✓ eceiving a similar benefit. City Attorney McCord asked Mr. Reed in his professionnal o pinion if there was property that was being substantially benefitted that was omitted from the improvement district boundaries. Mr. Reed stated in his opinion, anything that does n ot abutt Appleby does not "substantially" benefit. Mr. Max Parker, owner of 13 acres abutting Appleby Road on two sides, addressed the Board. He stated did not want the road improved because trees would be cut, and he generally preferred the road to stay unimproved. D irector Bumpass asked how the tax assessment would be applied to agricultural versus a developed tract in the improvement district. City Attorney McCord explained the theory of assessed benefits that the assessors were suppoosed to utilize to assess t he benefits, and thus taxes, construing an increase in fair market value to the propert. There is no concrete method. Reasonable people can differ in determining this figure. If a person disagrees with his assessment, he has the right to a hearing before the Board. If a person does not agree with the B oard ruling, he has the right to appeal to Chancery Court. Therefore, the property owners do have a remedy. Mr. Leroy Fink, a resident of Peg Lane, addressed the B oard. He pointed out that the only outlet for people living on P eg Lane is Appleby, but he was included in the district, and many others on Peg Lane were not. He did not think that the boundaries were fairly established. Mr. Lisle stated he felt the only fair way to draw the boundaries for the district would be to include all of the subdivisions that would be benefitting from the improvement. He felt the fact that there was property omitted from the district t hat would be benefitting was a legal basis for denying the e stablishment of the district. D irector Bumpass asked if the 13 acre tract was someday improved, was there ordinances requiring the property owner to bring the road into compliance with city codes. Mr. McCord stated the road would have to be improved to city standards if t he property was to be developed. Director Bumpass stated he felt the improvement district would be forcing pre—development costs on the people when they may not want to develop their property. D irector Todd agreed with Director Bumpass, but he did not feel that this was something the Board should consider regarding the establishment of the district. Director Henry stated she felt the Board could consider this fact. She felt it should be determined if property receiving • 91 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING benefits had been omitted from the district. She felt the "substantial" benefit test was where the difficulty in making the proper decision would result. There was general board discussion about the assessment possibilities of the district and the possible results. The possibility of forcing "pre -development" before its time was discussed. Mayor Noland further pointed out the parts of the subdivisions that were included and those areas that were not included and questioned the rationale behind establishing the boundary lines. City Attorney McCord agreed with the possible difficulties involved in establising the boundary lines. He pointed out to t he Board the possible meanings of "substantial benefit". He stated in his opinion the meaning could be one tract that would be receiving substantial benefit or numerous smaller tracts that are benefitted slightly with the combined total being substantial. D irector Osborne stated he felt the only real issue the B oard had to decide was whether or not "substantially" benefitted lots were being omitted from the district. He agreed with Mr. McCord's possible definition of substantial referring to a group o f lots rather than just one lot. Mr. Butt stated that according to the expert witness, there is no substantial benefit to the property not abutting Appleby. He stated the boundaries were arbitrary, and they had to be drawn somewhere. He sympathized with Mr. Parker's situation, but the ✓ oad he lives on is used by several hundred other people, and t heir feelings and wants have to be considered as well. He stated the boundaries had been drawn as fairly as possible, and t here was signatures reprsenting 51% of the assessed property value; therefore, the requirements had been met for allowing the e stablishment of the district. D irector Bumpass pointed out his concern regarding the assessment problems that could arise. Director Osborne stated the Board would not be relinquising control over the district if they allowed it to be established. The Board appoints both the Board of Assessment and Board of Improvement and hears the appeals from these boards. He felt the rationale boundaries would have been to include all or none of the subdivisions. City Attorney McCord pointed out an opinion in the case law .that a city council has no right to refuse to pass the ordinance u nless it is shown that a majority in value did not sign the petition or that there was an obvious mistake in the inclusion or e xclusion of property. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Todd, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second ✓ eading. Upon roll call the motion failed by a vote of 5 to 2, with Directors Osborne and Henry voting in the minority. The o rdinance remained on first reading. • i MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING REZONING APPEAL/DAVIS PROPERTY 92 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the P lanning Commission regarding rezoning petition R82-6, the Davis property. D irector Noland, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to table the item. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 0, with D irectors Todd and Bumpass absent at roll call. MODIFICATION OF LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT—CITY HOSPITAL Mayor Noland introduced a proposed modification of the City Hospital lease—purchase agreement with Mcllroy Bank and Trust to permit the hospital to enter into the second phase of the three—phase improvement program. City Attorney McCord stated that this would not increase the term of the existing lease or increase the city's commitment made in conjunction with the original agreement. D irector Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve the lease modification. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 65-82 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 7i V S IDEWALK INSTALLATION GUARANTEES Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the approval of "Bills of Assurance" to guarantee sidewalk installations at the following locations along Highway 62 west immediately after the 4 foot paved shoulder is installed by the Highway Department (the Street Committee recommended approval of both: (1) The Parts Store at 1513 W. 6Th and (2) The E—Z Mart Store. The stores are requesting a referral until the highway has been completed. D irector Sharp, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the Bills of Assurance. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. DRAINAGE PROJECT CONSIDERATION Mayor Noland introduced consideration of authorizing the correction of a drainage problem which exists on the west side of ✓ irginia Avenue Estimated cost: *15,000. Funds are available in P ublic Works Account #20-054 (the Street Committee recommended approval). D irector Henry, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to aprove t he recommendation. D irector Todd asked about the potential problems associated with cutting down trees for the project. He suggested amending the motion include obtaining a release of liability for the City from the property owners involved. 1 1 93 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING It was determined that there was only one property owner involved, and he was present at the meeting and stated his w illingness to sign such a document. Upon roll call the motion as amended passed unanimously. EOA FUNDING REQUEST Mayor Noland introduced a request from the Economic Opportunity Agency for city participation in funding EOA's Summer Youth Program (amount requested: $507.00). Mr. Cecil Steed, executive director, told the Board that the program was designed for 8-13 year olds for a six—weeks duration that would include transportation to and from Root School. The need for this funding is because federal funding had been cut back. D irector Osborne, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the funding. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 66-82 APPEARS ON PAGE02?S OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK X/1/ STREETLIGHT CHANGEOVER Mayor Noland stated that this item would be tabled pending o btaining further information. UTILITY RELOCATION PAYMENT Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the approval of city payment of utility relocation costs for utilities located on 9th and 13th Streets so the City can then improve the streets. City Manager Grimes stated that there were gas lines and telephone lines involved. He stated the state statute was that if the City chose to put their utility lines in the state ✓ ight—of—way, then if the lines have to be moved, the city has to bear the cost. He recommended approval of relocation payment. He stated the estimates were high, but this was done because of the difficulty in getting an increase. The people doing the ✓ elocation were hoping to be able to do the job at a lower cost. D irector Bumpass asked if the project could be terminated at this time and put the money into some other project. Mr. Grimes stated that the 9th Street project could be backed off but not the 13th Street project. Mr. McWethy pointed out that Board had authorized the execution of the contract dealing with this project which had been done. D irector Lancaster, seconded by Noland, made a motion to authorize payment of the utility relocation costs. Director Bumpass asked if the city was in a position to ✓ escind the executed contracts because of the unanticipated costs. Mr. McCord stated he did not think this would be q 1 MI'NUTE'S OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING possible. 94 D irector Bumpass suggested considering what the cost would be to default on the contract rather than allow for the work to be done. He suggested this cost could be less than the additional cost to move the utility lines. There was general discussion about the need for the engineering companies to locate the utility lines and designing the streets around them rather than waiting until the work on the projects begin before determining there is a problem with a u tility line. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Todd and Bumpass voting in the minority. Mr. Grimes recommended the approval of the awarding of credit for replacement of deteriorated lines to the City by the gas company. D irector Henry, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve this agreemennt. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1. with Director Todd voting in the minority. RESOLUTION 67—B2 APPEARS ON PAGEa95OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XV UTILITY RELOCATION REQUIRED Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance which would require u tilities to be relocated at the cost of the utility when n ecessary for street construction and requiring that future u tilities not be placed more than 7 feet inside of any street ✓ ight—of—way. City Attorney McCord suggested leaving this ordinance on first reading to allow the utility companies a chance to respond. Mr. McCord read the ordinance for the first time. 201 FACILITY PLAN REVIEW Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the employment of an engineering firm to perform a review of the Draft 201 Facility Plan for Wastewater Treatment Facilities. D irector Todd stated the Water and Sewer Committee had ✓ eceived two proposals. The Committee had reviewed the two proposals but had decided that a third was needed before any action should be taken. He stated the Water and Sewer Committee was going to meet on Friday, but he would like the Board to authorize the selection of the firm, and thus the contract award, based on the Water and Sewer Committee decision. Director Todd made a motion to allow the Water and Sewer Committee the ability to award a contract to 1 of the 3 firms. Mayor Noland seconded the motion. After general board discussion, it was decided to hold a special board meeting on Friday rather than a Water and Sewer 95 MINUTES OF A BOARD DF DIRECTORS MEETING Committee meeting to make a decision on awarding the contract. The motion and second to award the conract on the Water and Sewer Committee's recommendation was withdrawn. L AIR R EASE MODIFICATION/CAUDLEF EIGHT 1 i Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing a modification of the lease agreement with Caudle Air Freight. D irector Todd, seconded by Noland, made a motion to approve the modification. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 68-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 3SSOF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK KW AIRPORT PARKING AGREEMENT MODIFICATION Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing a modification of the Parking agreement with Air Terminal Parking Company for the parking facility at the airport. D irector Lancaster stated that the Board had agreed on this, but had wanted Ede Hogue to verify parts of the contract. Ms. Hogue stated she had met with Ron McDonald, and he had agreed with the terms requiring him to back to the original payments under the original contract when a certain level of enplanements was reached. D irector Todd, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 69-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 3Uo OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 2[V P HONE LEASE/AIRPORT CARROUSEL Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a lease agreement for a direct -phone carrousel at the Fayetteville airport. D irector Sharp stated he felt the contract would be forcing or promoting advetising. He did not feel the Board had intended t his. Ms. Hogue stated she thought this would be the best system because there were several hotelsmotels currently advertising at t he airport that had exrpessed interest in a direct -phone carrousel. She suggested the lower fee for someone already advertisng at the airport in order not to put a heavy burden on the advertiser. She did not want someone to forego the display advertising (which is revenue producing) to put in a direct -phone {which would not be revenue producing. The airport has to have t he revenue from the display ads, and it should not be jeopardized through the phone service. The alternative she suggested would be to have a flat $100 fee which would include both a display ad and a direct -phone. 1 i 96 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING D irector Henry stated that in essence the Board was encouraging advertising by making the airport dependent upon the display ad revenue. Mr. Hogue stated that the cost of the carrousel would be ✓ ecouped in five months considering five of the eight spaces being rented. After the cost is recouped, then the money coming in would be an additional source of revenue for the airport. She further stated that the fees she had suggested were the average fees charged in other terminals. There will be a space for the advertiser to slide in a small ad or logo to identify their phone. D irector Todd asked if there would be different styles and colors of phones. Ms. Hogue stated the phones were subject to the approval of the airport committee. She stated that she envisioned just a receivor on a hanger with no dial, etc. At some time in the future the carrousel could be removed without damage to the terminal except for the removal of a ceiling tile. If there is any damage done, the advertisor has to pay the cost o f repair, and if they do not repair, the City has the right to have the repairs done and charge the advertisor. D irector Todd asked about the part of the contract calling f or police surveillance, why not just random surveillance. Ms. Hogue stated this was part of the display case lease, which is very similar to this lease. Policemen were on duty at t hat time throughout the day, but this clause could be dropped at this time. D irector Sharp, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the contract including the amendment to strike the word "police" from the conract. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 70-82 APPEARS ON PAGE S1.Z.OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK X1V EASEMENT VACATION Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance vacating a water line easement for Tracts 2 and 3 of Steele Addition, Phase I. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. D irector Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the ✓ ules and pla place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and Mr. McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Henry, seconded by B umpass, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for t he final time. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2810 APPEARS ON PAGE 439 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING SANITATION SERVICE CONTRACT/SUNRAY SANITATION 97 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an updated contract which permits Sunray Sanitation to pick up trash at specified locations within the City. (The City is not equipped to service the large—volume, pull—on containers utilized at these locations, and there are not yet enoughof them to justify purchasing the equipment.) City Manager Grimes stated that these agreements had been e xistence for quite sometime, and he had been authorizing the agreements. The contract is now being brought before the Board for formal approval. Also, in the lease is the clause that Sunray takes the loads to the city specified disposal location. The lease is for a one year term. D irector Henry, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the agreement. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 71-82 APPEARS ON RAGE 3I OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK gji INDUSTRIAL PARK STREETLIGHTS AND SIDEWALKS Mayor Noland introduced a Street Committee recommendation that the City continue to follow the present policy for installing sidewalks and streetlights in the original industrial park. D irector Sharp stated the recommendation was to use funds from the sale of lots in industrial park as they became available. An audience member asked if a cost—benefit analysis would be taken into account when required the lights and sidewalks for both private and public funds. He stated a sidewalk in front of a plant would not increase productivity, and in these hard e conomic times, he felt this should be considered. Mayor Noland stated the best time to get sidewalks was at the time of new construction or expansion. In response to the question by the R and P Electroplating representative, the Board has granted a deferral for sidewalks and execute a bill of assurances that the sidewalks would be built at the call of the city when the need arises for the sidewalks. There was general Board discussion about the need for sidewalks in the City and the general policy of requiring them. SIDEWALK REPAIR/HATFIELD PROPERTY Mayor Noland introduced a resolution ordering sidewalk ✓ epair of the Hatfield property. D irector Osborned asked if Mr. Hatfield planned to have the sidewalks completed in 90 days or commence construction by 90 days. Mr. Hatfield said that construction would be commenced by i 98 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING that time. Mr. Hatfield further asked about the possibility of widening Dickson Street pursuant to his agreement with former Mayor Brown. He would like to know were the street would be located before he put in sidewalks. City Manager Grimes stated there was no record of the oral agreement between Mr. Hatfield and former Mayor Brown. D irector Lancaster stated if Mr. Hatfield developed the property with new construction, he would be responsible for bringing the road up to city codes. Mr. Hatfield stated he was planning to build townhouses and a pool, and he would like to wait until these plans were farther along, and to find out about the city's plans for the road, before he put in the new sidewalks. If the city marked off the street grades so he could tell where the street would be located, when it is widened, he would then know where to put in the new sidewalks. D irector Osborne stated if Mr. Hatfield put in a sidewalk, and the city later damaged it, the City would replace the sidewalk. He saw no problem with a 90—day postponement. Director Osborne made a motion to grant a 90—day postponement for sidewalk repair. D irector Lancaster stated he preferred to have the area marked off, where a road would be located, and then require Mr. Hatfield to build the new sidewalks. It was decided for the Street Superintendent Clayton Powell to stake out where the road would be widened so Mr. Hatfield would know where to build the sidewalks. D irector Osborne stated that the deferral would mean that on day 91 the sidewalk would have to be completed at Mr. Hatfield's expense. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 72-82 APPEARS ON PAGE M OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XIV PROPERTY CLEANUP/949 BOONE STREET Mayor Noland introduced the third and final reading of an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to have unsightly property conditions at 949 Boone Street abated. City Manager Grimes read a letter from Mr. Kenneth Murrell stating he was going raise the floor level of the house for Mr. Eoff to meet city standards. He would be unable to start until June 1. The Board decided to table the issue until the second meeting in June to give Mr. Eoff time to bring the house up to code. • • 99 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, made a motion to table to June 15. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. INTERIM CITY HALL CONSTRUCTION Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Leonard and Bill Kelly Construction far providing and installing base material for the Interim City Administration Building. Director Henry, seconded by Todd, made a motion to approve the contract Upon roll call the motion��``passed unanimously. RESOLUTIONf73-82 APPEARS ON PAGE S9 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION B OOK 2.! PARKING DECK CHANGE ORDERS Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizinng change orders in conjunction with the parking deck construction. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the change orders. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Todd and Bumpass voting in the minority. RESOLUTION 74-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 3Z✓ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK _U COMPETITIVE BIDDNG WAIVED/WATER AND SEWER Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance waiving competitive bidding requirements for the purchase of pipe and fittings for the Water and Sewer Department. Mr. Sturman Mackey, purchasing officer, stated this was n ecessary because the companies would not guarantee a bid for any e xtended length of time. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. D irector Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the ✓ ules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call t he motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for t he final time. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2811 APPEARS ON PAGE AVO OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK KU LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SELECTION/CONTRACT Mayor Noland introduced a reslution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with a landscape architect to study the Walker Park/Jefferson Park South sites and i 100 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ,development plans in an effort to preserve as many valuable trees and terrain features as possible. Mayor Noland stated the ✓ ecommendation was to accept Dr. Al Einert's proposal. Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to accept Dr. Einert's proposal. D irector Sharp stated he had talked with David Lashley, and Mr. Lashley had anticipated no problems in working with the landscape architect. Mayor Noland pointed out the timetable in the agreement. The work was to be completed by the 15th of June. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 75-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 321 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOM X1V B ID AWARDS A. Bid #487 — Sign materials for Traffic Department — Mr. Mackey pointed out that this bid was a joint venture between Gentry, Lowell, and Fayetteville on the signs. The larger quantity resulted in a better price for all parties. D irector Lancaster asked if the low bid was awarded in each category. Mr. Mackey stated the low bid on the overall purchase was awarded because the sign companies would not produce just part of them; they demanded the whole order or nothing at all. D irector Henry, seconded by Noland, moved to award the bid. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. D . Bid #486 — Vehicles for Water and Sewer, City Shop, B uildings and Grounds, and Street Department — The low bidder is Lewis Ford, and Mayor Noland, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion t o award the bid to the low bidder. D irector Todd felt the City should take into consideration energy consumption and the general feelings of people regarding t he City driving full—size pickups rather than a more economical smaller one. He objected to the purchase of the full—size ✓ ehicles. There was general board discussion about the need for the specified features on the vehicles. Mayor Noland asked if Mr. Mackey had accumulated any data concerning maintenance records on t he small trucks the City now owns. Mr. Mackey stated he had the records but had not made a synopsis of the results. He stated the small trucks do not stand up under some types of service. He stated that the small trucks would be very good for meter reading purposes. Mr. Grimes stated that the city experience with the later model one—half ton standard pickups, the gas mileage is about the same as the compact trucks. The "Luv" trucks the City now owns have about 25,000 or 30.000 miles on them, and they are junk. 101 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING The standard pickups get well over 100,000 miles before they were retired. The standard pickups get about the same gas mileage, but they last so much longer. D irector Lancaster pointed out that a small pickup could not be purchased for the price of the standard one—half ton that had been bid for this purchase. D irector Osborne asked why the City was not getting bids on diesel engines in the pickups. Mr. Mackey stated he had been advised that the dealers would not bid diesel engines in pickups. Mr. McWethy pointed out that gasoline was bid in the case of the B uilding Maintenance pickup because the City was going to convert it to propane. D irector Lancaster requested that the spec sheet that goes with a bid be attached to the Board materials to better enable them to make a decision regarding the vehicle expenses. It was decided that this should be done. There being no further discussion, upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Todd voting in the minority. C. Emergency Quote — Diesel Fuel — The recommendation is to award this to National Oil and Supply. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to award the bid. D irector Bumpass asked if there was any guideline that could be used when determining when to award a bid to a local rather than an out—of—state company when the price difference was so small. There was general board discussion on this point. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. D. Bid #473 — Re—roofing FAA Building and Old Terminal B uilding — For the terminal building, the company is Industrial, Inc., of Springdale; and on the FAA Building, the company is Franklin and San of Fayetteville. Mayor Noland, seconded by Henry, made a motion to award the low bid in each case. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. E. Quotes for Public Officials Liability Insurance — Mayor Noland stated this would be re—bid with exact specifications. TRENCHING PRICE QUOTE/TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT Mr. McWethy stated a price quote for the trenching across College Avenue and Sycamore Street an each side of College for the traffic signal was $4,400 from Fayette Tree and Trench. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time waiving the requirements for competitive bidding. Director Noland, seconded by Henry, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passedd unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for i: • 102 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING the second time. Director Noland, secondedd by Todd, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed . unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Mr. McWethy stated that the trench would be 7 inches deep, and the work on College would be done on a Sunday when the traffic volume was lowest. This part of the project would only take a day or so to complete. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2812 APPEARS ON PAGE / OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS PHONE SYSTEM City Attorney McCord stated he had received a letter from Continental Telephone Company of Arkansas stating they were going to install a new phone system for the University of Arkansas. The University needs the right granted from the City to use street right—of—way to have their cable extended to three locations. If the City grants this authority, Southwestern Bell w ill allow Continental to attach their lines to the S.W. Bell poles for a user fee. Director Lancaster asked if the City granted Dell Telephone the exclusive franchise within the City or could there be more. Mr. McCord stated the franchise was granted by state statute. The Public Service Commission allocates territories. He stated the request was asking if there was any city objection to allowing Continental putting up phone lines. He stated he would draft the agreement and include that if there were any ✓ elocation costs, Continental would have to pay that cost. He stated as he understood, there would be more lines added but no more poles. Director Todd wanted to make sure the agreement would be worded to keep any overhead lines from being installed. There was general discussion about the possible necessity of additional poles. The concensus of the Board was to make this an agenda item at the next meeting, and for the Board to be supplied with the proposed route map and related materials. REVISE LEGAL DESCRIPTION/I—PARK PROPERTY City Attorney McCord stated that the land sold to Greenwood Stores had been surveyed. and the legal description had been revised. The zoning ordinance needed to be amended to correct the legal description. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Todd. made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon ✓ oll call the motionn passed unanimously. 103 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ORDINANCE 2813 APPEARS ON PAGE 52. OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 0 CONTRACT WITH HDR FOR STEP II RESOURCE RECOVERY PROJECT City Manager Grimes stated a resolution was needed authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Henningson, Durham, and Richardson, Inc., for Step II of the implementation of the resource recovery project. D irector Todd, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 76-82 APPEARS ON PAGE d011OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 22V SIDEWALK ON EAST AVENUE City Manager Grimes stated that the sidewalk that had been approved for construction on the east side of University Avenue was going to cost more than the estimate an exceeded his $2,500 limit. The actual estimate is $3,171. D irector Todd, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the sidewalk construction. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. INDUSTRIAL PARK DIRECTORY D irector Bumpass stated that a directory was needed for Industrial Park. He would like for Mr. Grimes to get together with Mr. Dale Christy and determine what could be worked out. STREET SIGNAL/MAPLE AND LEVERETT D irector Sharp stated board approval was needed to allow the installation of the light at Maple and Leverett. D irector Henry, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the installation of the light. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. MUNICIPAL LEAGUE MEETINGS It was confirmed that the meetings were to be held in the Continuing Education Building and not the Hilton. Director Lancaster requested that a correction be put in the newspaper. MINUTES The minutes were approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:02 a.m. 7