Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-06-01 Minutesm Ni p- t 2 Q - 10 4 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, ▪ June 1, 1982, at 7:30 ,p.m., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Osborne, Sharp, Noland, Bumpass (arrived at 7:50), Henry, and Lancaster; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Attorney McCord, and City Clerk Rowe; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Director Todd. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH/MAY Mayor Noland introduced the three employees for the month of May: R. D. Arnold, Howard Beeks, and Sharon Lacey. Mayor Noland noted the comments made by the supervisors of the three employees and presented each employee with a certificate and a check. These monthly winners are eligible to compete for the Employee of the Year award. REZONING APPEAL/STRATTON PROPERTY ON HWY. 62 Mayor Noland introduced for further consideration an appeal from a decision by the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning ✓ equest for petition R82-4 (additional information is located on pages "B" and "C" of the attached agenda). Mr. Charles Hanks, attorney for Mrs. Stratton, addressed the Board and presented the directors with copies of a proposed bill of assurance Mrs. Stratton would be willing to execute ✓ estricting access onto One Mile Road. He further stated that the main objection to the development was the noise and traffic problems that might be created. Mr. Hanks pointed out that there would be no access onto One Mile Road and that the privacy fence and the buildings themselves would act as noise buffer. Mr. Andrew Ziser, representing the residents against the ✓ ezoning, addressed the Board. He stated this issue had been considered several times in the past and denied in 1980 and twice in 1982. He stated the area was recommended for less intensive ✓ se. The proposed use would be detrimental to the residential areas. There was general board discussion about the zoning surrounding the Stratton property. Director Henry, seconded by Sharp, moved to deny to the ✓ ezoning petition. • ....._b' ... ci. • 105 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING D irector Sharp asked if the petitioners would consider R -O ✓ ather than C-2 zoning. Mr. Hanks stated that his clients preferred to have the property zoning remain as it is if C-2 is n ot granted because of restrictions associated with the zoning other than C-2. Upon roll call the motion to deny the rezoning passed by a vote of 5 to O, with Director Bumpass absent at roll call. FIRE CONTRACT/CITY OF GREENLAND Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an amendment to a contract for fire protection with the City of Greenland. The new quarterly charge would be $5,683 starting June 30, 1982. Mr. Truman Yancey stated that the adjustment to the contract was within the boundaries of the formula previously agreed upon, and there were no objections to the adjustment. D irector Osborne, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed u nanimously. RESOLUTION 77-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 1JF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 1300K V RIGHT-OF-WAY CONDEMNATION/S. RAZORBACK ROAD Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the initiation of condemnation proceedings regarding the acquisition o f street right-of-way for the extension of South Razorback Road. City Manager Grimes recommended the proceedings. The property owner lives in Fort Smith and would not discuss the issue with the City. Director Bumpass pointed out that the property owner would be served with the condemnation papers which would allow for a response. Director Lancaster, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 78-82 APPEARS ON PAGE SOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION B OOK„J V HOUSING WAIVER Mayor Noland introduced a request by Community Development and the Housing Office for a waiver from the literal requirements ✓ egarding the income limits of persons receiving housing ✓ ehabilitation assistance. Mayor Noland stated this was a special case because a resident of the house lives in an iron lung, and there is a life-threatening danger associated with the leaking roof and bad electrical wiring. 106 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Director Henry pointed out that this person helps support herself through her paintings and writing. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the waiver. Upon ✓ oll tall the motion passed unanimously. DEVELOPMENT APPEAL/PARK LAKES APARTMENTS Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the P lanning Commission regarding the approval of the Large Scale Development for Park Lake Apartments. (Background information is located on page "D" of the attached agenda.) Director Lancaster stated he would abstain from this issue. Mr. Jamie Jones addressed the Board in opposition of the development. He stated the development would add to an already serious traffic problem on Zion Road. He stated that Zion was narrow with sharp curves and crests. He stated that the Traffic Superintendent, Perry Franklin, had expressed his concern over the traffic problems in that area. He further felt the Planning Commission should not approve something of this sort and create a problem, and then try to alleviate that problem. Mr. Jones f urther quoted from the code that the Board does have the right to deny a development on the basis of traffic problems. Mayor Noland asked if the possibility of a frontage road to the development had been discussed with the residents. He asked if this would alleviate the traffic problems. Mr. Jones stated that another road would help but not eliminate the traffic problems. Mayor Noland stated that the Highway Department had recently turned down the request for a traffic light at the intersection o f Highway 71 and Zion. Mr. Jones stated that the light would n ot eliminate all of the problems, but it would help Mr. Jack Ray addressed the Board against the development. He agreed with Mr. Jones about the traffic problems. Mr. Art Mueller addressed the Board in opposition of the development. Others who addressed the Board in opposition were Mr. J. C. Cole, Mrs. Marlene Ray, Mr. Bill Giese, and Mr. Rusty Jones. The major reason of opposition was the traffic problems of the area. Mr. Claud Prewitt, representing the sellers and developers o f the property, addressed the Board in favor of the development. He stated there was a traffic problem at Zion, but the extent of t he problem was a matter of opinion. He stated it was not the intention of the group to cause any hazardous problems. There was no indication in any of the studies they had received that the traffic problem was serious. The developers had prepared the property in accordance the existing codes and regulations, and they helped put in a sewer system. A portion of Zion would be widened and brought up to standards. There had been no waivers sought in conjunction with this development. If Stearns or Joyce MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Street is extended, the development had Also, the development was only going o ne—half of the density level allowable Mr. Franklin had indicated that the Zion was that of speeding. 107 agreed to give easements. to be developed to about by the zoning. He stated major traffic problem on It was confirmed that the development had about 165 feet of frontage. Director Sharp stated that when the other 30 acres of the develoment was developed, it would create approximately 1250 additional vehicles on the roads in that area if the area is only developed at one—half density. D irector Henry stated she would abstain from voting on this issue because she is a property owner on Zion. D irector Bumpass stated the real issue in this matter was that the roads in the area were inadequate to handle the traffic. He stated this was the City's, the state highway department's, and the community's problem and not the problem of the development. He stated the community should put pressure on the highway department to help alleviate the traffic problems of the area and to install a traffic signal at the intersection of Zion and Highway 71. The developers have been relying since 1970 on the R-2 zoning of the area they are developing. Mr. Prewitt stated that there were two or three possible access roads being considered for Zion and Old Missouri Road in ✓ egard to this development. He stated there was a city park in that area, which the developers were pleased with, but the park adds to the traffic problems as well. D irector Sharp asked if there was a rational t he development en Zion Road and the money spent on intersection. There was general board discussion differing opinions on the nexus issue. n exus between improving the ✓ egarding the Mr. Prewitt stated that the Planning Commission had addressed this issue but had arrived at no definite answer. Mayor Noland asked how far the south side of this development was from the Stearns Road extension. It was decided that it was less than one—half mile. D irector Bumpass stated that the major problem with the development was the traffic problem. He would like for the Board to table the issue and develop a solution to the problem before it is further increased by the development traffic. Director B umpass made a motion to table the issue and refer it to the Street Committee for them to develop a plan based on the traffic flow that would make the area better for users, pedestrians, and ✓ esidents of the area. D irector Sharp seconded and requested to amend the motion to include a request that the City Attorney work with the attorneys o f both sides and explore the cost contributions possible for access roads and/or other solutions to the traffic problems. 108 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING D irector Bumpass accepted the amendment to his motion. Mr. Prewitt stated there were time constraints that needed to be considered. Director Bumpass suggested an amendment to the motion to table for two weeks, and that the Street Committee meet, discuss, and resolve the problems before the next board meeting. City Attorney McCord stated that Director Bumpass had o utlined the issues. Under the law, the Board should refer the matter back to the Planning Commission, affirm, modify, or ✓ everse the decision. He felt it was not inappropriate to refer back to the Street Committee first to derive guidelines for the P lanning Commission. He stated that the Planning Commission had determined that this particular development did not substantially compound an existing traffic problem after hearing all evidence. The first issue for the Board to consider was whether this finding was erroneous. The second issue the Board should address is the decision the Planning Commission made that s mus} b _ar .n1 -y_ h-e---p4.rt-i-an—u��h.e—c-o-s-ts—of—af�--a_£f—side i.mprevement—that--b-e•a-r-s._-a_ r.atio.n.a.l deve-1-opme.nt..—b-ut- in this particular case, the developer should only be required to improve that portion of Zion Road that abuts t he development itself. Any additional requirements would be in e xcess of the rational nexus standard. The Board should decide if this particular finding was erroneous. Mr. Robert A. Lefler addressed the Board as a property owner immediately west of the proposed development. He stated w idening Zion might solve some of the traffic problems, and he would be willing to grant frontage easement for widening. He felt persons in his sitution should make frontage easements available at once for this purpose. Mr. Mueller stated that the developers mentioned their time ✓ estrictions, but they have had two years to figure this out, and they should not be placing a time burden on this Board to make a q uick decision. Mr. Ray asked if it would be possible to put an electronic traffic counter at some point on Zion Road to get an actual count. The Board stated this would be considered. Mr. Jones pointed out that if he had wanted to delay the issue, he could have waited before he filed the appeal. He pointed out that the additional vehicle traffic of the development would have a severe impact on the total traffic problem. D irector Osborne made a motion that the Planning Commission be advised that their findings were erroneous. D irector Bumpass stated that he felt the Street Committee should meet and discuss the whole traffic flow problem of the area; look at the existing traffic problems; and negotiate with 4 1 109 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING the developers of the complex as well as with the property owners. If the Street Committee decides on a plan that they feel would be suitable, then the Board could study the committee ✓ ecommendation. D irector Sharp stated that the City Manager had been working on this project for some time. He suggested directing the City Manager to determine right—of—way costs and work with the City Attorney rather than going through the Street Committee. He felt this might be a quicker and more efficient method. D irector Bumpass suggested that the community might be better served to re—direct funds to Zion rather than other projects. Mr. McCord stated that any developer is entitled to due process. The rules and guidelines that the developers have been working under to develop the property cannot be changed in mid—stream. The Board should consider this when making a decision on this issue to avoid denial of due process. Mayor Noland stated the Board needed to deal with the rational nexus issue. He felt this was what the Street Committee would have to deal with as well. There was general board discussion about what the Board should consider and what the City Attorney and Street Committee should determine. City Manager Grimes stated there was no way to o btain the rights—of—way from all of these properties on Zion by the next board meeting. He requested further board direction. D irector Bumpass stated that the whole picture including the affects on the economy on the area needed to be viewed. Mr. Prewitt stated the two week delay would be no real problem. and the developers would be willing to make a contribution to solving the problem, but the contribution would n eed to be a proportionate share of the cost. There was discussion about how the 100 unit apartment complex would add to the traffic problems. Mr. Jack Ray asked if Mr. Bill Storey was legal advisor for some part of the development. Mr. Prewitt stated that he was not. Mr. Ray stated that Mr. Storey and City Attorney McCord were law partners. Mr. McCord stated that Mr. Storey does not represent clients before the City Board. Mayor Noland stated the original motion to refer to the Street Committee needed to be voted on. The amendments to the original motion were withdrawn. There being no further discussion, upon rollcall the motion passed unanimously, with D irectors Henry and Lancaster abstaining. PHONE LINES/U OF A 1 110 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with the University of Arkansas for the use of street right-of-way to extend telephone cables between the main campus and the Experimental Farm, the Continuing Education Center, and the Engineering South Complex. (Additional information is on page "E" of the attached agenda.) Mr. Jim Bowles, of Continental Telephone Company, addressed t he Board in favor of the resolution. The U of A awarded a contract to Continental for a phone system. The purpose of the ✓ esolution tonight was to approve the providing of a place to install the cable. He stated they were just asking for ✓ ight-of-way permission. Southwestern. Bell had denied access to the poles because they did not feel they had the authority to grant the permission. Mr. Bowles stated if the City granted permission, then S.W. Bell would in turn grant permission. He stated there would not be any more poles installed. Director Lancaster asked what the company would do if there were no poles along the designated route. Mr. Bowles stated there were poles along the route they planned to use. The route to the University Farm would be on Garland. He stated there was a point on the square that did not have a pole, but an arrangement was to be made with SWEPCO to use their underground conduit. Director Lancaster asked if a contract contingent upon the City granting authority could be worked out with SWEPCO and S. W. Bell. Mr. Bowles stated he did not know, they were hoping to get the right-of-way first and then go to the companies. City Attorney McCord stated he understood the request was for the right to use air space above existing street right-of-way w ithin the City. The City does have the right to lease air space. A resolution granting this right according to the law has t o be on file for one week before final action on the resolution to approve the agreement can be taken. The purpose of this meeting is to consider the proposal of Continental and the University to determine if the proposal should be approved in general form and determine what conditions, if any, should be incorporated into the agreement. He felt that S. W. Bell may have more vigorous opposition than Continental previously indicated, but the opposition would surface, if it in fact e xists. Mr. Skip Holland, the S. W. Bell representative, addressed the Board. He stated that S. W. Bell did not realize t he impact of this request on both S. W. Bell and the City of Fayetteville. He stated S. W. Bell has a franchise that was granted by the state to provide telephone service in Arkansas. They operate on public rights-of-way in Fayetteville by virtue of an ordinance granted by the City for which they pay an annual fee. 111 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING City Attorney McCord stated that this was not the position S. W. Bell took in the Supreme Court. It was decided that this should be noted in the record. Mr. Holland further stated that the Public Service Commission regulates S. W. Dell and appoints S. W. Bell as, the operating telephone entity for exchange service. in Fayetteville by means of granting a CCN (certificate of convenience and necessity). It is the apparent trespass of this certificate that has caused him to come before this Board and ask for a two week postponement of the decision of this issue to allow time for further research into the matter. D irector Henry, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to table the issue for two weeks. City Attorney McCord requested that S. W. Dell share with the City Board and himself the results of their legal research prior to the meeting to allow for reviewal. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, with Director B umpass absent at roll call. FORMER MAYOR PURDY/NUCLEAR FREEZE RESOLUTION Former Mayor Russell Purdy addressed the Board regarding the n uclear freeze resolution adopted by the Board and the editorial ✓ egarding the resolution that appeared in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE. Mr. Purdy stated that he did not agree with the resolution because he felt it had the potential to encourage the Russians and embarrass the home negotiators. He felt more time should have been devoted to considering the merits of this issue before passing the resolution. He felt the GAZETTE editorial only selected highly partisan sections of the resolution that they could use to their advantage and stated their interpretations were the recommendations of Fayetteville. He would like to have t he resolution rescinded and start over, but he knew this would n ot be possible. He requested the Board take action in response to the GAZETTE editorial. He stated the resolution should be printed as it was passed. D irector Sharp, seconded by Osborne. made a motion to send t he resolution along with a letter from the Mayor to the GAZETTE. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. with Director B umpass absent at roll call. B ID AWARDS Mayor Noland introduced the bid awards. Director Osborne. seconded by Henry, made a motion to award the four bids to the lowest bidders: A. Hydrated lime for a six—month period for the Pollution Control Plant; B. Polymers for the Pollution Control P lant; C. Bid #488 for traffic signal equipment; and D. #488A for Fire Department radios. i 112 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, with Director B umpass absent at roll call. There was general board discussion regarding the specifications for Bid #492 for a Parks Department vehicle. It was generally decided to eliminate some specific details from the specifications to allow a dealer to bid a more general vehicle at possibly a better price than one that would be required to meet all of the specific specifications. It was generally decided to bid an AM radio as an optional based on the Purchasing Officer's ✓ ecommendation that a radio increases the resale value. PARKING AGREEMENT/UNIVERSITY PARTNERS, LTD. Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a parking management contract with University Partners, Ltd., for operation of the parking lot at t he northwest corner of East Avenue andd Meadow Street. City Attorney McCord stated that University Partners was not associated with the University of Arkansas. They are the group that ownes and operates the Hilton and operates the valet lot. The contract provides for a lump sum and for the facilities to be available to the general public and not limited or reserved for hotel patrons. The hotel developers cannot lease the lot without jeapordizing the tourism revenue bonds issued to finance the hotel. Rather than hourly rates, the City Manager is ✓ ecommending a gate entry fee of $1.50 per vehicle. The annual lump sum would be $10,800. Mr. McCord stated the contract had been drafted based on IRS rules and regulations. He stated the City would be receiving $1.50 per vehicle as registered on the counter on the lot, and the City would pay the parking company t he specified lump sum set out in the contract. If the actual u sage is more than estimated, the result would be more revenue to the City and no more to the hotel developers because of the lump sum contract. If the City does not realize $1,500 per month, the City can cancel the contract and operate the lot itself as a n on—valet lot. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to award the contract. It was confirmed that the lot will still be valet parking only. Of the $1.50 fee, $1.00 will go toward the vehicle fee and $.50 will be the cost of the valet service. Director Lancaster expressed his concern that the hotel would take guest cars to the general lot to avoid paying the fee to the City. City Manager Grimes stated he did not feel the lot o perators would do this because of the liability involved. In addition, the hotel wanted to have a valet lot at their disposal. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 1, with Director B umpass abstaining. RESOLUTION 79-82 APPEARS ON PAGE *0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK f\f 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING VEHICLE FACILITIES/AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION 113 Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the City Manager that Fayetteville participate in an American Public Works Association project on "Design Criteria for Vehicle Facilities." Mayor Noland asked if the information this research group has provided in the past had been adequate and beneficial to the City. City Manager Grimes stated that the final report had not yet been received, but the $2,000 cost of this project would be ✓ ecovered very quickly when the City begins its major revisions t o the Shop in the next couple of years. In addition, this ✓ esearch is done by municipalities that have a common need and t he overall expense is shared by the group. Mayor Noland, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to participate in the research endeavor. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 80-82 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK, JV GENERAL LAND USE PLAN Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing an agreement with the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planinng Commission for an update of the 1970 General Land Use Plan. Mr. Grimes stated the City Planning Commission was in favor o f this agreement. Mr. Larry Wood had informed him that there were funds available through August, so the City would not be billed until the end of August. The Regional Planning Commission is familiar with City planning because they have been working w ith them as consultants on a continuing basis for several years. D irector Bumpass, seconded by Noland, made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Jim Vizzier addressed the Board regarding the long—range planning for the City. He was not against the General Use Plan with the Regional Planning Commission, but he felt the work was sort of patch—work which was creating some of the present zoning conflicts, etc. He has a proposal that he would like to submit to the City. D irector Henry felt that it would be beneficial for the B oard to view Mr. Vizzier's recommendations before making a final decision. Mayor Noland stated that perhaps the contract should be authorized at this point to utilize the HUD funding, but look at the overall picture as well. Mr. Vizzier stated that the Planning Commission and other alternatives would not be mutually exclusive. 114 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Mayor Noland pointed out that the present contract has a clause to allow termination of the contract with two—month's prior notice. Director Osborne made a motion to table the issue to allow time for Mr. Vizzier to submit a proposal and time for further consideration of the Planning Commission proposals. Mr. Grimes suggested submitting the proposal to the city P lanning Commission before it was presented to the Board to make sure the plan and the city Planning Commission are working in the same direction. Director Lancaster felt everything pertaining to planning should go to the city Planning Commission first and then t o the full Board. Director Osborne modified his motion to include that the proposal go through the Planning Commission before it comes to the Board at the next meeting. Mr. Grimes stated that the total cost of the project was approximately $20,000 for two years. and 310.000 had been budgeted this year. Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that: (1) the present P lanning Commission consists of three members who have served a very small amount of time and do not have the historal perspective on planning that the Board does; (2) it was very important that the advisor to the Planning Commission be the person that worked on the general plan in order that the person ✓ esponsible for the planning may defend the reasoning behind the planning decisions; (3) He felt it could be a mistake to have any individual person prepare the plan due to the biases and ✓ iewpoints that could not totally be eliminated. Mr. Vizzier responded that the public versus private planning had become unbalanced. Public planners are for ✓ ecurring jobs and private planners are for non—recurring jobs and special projects. He stated that planners work with the committees, and it is good to get an outside view. He felt the P lanning Commission did not fully understand the job. He stated t he 1970 plan was based on 1960 data, and was actually outdated before it was completed. He felt the Planning Commission was asking for guidelines. Director Osborne withdrew the two weeks time limit on his motion. He stated the item should be tabled until after it has gone through the Planning Commission. Director Sharp seconded the motion. Mr. McWethy stated he agreed with Mr. Vizzier's comments. If the Regional Planning Commission does not truly understand the general plan on all levels, the reason confirms his paint because t he commission staff members were not the ones who developed the o riginal plan, which could make it more difficult to understand or defend the plan. Understanding the plan. 115 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING D irector Sharp stated he would like for Mr. Vizzier to give - S his presentation to the Planning Commission and then a ;' recommendation be brought to the Board. Upon roll call the motion to table passed unanimously. t City Manager Grimes stated he felt the planning process worked better in Fayetteville, Arkansas than with any community he had been associated with. Director Lancaster felt the problems that occurred were primarily not with the plans themselves, rather with the developers not complying with the plan. SIDEWALK POSTPONEMENT/CAMPBELL SOUP Mayor Noland introduced a request by Director Lancaster that the Board reconsider a previous denial of a request by Campbell Soup for a postponement of the requirement to install a sidewalk along Fifteenth Street. He stated Campbell Soup was requesting to give the City a bill of assurance that the project would be completed when the CD sidewalk was complete. D irector Lancaster stated the sidewalk was to be completed at the call of the City and not based on the completion of the CD sidewalk. Director Lancaster made a motion in this regard which was seconded by Osborne. The Campbell Soup representative stated the need for this postponement was because the wastewater treatment plant was ready but could not be put on-line without this postponement or the completion of the sidewalk. D irector Bumpass stated that the requirement of Campbell Soup to build a sidewalk would not be connected in any way to the CD sidewalks. This was confirmed by general Board discussion. D irector Sharp asked if an amendment would be accepted to state that the bill of assurance should be for a maximum of 18 months or the call of the City whichever was sooner. The amendment was accepted. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously APPOINTMENT TO THE N.W. ARKANSAS SOLID WASTE AUTHORITY Mayor Noland introduced the appointment (or reappointment) of a director to serve on the Northwest Arkansas Solid Waste Authority for a term to expire April 1986. Mayor Noland, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to reappoint Director Henry. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 1 with Director Henry abstaining LETTER TO RETIRING HAROLD LIEBERENZ - 116 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Mayor Noland introduced the letter of resignation from Inspector Harold Lieberenz. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion for the Board to acknowledge the retirement and e xpress their appreciation of Mr. Lieberenz's work for the City. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 82-82 APPEARS ON PAGE410.5F ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOKX!V 1983 REPORT TO THE PEOPLE Mayor Noland stated that if the directors had suggestions, please give them to Mr. McWethy as soon as possible. APPLEBY ROAD BRIDGE/HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT Mayor Noland introduced the request for a $2,500 expenditure for the City's share in the cost of reconstructing the bridge on Appleby Road. City Manager Grimes stated that the bridge would have to be ✓ eplaced regardless of the outcome of the proposed improvement district for that area. D irector Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the request. Upon roll call the motion passed u nanimously. RESOLUTION 81-82 APPEARS ON PAGE OAF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOKxf V PUBLIC TRANSIT LETTER TO TERMINATE SERVICE Mayor Noland introduced the letter from the Public Transit Board notifying the City of their intent to terminate service an June 30, 1982. He suggested the City send them a letter of appreciation for the service they provided the City. D irector Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion that the Mayor, on behalf of the Board, send a letter of appreciation to Public Transit Board. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. POLICE DEPARTMENT Mayor Noland stated there was a letter fromm the Law Enforcement Standards and Training Commission regardng the superior rating of the Police Department, and he wanted to e xpress the Board appreciation to the Chief and Police Department for their work. E—Z MART SIDEWALKS City Manager Grimes stated that at the location of the E—Z 117 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Mart an Highway 62, the Highway Department was constructing an 8—foot paved shoulder, and to require the store to build an additional 5—feet of sidewalk would make 13—feet of sidewalks and would be wasteful. The Street Superintendent was recommending a waiver of the sidewalks at this location and the other sites along this road with the same circumstances. D irector Osborne suggested a postponement rather than a waiver until the call of the City because the sidewalks may someday be needed. D irector Bumpass asked if the stores could be required to pay a contribution to the sidewalk fund or be required to build sidewalks at another location in lieu of sidewalks at their own locations. City Attorney McCord stated he was unsure of the City's authority to enforce this type of contribution.. D irector Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to refer the item to the Street Committee for consideraion of the alternatives. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. B ID LETTINGS/RAZORBACK RD. AND NORTH AND GREGG STREETS City Manager Grimes stated that the bid letting for Razorback Road would be January of 7.983. The letting of North and Gregg would be in March of 1983. OLD KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN LOCATION ON NORTH COLLEGE City Manager Grimes stated that the owners of the property could not be located. The certified mail was returned. An ordinance was needed to allow the City to clean up the property. City Attorney McCord stated that a court order was needed to authorize the City to clean up the property and require the property owner to repay the City or raise and remove the damaged structure. In the event that the property owner fails to do so, the court order authorizes the City to secure the premises and clean up the property. He stated that the court order could be delivered by affadavit. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. D irector Osborne, seconded by Noland, 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 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 the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2814 APPEARS ON PAGEWUOF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X// MR. RAY'S COMMENTS REGARDING CITY ATTORNEY MCCORD t i 118 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Director Bumpass requested that the record reflect that the comment regarding the partnership between Mr. Storey and Mr. McCord should be given no consideration and was totally irrelevant to the discussion. He felt the remarks Mr. Jack Ray made were totally out of context. City Attorney McCord stated he appreciated Director Bumpass' comments. There has always been an understanding between himself and Mr. Storey that Mr. Storey would not represent a client before the Board. Director Osborne commented regarding his confidence in Mr. McCord. COMMITTEE MEETINGS Director Sharp stated he felt the meetings that involve public participation should be held in the evenings to make it more convenient for the public. The Street Committee meeting would be Tuesday, June 8, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES The minutes were approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m.