Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-07-06 Minutest MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, July 6, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of D irectors Room, City Administration building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Sharp, Noland, Bumpass, Henry, Lancaster, Todd, and Osborne; 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. EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH Mayor Noland introduced the three employees of the month for the month of June and awarded each with a certificate and a $150 check. Mayor Noland noted the comments made by the supervisors of Bob Braswell, Sandra Carlisle, and Robert McChristian and expressed appreciation o f the good jobs these people were performing. REZONING APPEAL—BASSETT—EAST OF N. COLLEGE AVENUE Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the P lanning Commmission regarding rezoning petition R82-7 consisting of 3.63 acres east of North College Avenue, between Rebecca and Davidson Streets. The rezoning was ✓ ecommended for denial by the Planning Commission by a vote o f 8 to 0. (Additional information is located on page "B" o f the attached agenda.) Mr. F. H. Martin, representing Mr. Bassett, addressed the Board requesting a reversal of the Planning Commission decision. He stated his client would be willing to execute a Bill of Assurance that no further improvements would be done and that the land would be used exclusively for a parking lot. In addition, the amount of property to be rezoned could be reduced from the 3.63 acres originally ✓ equested.. Only the west side of the parcel needed to be ✓ ezoned for the proposed usage. The greenery on the property would not be destroyed even if the rezoning is denied. There was general discussion about tabling this issue to allow for a landscape proposal, to be prepared and submitted. Director Henry asked if the offer by Mr. Martin to prepare a landscape proposal had been made to the Planning 139 , 1 1 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Commission. Mr. Martin replied that it had, but the Planning Commission had refused the offer. After general discussion on procedures, Mr. McCord stated that the Board had the authority to refer the question back to the'Planning Commission, pass an ordinance as originally requested by the petitioner, pass an ordinance for less acreage than originally requested, or affirm the P lanning Commission's denial. D irector Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table and refer the issue back to the Planning Commission. Mr. McCord stated the legal description, proposed bill of assurance, and landscape plan should be presented to the P lanning Commisionn. D irector Todd stated he felt there would be no substantial changes in the proposed changes as compared to the current appeal. D irector Sharp stated he felt there were three problems for the Planning Commission to consider: (1) transition zoning in the area, (2) intrusion into single family zoning, and (3) access problems associated with a parking lot at t his site. Mr. Ashworth addressed the Board and stated that the same things that the Board had discussed had already been brought up at the Planning Commission meeting and had not affected their decision. Upon roll call the motion to table failed by a vote of 2 to 5. with Directors Bumpass and Osborne voting for the issue. Mr. Martin stated that the requested zoning would be the least significant change possible that would permit parking. Mr. Ashworth expressed his reasons for not wanting the ✓ ezoning granted. His primary reasons were the increased t raffic and trash problems associated with the private club. D irector Bumpass made a motion to deny the appeal because he felt the rezoning would further intrude in the ✓ esidential area, and the historical district of the area should be protected. Director Todd seconded the motion. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance to authorize ✓ ezoning for the first time. Director Osborne. seconded by Todd, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the o rdinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Todd, seconded by Henry, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final readinng. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the 140 t i MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ordinance for thee final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance failed to pass by a unanimous vote. D irector Osborne stated that he felt the issue had not been adequately researched, and Mr. Bassett had not been allowed to offer alternatives. OVERCREST CLOSING Mayor Noland introduced a request that Overcrest Street be barricaded and made into a dead—end street. (Background information is located on page "E" of the attached agenda.) City Manager Grimes stated there were petitioners on both sides of the issue, but he felt closino the street could be hazardous to public safety. Fire trucks and police would have to go around different routes rather than using Overcrest as it is currently used. City Attorney McCord stated that the City Board did have the authority to close the street if the closing would n ot create a hardship on property owners. The City could be held liable for damages if there was a hardship due to the closing. D irector Sharp stated that this was not a ✓ ecommendation of the street Commitee. Dr. Monroe Harrison addressed the Board. He stated at the street committee meeting there had been several alternatives discussed for Overcrest with one being closing the road. He understood from the meeting that to close the ✓ oad, 75% of the residents must sign a petition in favor of the closing. D irector Sharp stated that the 75% was no set rule; rather it was just a guideline. D irector Bumpass asked what the city liability would be in regard to the speed breakers if they were installed. He also asked if the City had the authority to install them. In addition, several people had contacted him about not wanting the street closed. Mr. McCord stated the City apparently had the authority, but he would research the liability question. A member of the audience stated the road was being used as a thru street, and it is a residential street, and it was n ot intended to be a thru street. Mr. Jerry Hardin, representing opposing citizens on Overcrest, addressed the Board against the street closing. He stated there was a traffic problem, but there were alternatives to closing the road. He suggested reducing the speed limits and increased police patrols. He said increased patrolling had been affective on Mission, and he 141 1 i MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING felt it would be on Dvercrest as well. He felt Mr. McCard's legal opinion should make the issue clear because closing the road would create a hardship. Mr. McCord further explained that the Board has the authority to close the street if it is not needed for corporate purposes and does not create a hardship.. Another member of the audience stated that by closing the road, sanitation and other large trucks would not be able to turn around, etc., or be able to serve the area as they should. He suggested slowing down the traffic to solve the problem. After general discussion, Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, made a motion to table and for Mr. McCord to ✓ esearch the city authority to close the road and the possible city liability involved with speed breakers. Also, the City Manager should discuss with the Police Chief a traffic safety program for the area. Upon roll call the motion to table passed 4 to 3, with Directors Lancaster, Todd, and Osborne voting in the minority. APPLEBY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Mayor Noland introduced the third and final reading of an ordinance establishing an improvement district to pave Appleby Road. (Background information is located on pages "D" and "E" of the attached agenda. ) Mr. Jack Butt, attorney for the proponents of the district, addressed the Board. He statad the road needed to be paved, and without the improvement district funding, it would not be feasible in the near future. He stated the boundaries were adequate. The boundary lines on any district were always questionable, but they had to be drawn somewhere. In addition, Wade Bishop should be allowed to be a commissioner of the district. Mr. Bishop wants the road paved, and it will take someone strongly in favor of the project to work toward accomplishing the improvement district. He stated the assessments were subject to Board approval which should alleviate any possible inequity problems. Director Osborne stated that he had not suggested a ✓ emoval of Mr. Bishop because he was not yet a commissioner. He had suggested not appointing him because if he were not a commissioner, then opposition to the district might be lessened. Mr. John Lisle, attorney for those opposing the district, addressed the Board. He stated that the people w ould be bearing the cost of the improvement, and only Mr. Bishop would be passing the cost on to the purchasers of his property. He stated the district lines could have been 142 i MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING drawn to better equalize the benefits. If the district is denied, then the boundary lines could be re—drawn. He felt the potential "wrongs" could not cured through the assessment process because only people in the district could be assessed and not those outside the district. D irector Osborne made a motion to amend the ordinance to appoint Mr. R. L. Younkin instead of Mr. Paul Martin as a commissioner. Director Todd seconded the motion. Mr. Bishop stated that Mr. Younkin was a good friend of his, but he was not a proponent of the district. He felt the district needed three proponents of the district as commissioners that can work together to get the project completed. Upon roll call the amendment passed by a vote of 4 to 1 to 2, with Director Bumpass voting against, and Directors Sharp and Lancaster abstaining. D irector Bumpass stated that he did not feel the boundaries were arbitrary and capricious, but he did feel there were some properties not included in the district that would be benefitted by the paving of the road. There was general board discussion about there being some properties that would be benefitting that were not included in the district. Upon roll call the ordinance to form the district failed by a vote of 2 to 3 to 2, wth Directors Noland, Henry, and Bumpass voting against, and Directors Lancaster and Sharp abstaining. Mr. Bishop addressed the Board and expressed his ✓ egrets that the Board had failed to follow the legal advice o f Mr. McCord. He stated that hardships had been created for all members of the district, and this issue would have to be litigated by the court. D irector Bumpass stated the federal assistance for the construction of the bridge would help Appleby Road. He would personally be in favor of committing city funds at some future date toward improving the road. Mr. McCord stated that the finding of the Board should be made in the form of an ordinance expressing the reasons why the district was denied. He read the ordinance for the first time. Upon roll call the ordinance failed to be moved to second reading. PROPERTY FIX—UP/987 S. WASHINGTON Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to have the unsafe structure located at 987 S. Washington Avenue repaired or demolished at the owners' e xpense. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. 143 i 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING The resident next door to this property addressed the B oard in favor of the demolition. She stated that the house was a hazard because it was so close to her house in addition to the loitering problems associated with the vacant building. She had talked with the owners of the property, and the they had indicated to her that the City could not do anything to force them to clean the property. David Swinson, property owner to the north of this property, stated that the house could not be repaired because it was in such bad shape. He stated it had been years since anyone had lived in the house. City Manager Grimes stated the house could not legally be repaired under the ordinance. Director Henry, seconded by Todd, made a motion to amend the ordinance by deleting the repair provision. Upon roll call the amendment passed unanimously. Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the amended ordinance on second ✓ eading. Upon roll call call the motion passed 6 to i, with D irector Bumpass voting in the minority, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Noland, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final ✓ eading. Upon roll, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1, w ith Director Bumpass voting in the minority, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney stated he intended to get a court order immediately and proceed with this matter. ORDINANCE 2820 APPEARS ON PAGE Z OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XII( EASEMENT ABANDONMENT/MEXICAN ORIGINAL Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance abandoning an vacating a sewer easement in the Eastgate Shopping Center f or the property owned by Mexican Original. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Noland, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second ✓ eading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimousy, and t he City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. D irector Osborne, 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 the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2821 APPEARS ON PAGE _0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK kf tJ 144 s MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING TELEPHONE RIGHT—OF—WAY/CONTINENTAL TELEPHONE CO. Mayor Noland introduced the further consideration of a ✓ equest by the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas for a resolution authorizing the non—exclusive use o f air rights above street rights—of—way for the installation and maintenance of telephone cable. Mr. Skip Holland of Bell Telephone addressed the B oard. He stated it was the City right to decide if more poles could be installed, but not the issue at hand. Dell Telephone does not intend to let private parties attach to their poles, but the City could still grant air rights. There was general Board discussion about the request for air rights and the issue the Board should be addressing. D irector Lancaster asked if the lines would be on private or public property because the City could not regulate if poles were installed on private property. After general discussion, Director Lancaster suggested that the two companies, Bell Telephone and Continental Telephone, work out the situation themselves and then come t o the Board for final approval of their plan. Director B umpass, seconded by Noland, made a motion to table until B ell and Continental reach a decision. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Sharp and Henry voting in the minority. STREETLIGHT REHEARING Mayor Noland introduced a request by Director Henry that the Board reconsider the installation of a streetlight n ear 908 Shrewsbury. D irector Henry stated that Mr. John Hehr had been unable to attend the previous meeting, and he had requested this rehearing. Director Henry, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to not install the light. Mr. Hehr stated that there were 5 residents that this light would affect. When the letters containing the information were mailed out, two of the residents were out o f town, one did not receive the letter, and one person is o nly a temporary resident. The residents do not want the light. D irector Todd stated that the wishes of the people in the area should be respected, and there was no special public benefit of a light in this particular area. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. S IDEWALK WAIVER FOR "NORTHWEST CENTER" Mayor Noland introduced a request for a waiver from the literal provisions of the Master Sidewalk Plan ordinance for 145 i 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING "Northwest Center" located near the intersection of Highway 71 North and Stearns Road. This particular request is not specifically for a waiver, rather a request to place the sidewalk along the south side of the property and angle it toward the intersection. This is the area where the sidewalk would get the most use. City Attorney McCord read an ordinance amending the Master Sidewalk Plan Map for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the ✓ ules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney ✓ ead the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to further suspend the ✓ ules 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 2822 APPEARS ON PAGE /3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK .II HAPPY HOLLOW SIDEWALK Mayor Noland introduced an award of a bid for the installation of sidewalks along the west side of Happy Hollow Road, from Fourth Street to East Huntsville Street. Director Henry, seconded by Noland, made a motion to award to the low bidder, Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc., for $40,833.35. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 2, with Directors Bumpass and Todd voting in the minority. RESOLUTION 83-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 4tO' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK %/V FRANCHISE FEE/WARNER CABLE Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance clarifying the franchise tax payable to the City by Warner—AMEX Cable Corporation. There was general Board discussion about the ✓ ffects of this tax. City Attorney McCord stated that this would not result in a tax increase because this was only formalizing a fee that was already being paid by the cable company due to previous Federal Communications Commission ✓ ulings. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, 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 Henry, 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. 146 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING ORDINANCE 2823 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XU1 S IDEWALK INSTALLATIONS Mayor Noland introduced a request by Director Osborne for consideration of an ordinance authorizing a property owner to execute a Bill of Assurances to guarantee the installation of a required sidewalk. (Additional information is located on pages "E" and "F" of the attached agenda. ) Director Osborne stated his reasoning for this request was to eliminate the need for detailed Board reviewal of e ach instance as is currently done. The Board would be n otified of each Bill of Assurance granted and would have the right to accept it or require the sidewalk. Also, there would be no waivers of sidewalks, but a requirement for them at the call of the City. Director Sharp stated this was a positive spin—off of the Street Commitee. There was general discussion about the need and practicality of an ordinance of this type. The decision was that the ordinance was premature and should be reconsidered in about six months City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 1, with Director Todd voting in the minority and with Director Bumpass absent at ✓ oll call. The ordinance was left at this point and was tabled for six months. S IDEWALK AMENDMENT Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the master sidewalk Plan to include a sidewalk along the west side of Industrial Drive. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second ✓ eading. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with D irector Bumpass absent at roll call, and the City Attorney ✓ ead the ordinance for the second time. Director Henry, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to further suspend the ✓ ules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0, with Director Bumpass at roll call, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed 6 to O, with Director Bumpass absent at roll call. ORDINANCE 2824 APEARS ON PAGE AA OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK !i 147 t 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING CREEK CHANNELIZATION Mayor Noland introduced consideration of a petition ✓ equesting City assistance in dredging, brush clearance. and ✓ emoval of obstructions on town branch between 15th and D uncan. Mrs. Wanda Peterson of 1325 Ellis presented the Board w ith a petition of the residents desiring creek channelization. Mrs. Peterson told the Board of the damage that had occurred as a result of flooding during the recent storm. The 15th Street bridge is filled with silt which is making the flooding problems worse. She confirmed the fact that most of the area is on private property. D irector Osborne stated that the City does not have the authority to go onto private property and do anything of this nature. Mayor Noland asked if the City could talk with the H ighway Department about cleaning out the 15th Street bridge area. Mr. Grimes stated this could be done. In addition, the City periodically checks city culverts and cleans them o f debris. After general discussion of the problem, Director Sharp suggested possibly a drainage improvement district for the ✓ esidents. The Board decided for Mr. McCord to supply Mrs. P eterson with the information regarding this type of improvement district for the residents' consideration. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE Mayor Noland introduced the consideration of a proposal by James Vizzier, Consulting Planner, for updating the Fayetteville General Plan. Mr. Vizzier addressed the Board. He felt the Planning Commission was getting swamped in their decision making process and needed some guidelines to follow. D irector Sharp stated that the Planning Commission had n ot really given a recommendation at their meeting regarding this issue, and he felt the Board needed more input from the P lanning Commission. D irector Todd felt there were no problems at this time and did not see any changes that needed to be made. Mr. Vizzier stated the plans currently being used were o ld, had not been fully completed or did not contain enough detail for long range planning, and the Planning Commission was not sure about the policies that should be followed. D irector Lancaster asked if the Planning Commission had asked for assistance. Mr. Vizzier felt they wanted assistance. 148 ti MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING D irector Todd felt the Planning Commission was working more effectively now than it ever had. There was general discussion about this project. The Mayor decided to talk with the Planning Commission Chairman, Ernie Jacks, and get his ideas on this matter. If the P lanning Commission felt the assistance was needed, then a committee could be established to work on this. Mayor Noland stated Mr. Vizzier had several good points. and after meeting with Mr. Jacks and the Planning Commission, the Board would take action on this. REZONE/STEARNS ROAD Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in rezoning petition R82-9 consisting of 8.18 acres on the north side of Stearns Road approximately 300 feet east of Frontage Road. (Additional information is located on pages "F" and "G" of the attached agenda.) City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Henry. made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. U pon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Henry, seconded by Bumpass2 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. D irector Bumpass asked if the property was developed, what would be the requirements of the developers in conjunction with Stearns Road. Mr. McCord stated that under the ordinance, the developer would be required to bear a portion of the costs. D irector Lancaster asked about the required procedure to request the Planning Commission to update the general plan and include Stearns Road. Mr. Grimes stated that the B oard could do this by a general request to the Planning Commission. D irector Todd felt this area should be included in the master plan. Director Henry stated that the City was letting the developers rule the development of the City rather than the other way around. Mr. McCord stated that the ordinance requires a developer to bear that portion of an off-site improvement which bears a rational nexus to the need created by the development. The developer is required to bear one-half of the cost for the road improvement. There was general discussion about whether or not the property abutted Stearns Road. Director Todd, seconded by B umpass, made a motion to amend the ordinance to rezone the 149 1 1 i MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING property to the north side of Stearns Road regardless of who owns the property. Upon roll call the amendment passed unanimously. D irector Bumpass made a motion to refer the question of whether or not there can be a street planned on the east side of this property north of Zion Road that could be added to the Master Street Plan before a decision is made on the ✓ ezoning. He felt if this was done, it might eliminate future zoning problems. City Attorney McCord stated that the issue could be ✓ eferred to the Planning Commission for them to hold a public hearing on amending the Master Street Plan, or the B oard could pass an ordinance amending the Master Street P lan indicating that a road is needed in the general area between Zion and Stearns. This can be done at this time, or it could be taken through the public hearing procedure. He saw no problems associated with amending the street plan to include a street after the property is rezoned. D irector Osborne stated the zoning and whether or not a street was going in was not related. Director Bumpass stated he was trying to avoid any possible problem of a developer not having notice of a proposed street or any o ther related conflicts. Mr. Grimes suggested that he be instructed to write a letter to the Planning Commission pointing out the needs for additional access street off of Zion Road to the south between Highway 71 and Old Missouri Road. He stated there was a water main that required a substantial easement, and pointed out the possibility of a street paralleling that easement. The City could rough in a street, and when development was begun, the road would have to be brought up to standard by the developer. The Board agreed with Mr. Grimes' recommendation and instructed him to write the letter to the Planning Commission. Upon roll call the ordinance to rezone passsed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2825 APPEARS ON PAGE 4 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK YI[( L IABILITY INSURANCE Mayor Noland introduced the award of a bid for public liability insurance to Markel Service, Inc., for an annual premium of $13,916.00. Markel was the low bidder. D irector Bumpass, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the bid. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 150 1 t MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING PROPERTY INSURANCE Mayor Noland introduced the award of a bid for property insuance to McCartney—Faucette for the boiler and machinery coverage. The building and contents, and glass coverage low bidder was McNair & Associates. Dr. Bob Hall recommended self—insuring for the $1,000 deductible for glass coverage because of the large premium increase associated with a lower deductible. D irector Todd, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the above bidders. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. AUTO INSURANCE Mayor Noland introduced the bid for auto insurance for city vehicles. The low bidder is Renner and Company. D irector Todd, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the bid. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. B ID AWARDS Mayor Noland introduced the bid awards for (1) Parks Department Vehicle, (2) lease of city—owned house at 2105 P ump Station Road, (3) re—roofing the Flight Service Station at Drake Field, and (4) retroactive approval of 12,000 gallons of on—the—road diesel fuel. D irector Bumpass asked why the a.m. Radio was included in the vehicle. Mr. Sturman Mackey, Purchasing Officer, stated that the radio increased the resale value. D irector Osborne, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve all bids. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. JOINT SEALS/AIRPORT Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the Board Airport Committee regarding a proposed solution to the problem with the joint sealer on the new terminal apron at Drake Field. D irector Lancaster recommended correcting the seams as n ecessary and instructing the City Attorney to try and ✓ ecover damages due to the malfunction of the joint sealer presently installed. Mr. McCord stated the sealer had to be replaced before the FAA would approve the project. D irector Osborne suggested fixing the problem, and then have an independent study conducted to determine the reason 151 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING for the failure of the present sealer. At that time a decision could be made if a lawsuit should be filed and against whom. There was general discussion on this point. Mr. McClelland stated it would be difficult to determine the cause of the sealer failure. The removal of the sealer was a specialized technique and requires a specialist. The lab that will conduct the study could be instructed to witness the removal to determine if the removing technique altered the sealer in any way that would prevent an accurate analysis. D irector Osborne. seconded by Noland, made a motion to have the sealer removed and replaced and have an independent study conducted. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. ENGINEERING AMENDMENT -AIRPORT NOISE & LAND COMPATABILITY Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute an amendment to an agreement for engineering services with McClelland Consulting Engineers to revise the original scope of work by including an Airport Noise Control and Land Use Capability Study. This was recommended by the Airport Committee. Mr. McClelland stated that a portion of this was reimbursable through the FAA, but the actual percentages have not yet been released. It is anticipated to be a 90-10 project. The approval of the contract is contingent upon FAA financing. D irector Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 84-82 APPEARS ON PAGE '9008 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X✓ LANDING FEES Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance establishing landing fees at Drake Field for aircraft engaging in air transportation and not having a lease arrangement for providing air service at Drake Field. D irector Lancaster made a motion to approve the ordinance and incorporate the following into the ordinance: "With an airport use agreement. landings are based on 1 landing a day Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. and charged a fee of $4.00 per day regardless of actual landings." D irector Bumpass stated the purpose of this was to address freight carriers that use the airport daily. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first 152 1 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING time. Director Noland, 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. D irector Osborne, seconded by Noland, made a motion to f urther 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 unanimousy. ORDINANCE 2826 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK %I11 HANGAR LEASE/TYSON HANGAR Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to executee an amendment to a lease agreement with Tyson Foods, Inc., to bring their lease payments in line with what others are being charged for similar space at Drake Field. It was confirmed that the hangar becomes city property after 20 years from the date of the original agreement. D irector Henry, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 85-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 114'o2� OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X/V NOMINATIONS Mayor Noland introduced the report from the Board Nominating Committee regarding appointments to the Warner Cable Study Committee. The nominees are Director Todd, J. Sherwood Charlton, S. W. Krueger, Laurel Krystal, and Ray Shipman. Director Todd requested to be removed, but D irector Henry stated she knew he would not be prejudiced, and his background in the area from other committees would be an asset. D irector Henry, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the nominations. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 0 to 1, with Director Todd abstaining. CODE ENFORCEMENT Mayor Noland introduced ordinances authorizing the Animal Control Officer and the Fire Inspector to issue citations for violations of the city's leash law and fire safety ordinances, respectively. Mr. McCord stated that the Municipal Judge has approved of this procedure. Mr. McCord read the ordinance regarding the Animal 153 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING Control Officer for the first time. Director 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 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 ✓ ead the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the o rdinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2827 APPEARS ON PAGE jQ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ,AB City Attorney McCord read the ordinance regarding the Fire Inspector for the first time. Director Bumpass, 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 Bumpass, 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 ✓ ead the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2828 APPEARS ON PAGE 33 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK 01 __ CHANGE ORDER/PARKING DECK Mayor Noland introduced an authorization of a parking deck change order for the installation of a curb down the middle of the alley west of the deck. The purpose of the curb is to direct traffic to the pay booth on the way out. The Board decided on the 8 inch curb size. Director Bumpass, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the change order. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION 86-82 APEARS ON PAGEAW OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X!V RESOURCE RECOVERY AUTHORITY Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance creating the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority and approving the City of Fayetteville as an initial member. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, 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 Henry, made a motion to further suspend 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING the rules and place the ordinance on third and final ✓ eading. 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 2829 APPEARS ON PAGE 340 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK gi MOSQUITO SPRAYING D irector Bumpass stated that he had had several ✓ equests for the City to spray for mosquitoes. Mr. Grimes stated that the City had stopped spraying around 1969 because of the possible side affects of the insecticides at the request of the citizens and Audubon Society. The Board decided to check into what had been decided before a decision was made at this point. PROPERTY CLEAN-UP/987 S. WASHINGTON AVE D irector Osborne made a motion to amend the ordinance dealing with the property clean-up to lower the time limit from 30 to 15 days. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance amending this o rdinance for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the o rdinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimousy, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the o rdinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the o rdinance for the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2834 APPEARS ON PAGEJ7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Xf j 33IDS FOR SWIMMING POOL AND AIRPORT TAXIWAY City Manager Grimes stated that board approval was needed to allow the City_ to advertise for bids for the swimming pool and for the taxiway and ramp on the east side o f the airport. D irector Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to grant board approval to advertise for bids. Upon roll call the motion passed 6 to 1, with Director Bumpass voting in the minority APPLEBY ROAD IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT D irector Osborne stated he would like to change his vote on moving the original ordinance to second reading from n o to yes in order to complete the issue. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, made a motion to suspend the rules and 155 1 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 0, with Directors Sharp and Lancaster abstaining, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Henry, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed 5 to 0, with Directors Sharp and Lancaster abstaining, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance giving the reasons for the Board denying the improvement district passed by a vote of 4 to 1, with Director Todd voting against and with Directors Sharp and Lancaster abstaining. ORDINANCE 2830 APPEARS ON PAGE 51 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X111 HMR TAXES D irector Osborne requested that the City Attorney ✓ equest from the City Prosecutor why the City cannot collect the HMR taxes. Mr. McWethy stated this was already underway. Director Osborne stated if the taxes could not be collected in this court, then file the case in Circuit Court S IGN CASE D irector Todd asked about what should be done in regard t o the sign cases. City Attorney McCord stated that the City had won part and lost part of the case. Judge Butt u pheld the constitutionality of the amortization approach on its face, but he held that based an the evidence of record that the provision was unconstitutional as applied. Mr. McCord stated it would be difficult to reverse the decision on the application ruling. He recommended an appeal based on different areas because this would attempt to obtain a definitive decision from the Supreme Court on the unresolved issue in Arkansas whether the amortization approach to e liminate non—conforming signs is constitutional on is face. The ordinance on its face has not been struck down. D irector Todd asked what the appeal would cost. Mr. McCord stated the cost would not be substantial since most o f the research had already been done. He felt a maximum of $ 1,000 would cover the cost. He stated another sign case would be tried on July 14 where the existing record does not indicate nearly the cost to the sign owner to comply. It might be best for the City to authorize an appeal knowing that in this case the record does not have to be documented for 90 days. The July 14 case may be a better case to take t o the Supreme Court. D irector Todd asked if the City appealed and lost, would the City be worse off then it is currently. Mr. McCord stated if the court ruled that the amortization concept eliminating non—conforming on—site signs was 156 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING unconstitutional on its face, the City would be in a worse position. If the rule is constitutional an its face, it could be unconstitutional as applied where the evidence ✓ eflects that the cost to the property owner is substantial in complying or the sign in question has significant ✓ emaining use. Mayor Noland suggested filing an appeal and having it on record. After the July 14 case, then the Board could decide which case to appeal, if any. Mr. McCord stated this was probably the best thing to do. Mayor Noland, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to follow Mr. McCord's advise and file the appeal at this time pending the July 14 case. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. LANDING STRIP COMPLAINTS City Manager Grimes distributed to the Board a copy of the police calls to the Landing Strip for the past several months. D irector Sharp asked how the City could declare the business a public nuisance and have it closed. Mr. McCord stated that statutory remedies needed to be exhausted first. Under the private club ordinance, the license of the club could be suspended or revoked. If this remedy failed, then the public nuisance remedy would be next. D irector Bumpass requested that the calls be further investigated to determine the actual cause, i.e., whether or n ot the disturbance was a result of the club or the result o f people outside the club. MINUTES Mr. McCord had the following changes in the minutes: (1) page 127, the last full paragraph should read: City Attorney McCord outlined the issues the Board needed to consider. The Board does not have the authority to refuse to confirm the decision of the Planning Commission merely because they feel the development would not be in the best interest of the city. The Board should determine if the P ning Commission finding that the additional traffic development would not -compound an existing traffic pro; was in error; and the Board should determine if the o ff—site improvements required were in error. (2) On page 128, paragraph 7, after the words "Committee had" insert — ✓ eviewed the project and the Planning Commission tad drto.v-w� ncd. D irector Sharp had the following changes: (1) On page 133, paragraph 4, no waiver .was granted. The sidewalks were ✓ equired. (2) On page 134, paragraph 7, insert before "use" the word "proposed" and insert before "use" the word' "long—term". ADJOURNMENT 157 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 12:25 a. m. 158