Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-08-25 Minutes1 co co N U co MINUTES OF A SPECIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A Special Meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Wednesday, August 25, 1982, at 2:00 p.m., in the Board of Directors Room, City Administration Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Directors Osborne, Sharp, Noland, Bumpass, Lancaster, and Todd; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Attorney McCord, and City Clerk Kelly; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Director Henry. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. SETFCTION OF DIRECTOR TO FILL UNEXPIRED TERM OF DIRECTOR HENRY Mayor Noland called for a motion to go into executive session for the purpose of selection of a City Director to fill the unexpired term of City Director Ann Henry, ending December 31, 1984. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Todd, made a motion to go into executive session, for the purpose of considering the candidates for the position of Director Henry. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The meeting was temporarily adjourned at 2:05 p.m. RECONVENING The Special Meeting of the Board of Directors reconvened at 2:35 p.m. 191.6 Mayor Noland stated that the Board of Directors had made the decision to defer action on the selection of a replacement for Director Henry until a later time. 191 191.1 191.2 191.3 191.4 191.5 OTHER BUSINESS REQUEST FORA CHANGE ORDER #k1 FOR INTERIM CITY HALL Mayor Noland introduced to the Board of Directors a Change Order #1, pertaining to the Interim City Hall construction project. This Change Order ##1, in the amount of $9,144.00, contained eight (8) additions or deletions to the building, as per Architects, Hailey-Powers- Froning. Mr. Donald Froning addressed the Board for questions regarding the Change Order #1. Director Sharp asked if the architects felt that the use of gunite (blown concrete) at the bank at the west side of the building would be preferred to the use of some sort of ground cover Director Sharp felt ground cover would be a better idea. Mr. Froning said he felt that gtnzite would be best for long term maintenance, in that the area in question was 4 degrees steeper than originally anticipated. 191.7 191.8 192 Director Sharp wondered if building a railroad tie retaining wall would work better for this purpose, and Mr. Froning thought 192.1 that it might be a possibility. Director Lancaster voiced the concern that the gunite might 192.2 crack after a period of two or three years of freezing and thawing. After general discussion, it was determined to delete Item 5 192.3 from the Change Order #1, and the architects were to investigate alternative types of ground cover for the west side of the building. 192.4 Director Todd noted that the amount of the Change Order #1, as a result of this deletion of Item #5 in the ancient of $2,900, left a balance of $6,184. Director Todd asked Mr. Froning how many more change orders were anticipated, and Mr. Froning replied that this was the only one. 192.5 Director Noland, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to accept the Change Order #1, with the deletion of Item #5. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. AIRPORT NOISE LAWSUIT - SEITLFNENT NEGOTIATIONS 192.6 Mayor Noland asked City Attorney McCord to address the Board on the subject of the pending airport noise lawsuit 192.7 City Attorney McCord stated that the plaintiffs had offered to dismiss the existing case in Chancery Court and Circuit Court; that is, the portion pertaining to the City of Fayetteville, if the City Board of Directors would agree to make diligent efforts to construct a noise barrier, in accorcance with the recommendations in the recently -completed noise study, and adopt a Curfew Ordinance if the barrier could not be constructed within the prescribed time, the suggested time period being ten months. The Board had deferred action on any settlement at the meeting which took place on August 17, 1982, to enable Skyways an opportunity to comment on the proposal. 192.6 City Attorney McCord distributed to the Board a letter dated August 24, 1982, frau Mr. Tucker Morse, General Counsel for Skyways, which outlines the position of Skyways regarding the proposed settlement. It stated, if the noise barrier were not built for reasons such as lack of Federal funding, or if engineers could not find that the testing would not adversely effect testing instrumen- tation, that the proposed 10:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m. curfew would make their present operations economically and practically unfeasible. Mr. McCord had met at length with Attorneys Wright and Morse of Skyways and briefly with Attorney Cummings, regarding a possible compromise to effect a settlement. Skyways did agree to certain limitations which they believe are reasonable. They would agree that if the noise barrier were not constructed, that an Ordinance containing certain restrictions would be reasonable, and that would include an absolute prohibition on Lebow testing, which is testing required by the FAA, between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Testing can 1 1 1 f run for a substantial length of time, possibly several hours. They do agree that maintenance testing which normally takes five minutes would be severely curtailed if restricted to the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m., with no more than 10 tests in any one night, and no test to exceed five minutes in duration. They pointed out that their average number of tests have been only two or three, but could exceed that number if a major breakdown occurred. Mr. McCord added that the plaintiffs felt those limitations were unacceptable, and that they would still be burdened with excessive noise which would wake them during normal sleeping hours. They still seek the initial settlement, which is to dismiss the City of Fayetteville as a party to any litigation and enforce a Curfew Ordinance prohibiting stationery engine rum ups between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a m , if the 03 barrier is not built. N Cordon Cummings, attorney for the plaintiffs, addressed the Board, stating that he wanted to repeat the original offer to the City Board V to dismiss the City from all suits, provided that the City used CO reasonable efforts to construct a noise barrier, in accordance with the plans of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., within a ten month period If that barrier is not constructed within ten months, that the City agree to pass an enforceable noise ordinance prohibiting stationery engine run ups from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He said this might place the financial burden on the FAA, or on Skyways as a cost of doing business at Drake, if FAA funding is not granted. He felt this settlement would be a permanent solution, to avoid other future litigation. Director Osborne asked if the plaintiffs could wait until the FAA funds were granted, and Mr. Cummings stated that with budget cuts he was not certain those funds would be forthcoming. He felt that if the City passed the Ordinance under the Consent Decree, that the burden to construct the noise barrier would pass to Skyways Director Todd asked whether the $140,000 was for only the noise barrier, and Mr. Cummings said he thought it included the runway on the east side. Mr. McClelland noted that this amount includes a short taxiway to the east side of the property, and Mr. McClelland felt that this construction could be completed within the ten month period. Director Osborne asked if the plaintiffs would accept a solution that the Board agree to build the noise barrier or enforce the existing noise ordinance. Mr. Cummings said the existing noise ordinance does not refer to noise emitting to adjoining communities, and therefore the existing noise ordinance would have to be modified. Director Osborne asked if Skyways could perform minor rum ups, Which wouldn't auuioy the plaintiffs, and if Skyways could arrange for a temporary noise barrier, until the FAA funding is granted, if this would satisfy the plaintiffs. Mr. Cummings said that if the noise standard at the airport were acceptable, the plaintiffs would agree to enforcement of the existing noise ordinance, but the ordinance needs modification. 193 193.1 193.2 193.3 193.4 193.5 193.6 193.7 194 Mr. McCord felt that an additional noise ordinance would be preferred, in that the existing ordinance would make all current 194.1 engine run ups in violation of that existing ordinance. 194.2 Mr. McCord said that under the proposal the City would agree by written settlement agreement, or a Consent Decree, to construct a noise barrier which would implement the recommendations made in the study, but not necessarily build a barrier with the dimensions suggested, in order to achieve the goal of reducing the noise impact on joint property owners to a reasonable level. Simul- taneously, the City would adopt a Curfew Ordinance, the effective date of which would not be for ten months. Thus, if the barrier were not constructed within the ten uuuth period, the ordinance would become effective upon expiration of that period. If the barrier were constructed the Board of Directors would repeal the ordinance. 194.3 City Attorney McCord and Director Bumpass felt that if the existing ordinance were enforced, Skyways would be forbidden to do run ups during the daytime. Attorney Cummings indicated that there are always certain routine maintenance run ups which must be done, and often they fall within the designated times for curtailment of engine run -ups They are trying to pursue reasonable alternatives. 194.4 Attorney Chip Wright addressed the Board. He stated that the study made by McClelland Engineering Consultants is a good one, and it does set up a noise barrier to eliminate noise from a source point. However, it does not consider what the effect of that barrier may be on the operation of the airplanes within it, or whether a prop -turbo aircraft can operate within the barrier. He wondered if there would be sufficient air flow around the propellers. He said Skyways is currently having a barrier constructed in Springdale, which should be approximately 12 feet in height, to be completed in the next month. That barrier would give a better understanding to Skyways of the effectiveness at Drake. 194.5 Mr. Wright said with regard to the curfew, many flights come to Drake after 10:00 p.m., and many leave at 6:25 a.m. Certain engine maintenance must be done at those times. He feels that it is important that these types of engine overhaulings be done, for safety purposes, without being in violation of the curfew. He said that Skyways had asked for a period of 12 months, to enable the recommendation for FAA funds to go through, and allow the City time to apply for those funds, and also give Skyways time to build the barrier. He said that Skyways had suggested the limitation of runups to between 10:00 p.m. and 1:00 a.m. and during that time they would make other arrangements for the massive engine testing, and after October 1st, the majority of it would not take place at Drake. 194.6 Mr. Tucker Morse, General Counsel for Skyways, addressed the Board. With regard to the letter he had submitted to City Attorney McCord, and distributed to the Board, he stated that the Curfew Ordinance could destroy Skyways ability to operate at Drake. Limiting the time period for maintenance would require Skyways to cove elsewhere. He said that he felt Skyways frequency of service 1 1 1 is one of the best available for a community of this size. In addition to the effect on service, he stated that employment could also be effected. He said the noise barrier should be built, pending approval of the funding, and receipt of the funding. He reiterated that Skyways was moving their engine maintenance facility to Springdale in mid-September, to the noise barrier being built for the use of Springdale Airport. Mr. Morse proposed that if, after a 12 -month period, the barrier is not constructed, Skyways will eliminate the Lebow testing, the major engine testing, by moving it to Springdale, and continue doing the minimum engine testing, either 1:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., or from 12:00 p.m. until 5:00 a m , to convenience the people of the surrounding community. He said they are also urging that Skyways 03 be dismissed, along with the City of Fayetteville, in this lawsuit. CO Director Lancaster noted that Mr. Morse had said that no one U has had any experience with these noise barriers He stated that he has spent some time at the Springdale Airport and wonders if Skyways can expect future lawsuits from the citizens of Springdale. Mr. Morse responded that effort has been made at the front end to correct problems and beyond that he couldn't speculate. He said that Springdale's engineers had designed the 12 -foot barrier, which costs $14,000, and the difference in the cost of Springdale's and Drake's barriers, is accounted for because of the difference in dimensions of the barriers. Mr. Morse said that the 25 foot barrier would have the maximum impact on the noise at Drake, but they are concerned that it will effect the operation of the aircraft Director Buripass noted that the trial is set for September 14th, and that there could be a permanent injunction granted by the judge, which would close operations, out of the control of the City, and if there were any damages accrued, that the City of Fayetteville would be liable. Mr. Wright said he is aware of the risks to all concerned. The relief to the plaintiffs could be tailored to the circumstances that are before Judge Lineberger. He said that if the plaintiffs can't get relief from the City by agreement, then they can get relief enforced through the City and the ordinance, thus there can be no compromise. Mr. Wright felt that Skyways proposal would create a situation agreeable to all parties, and that the proposal of Mr. Cummings was too simplified. Mr. McClelland stated that in determining the best methods with which to suppress the noise problem, his company was not charged to insure that Skyways instrumentation would work in a suppressed chamber or barrier. When Mr. McClelland met with Skyways representatives they said they were concerned that their instrumentation would not work with this barrier, and he stated that it wasn't designed for their instrumentation. He also said that he has some question of whether the noise barrier at Springdale will work. There, the source of the noise and the recipients of the noise are on the same level, and therefore anything in between the source and the receiver acts as a buffer. At Drake, the noise can pass over the top because the reci- pients are on an elevated plateau. After meeting with Skyways people, it was agreed that in the absence of existing theories with which to calculate the situation, Mr. McClelland would take readings of the engines running behind the earthen berm at Springdale Airport, and measure the results. 195 195.1 195.2 195.3 195.4 195.5 195.6 191; 196 1 196.2 Director Bumpass asked whether there was some type of computer model to refer to as a guide, and Mr. Morse said that a search was continuing around the country, and if testing at Springdale proved to be a problem, then they would do further research of what could be done at Drake. For this reason they felt the period of 12 months was necessary to be certain the noise barrier would operate properly. Mr. Wright said that any type of agreement entered into by the City must recognize these problems, and enable Skyways and McClelland Engineering Consultants time to deal with these problems. 196.3 Director Bumpass asked if the funding is not available, will Skyways make a statement to pay the $140,000 for the barrier, instead of the 10"/. Mr. Morse said that would be a decision for Skyways at that time. Skyways, he said, might use other alterna- tives to solve the problem. 196.4 Director Bumpass asked if there is less noise at Drake at this time, and Mr. Wright said that Mr. ° annings said noise has been lessened. Mr. Morse said Skyways engines have been modified as required by the FAA, and the noise will be further reduced as Skyways becomes more experienced with this type of engine. 196.5 City Manager Grimes asked if Skyways had a contingency plan with Springdale, should the barrier not work, and, if so, would Skyways stop construction and Hove back to Fayetteville. Mr. Morse said that Springdale has full understanding with their City Board and Skyways that the work is to be done at night, and they are in full agreement, and their engineers designed this earthen burn for this purpose. 196.6 Mayor Noland said the Board's decision is to either consider this compromise, continue to negotiate, or go to trial on September 14th. Mr. Wright suggested the Board meet with Mr. McCord for recommendations either to defer action, or make counterproposals. 196.7 Director Bumpass asked whether Skyways had offered to give the City an Indemnification Agreement on damages, and Mr. Wright said no, and that they are not asking for one from the City. 196.8 Director Osborne noted that Judge Lineberger had announced that there would be no additional continuances in this case. 196.9 Mr. McCord said that the clearest direction is to continue negotiation, as there isIstill room for compromise. He said that the plaintiffs' position is that any testing during normal sleeping hours is going to interrupt their sleep. An alternative is to compromise on the hours they are requesting, 10:00 p.m. - 6:00 a.m., or 12:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m., or 11:00 p.m. - 5:00 a.m., and convince then that this is reasonable. The City would pursue that end, and Skyways would also pursue that end, if it would not alter their operations in Fayetteville. 1 1 1 It. McCord felt that the City's financial risk is the greatest in the Circuit Court case, because there may be a finding of Inverse Condemnation. Skyways has the greatest risk in the Chancery Court case because if the injunction is issued, it will have the same effect as the curfew, and will put Skyways out of business. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Todd, made a motion to table this issue until the September 7th meeting of the Board of Directors, to enable the City Attorney to pursue settlement negotia- tions. 197 197.1 197.2 Upon roll call, the motion to table the matter of the settlement 197.3 of the airport noise lawsuit was passed 6-0. DISCUSSION REGARDING CANDIDATES FOR POSITION OF CITY DIRECTOR Mayor Noland said the City Attorney had called the Attorney General's office with respect to the possibility of the City Board interviewing certain applicants, in executive session, for the vacancy on the City Board of Directors. Mr. McCord said the Attorney General's office was unable to locate an opinion on the subject. The statute clearly states that executive sessions will be permitted for the appointment of any public officer or employee, so Mr. McCord was comfortable that the City Board had the authority to go into executive session to discuss the appointment of an individual to fill the vacancy on the City Board. He said that the statute further provided that in the section dealing with who may be present, the "employee" may be present. It didn't refer to "employee or prospective public officer" being present. Because of this ambiguity an argent could be made on both sides. First of all, that if an employee could be present, a prospective public officer, the intent was, could also be present. On the other hand, if the statute is to be strictly construed in favor of public meetings, it doesn't however, expressly provide that the prospective appointee cannot be present. Mr. McCord had not seen any Arkansas law on that question. Mr. McCord stated that his opinion would be that they could not interview in executive session, but that they could interview publicly and then convene in executive session for deliberation. Director Osborne said that he was not adverse to interviewing in public and then reconvening, and the remainder of the Board agreed. Mayor Noland indicated that the two candidates the Board wished to interview were scheduled to come to the office of the City Manager at 4:00 p m and 4:30 p.m. Mayor Noland called for a recess at 3:30 p.m. Reconvened at 3:45 p.m. 197.4 197.5 197.6 197.7 197.8 19S 198.1 198.2 FINALIZATION OF THE REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE LAND APPLICATION STUDY Mayor Noland asked the Board to indicate any changes they felt should be made in the Requests for Proposals. Director Osborne stated that under No. 1, regarding applica- tion on woodlands versus application on croplands, he felt the wording should be changed to read application on croplands and/or woodlands. 198.3 Director Lancaster noted that in No. 2, (The City of Fayetteville will obtain permission from land owners to enter lands.). This is for purposes of soil testing. It was decided that this should remain in the RFP. 198.4 Under No. 5, Director Todd had some question on the determination of available lands. He also thought that responsibility for this should be accepted internally. 198.5 Mayor Noland said that what should possibly be said is location and suitability of lands, rather than availability of lands, and then have the Board decide on the availability of lands. This was decided to be added to the RFP. 198.6 Mayor Noland, referred to No. 7, regarding the required upgrading of the existing wastewater treatment facility to provide secondary treatment based on the developed design flows and loadings. 198.7 There was general discussion, involving Directors Osborne, Todd, City Manager Grimes, Mayor Noland and Mr. Carl Yates, of McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, Consulting Engineers on this Facility Plan. 198.8 Mayor Noland stated that the information the City is requesting of those firms to receive RFP's is what to do with the secondary treated sewage, and City Manager Grimes agreed that for the sake of cost estimates, it should be based on the volume of effluent at the present plant, and what should be done with secondary treated effluent. 198.9 Director Osborne wondered if there was something that could be done with the present plant that could effect how many lagoons, for example, would be needed in the future. 198.10 Director Todd asked Mr. Yates if there were cost figures avail- able at this time for the expansion of the plant. Mr. Yates said there were such figures, and these figures utilized current factors, and that they also have figures taking different approaches, using other technologies and costing them aut. The figures for upgrading the present plant to take the total flow reflect one alternative. He said he is referring to either continuing the operation in the same nude, or building a third train. The other approach, Mr. Yates said, would be to go with some aerated feculatative lagoons, and he said the engineers had taken two different approaches regarding this and they have those figures, as well. Vernon Rowe of McClelland and Associates, stated that he felt it was most important that the firm selected to complete this project take a look at the overall concepts involved, and then make their proposal to integrate the existing facilities into the overall situation. He stated that he felt it couldn't be viewed as an "end of pipe" planned application. 1 1 1 Mayor Noland reiterated that he was most concerned about possible duplication of effort, and he felt they should guard against it. Director Lancaster stated that the study was to inform the Board of the cost effectiveness of doing the secondary treatment of the land, without going to the third stage of tertiary treatment. He said that if it is determined that the third stage at White River is most cost effective, then they will see that it is accomplished. If they determine that land application will be more feasible, then they will stop at the secondary stage City Manager Grimes suggested eliminating No. 7, and interjecting CO the idea of upgrading of the existing wastewater treatment facility (Y) to provide secondary treatment based on the developed design flows and loadings into the section of the RFP on Base Data. The wording U suggested by Mr. Grimes was, "This information is available from m the facility plan consultants. If this firm disagrees with these estimates, and wants to develop new cost estimates, then they must Q come to the City Board with that cost estimate for approval." Thus it places the burden of proof on the selected firm. Director Todd reiterated that the selected firm would generally review the data that is available from the Facility Plan, and before they do any significant work on their own, that the City Board or the City Manager would approve that additional work. He felt that the firm should have the opportunity to make any additional recommen- dations which would assist in the implementation of the Land Application ,Study. Director Osborne said that any additional work amounting to less than $2500 must be approved by the City Manager, and any additional work amounting to more than $2500 must be approved by the City Board. Director Todd said that the Board should be notified in advance of what input the selected firm is to be accountable for before starting work, and whether the bottom line cost estimated would encompass both the secondary treatment and the land application. Mayor Noland asked if there would be any further modifications to the RFP. Director Todd stated that under the section on Proposed Evaluation and Negotiation, he noted that Items A, B and C were answered in the Statement of Qualifications. It was determined that in the modified RFP, a notation would be made that this information need not be submitted again unless the proposer wished to update or add to that which was previously submitted. Mayor Noland said that not all respondents had addressed the question of "ability to meet past budgets." He thought that this should be made more obvious in the revised RFP. Director Todd said that it should be noted that the City has a sense of urgency about receipt of these RFPs, and it was deter- mined that the RFP's were to be mailed on August 27, 1982, and that the deadline for submittal to the City Engineer was set at three weeks from that date, or no later than 5:00 p.m., September 17, 1982. 199 139.1 199.2 199.3 199.4 199.5 199.6 199.7 199.8 199.9 200 Director Noland, seconded by Director Todd, made a motion to incorporate the discussed changes in the RFP, and to include 200.1 Don Bunn, City Engineer, in the Selection Caanittee. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. PUBLIC INTERVIEWING OF CANDIDATES FOR POSITION OF CITY DIRECTOR CANDIDATE INTERVIEWED - MARILYN JOHNSON 200.2 Mayor Noland asked Mrs. Johnson to speak to the Board on her philosophy of City GOveLumen t, and to tell of her qualifications to serve on the Board of Directors. 200.3 Mrs. Johnson stated that she believed that the City has a good form of government with the City Manager/Board of Directors, and that it works most effectively. She believes that improvements made by the Board in the last several years have enhanced the opinion of the Board which currently exists. She cited, in particular, the improvements made in the parks, the bike trails, and the sign ordinance, and their effect on the community. She said she has considered the aspects of what has to be done in the area of growth and the need to maintain present services, and the need to continue working with surrounding communities to seek cooperative solutions to problems. 200.4 Mrs. Johnson stated that she has been active in the United States Jaycettes, traveling within six states, and she has been on the Arkansas Jaycettes, and is currently serving as a member of the Board of Directors of Fayetteville Open Channel. 200.5 She stated that she knows the operation of the Board, and is well aware of the amount of homework involved with the position. She feels that her husband is very supportive of her commitment to the City, and she has time to fulfill duties and attend meetings, in that she has no job outside of the home. 200 6 Mayor Noland asked her, as a citizen who hasn't been particularly involved in City government, what problems she could see which she would like to help correct, if she came on the Board. 200.7 She said that she would like a closer inspection in those areas before making a commitment, but she said that home crime was a concern of hers and working with the Police Department to try to halt same of the home crime would be important to her. 200.8 Director Osborne asked her if she was aware of the commitment the Board has made with regard to sidewalks and green spaces in developments and subdivisions. She indicated that she appreciated these green spaces, and certainly felt that it was a viable commitment on the part of the Board. 200.9 With regard to the controversial Sign Ordinance, she told Director Osborne that she does keep up with that issue and she felt that Fayetteville was in the forefront of other communities on that issue. 1 She said she is not, aware of all the problems that the City Attorney 201 most face regarding the Sign Ordinance, but she felt that the progress that has been made since passage 12 years ago was worth 201.1 their efforts. Director Bumpass asked whether she had any preconceived notions 201.2 about the Walker Park swimming pool and she said that she would have to look into the issue before any ,judgment could be made. Director Sharp noted that several people had given him calls regarding Mrs. Johnson and they were very complimentary, indicating that Mrs. Johnson was the most organized person in the City of Fayetteville. Director Sharp asked Mrs. Johnson what her views would be as a City Board Director regarding Fayetteville Open Channel. She CO stated that her position as a member of the board of Fayetteville Open (t) Channel was that she felt everyone should be given the opportunity to tell their own story in their own way. 201.3 U CO The Directors all stressed to Mrs. Johnson the necessity for 201.4 Q long and hard hours while serving on the Board. And when asked how she felt about receiving phone calls at home, Mrs. Johnson stated that she felt that when people have a problem they need someone to be available to listen to their problems. Director Bumpass said that the City Board had been criticized in the past because of a "no growth" policy. He said that Mrs. Johnson had mentioned in her application growth and expansion of City services. When asked if she had preconceived notions of further development in Fayetteville, she said she understood the long-range plan to be Fayetteville -Rogers -Springdale working together in order to build better relationships. She said she is not in favor of "no growth" but is also not in favor of freely permitting growth without zoning controls. She stated that she was an alumnus of the University of Arkansas, and that she and her husband, Nelson, planned to make this their permanent home. In her concluding statement she said that her philosophy has always been to set a goal and then set objectives to reach that goal. If chosen to serve on the Board of Directors, she said she would like to continue on the path started by the Board Mayor Noland thanked her for coming before the Board on short notice and thanked her for interviewing with the Board. CANDIDATE INTERVIEWED- KAY TRUMBO Ms. Truunbo was introduced to the Board of Directors and she was asked to state her philosophy about City Govenm ent and why she felt she would like the position of City Director. 201.5 201.6 201.7 201.8 201.9 202 202.1 She stated that Fayetteville has been blessed with good directors and she said she likes the plans and designs that are being followed, and would like the opportunity to contribute to City Government. She has retired from public school teaching and feels she can devote the necessary time to this interest. 202.2 Director Todd asked her if she had any particular priorities with regard to the City Budget, and Ms. Trumbo said she had reviewed the Budget, and simply felt that providing the necessary services to the people, in the manner most suitable, would be most important. 202.3 She expressed interest in continuing with the restoration of the City, which she feels will mean much to Fayetteville in terms of incase. She also said that she felt Fayetteville can look forward to an increase in population as a result of the restoration. 202.4 Director Bunpass asked whether she was aware of the sidewalk program and she said that she had worked with that program in the very early stages. She had been on the Root School Sidewalk Coamittee, before the program was taken over by the City, and she hoped that the sidewalk program would continue to North Street, and becone more accessible to more people. She felt that providing safety for the children going to school and coming from school is most important. 202.5 Director Bunpass asked whether she had any area of criticism or concern to voice and she said she is always concerned about the problem of home thefts. She stated that she was burglarized several times and had approached the Police Department to request surveillance of the area, and although she was treated courteously, the patrolling of the area was discontinued after a period of a week, in order to provide the service to other areas. She thought there could possibly be an increase in on-duty patrol cars. 202.6 There was discussion of the time demands involved with this position, and Director Osborne indicated that one-quarter of his time is spent on Board matters Ms. Tnmbo said she is aware of those time demands, and also the number of committee meetings involved with this position. 202.7 Director Lancaster returned to the idea of growth, and asked if Ms. Trumbo was in favor of strict zoning laws. She replied that she was and she said that the enforcement of the sign ordinance was most important. She stated that she would classify this as controlled growth. 202.8 Director Todd said that it is fortunate that good people do come forth to serve on the Board of Directors, being aware of the inconveniences involved with serving. Ms. Trumbo stated that she felt she speaks for a segment of the cc m pity that hasn't been re- presented previously on the Board and she felt that it was important that the Board be canprised of varied segments of the carnanity. 1 Ms. Trumbo concluded by saying that she was very pleased that there were so many citizens interested in the position on the Board and she felt that that fact spoke well for the Board. She added that she was most pleased to be a part of that consideration. 203 203.1 Mayor Noland thanked Ms. Trumbo for interviewing for the position 203.2 of City Director SELECTION OF FIRMS TO RECEIVE LAND APPLICATION STUDY RFPs Mayor Noland indicated that the Board had received many responses to the Request for Qualifications. Most of the Board members had had an opportunity to review them. CO In general discussion, it was noted that a proposal had been CO received from Law Engineering, and that even though the proposal had been unsolicited, the Board had been impressed, as a whole, with their proposal. U CO Mayor Noland indicated that he had been disappointed with the proposal from Black & Veatch, in that he felt it didn't include all that they were capable of doing. Don Bunn, City Engineer, indicated that 15 firms had been culled from approximately 20 firms responding to the Request for Qualifications. From those 15 firms, the Board of Directors has selected six firms, to be sent Requests for Proposals, as modified previously at this meeting. The firms to receive RFPs are: CH2M Hill, Montgomery, Alabama; Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Des Plaines, Illinois; Camp, Dresser, McKee, Dallas, Texas; ERM, Inc., West Chester, Pennsylvania; Law Engineering, Inc., Marietta, Georgia; and Sheaffer & Rowland, Chicago, Illinois. Director Todd, seconded by Director Noland, made a motion to direct RFPs to the six qualified firms indicated above. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. ADJOURNMENT FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION -VACANCY IN DIRECTORSHIP Director Osborne, seconded by Director Noland, made a motion to adjourn for executive session, for the purpose of selecting the candi- date to fill the unexpired term of Director Henry. RECONVENING - 6:00 p.m. Director Lancaster addressed the Board of Directors and indicated that the Board had chosen Marilyn Johnson to fill the vacancy on the Board. 1 1 Director Noland indicated that the number and quality of those who had applied for the position was very ingressive. 203.3 203.4 203.5 203.6 203.7 203.8 203.9 203.10 203.11 204 Director Osborne commented that there have been many instances when citizens have approached him and said that they felt the Board was dominated by representatives from the University. Director Osborne stated that there was some University influence on the Board, but that it by no means dominated the Board. Director Bumpass stated that he felt the greatest pool of talent was centered within 204.1 the University system. Director Todd said that a great deal of time had been spent 204.2 in reaching the decision to select Mrs. Johnson. He felt that this was indicative, in a positive sense, of how difficult it was to select one individual from the wide range of capable individuals who had applied for the position. 204.3 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Noland, made a motion to appoint Mrs. Marilyn Johnson to Position 7 on the Board of Directors, to expire December 31, 1984. 204.4 Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. Mayor Noland indicated that he would telephone both candidates 204.5 to notify them of the Board's decision. INFORMATIONAL ITEM 204.6 City Manager Grimes mentioned the hearing at the Quorum Court regarding the application by Sunray Sanitation to expand the permitted volume of their landfill near Harmon. The hearing was to take place on Thursday, August 26, 1982, and Mr. Grimes was to appear at the hearing and express the continuing needs of the City in this area, and also to indicate that the City Board was looking into the possibility of an incinerator. ADJOURNMENT 204.7 There being no further business, Mayor Noland adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m. 1 1 i FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS P. 0. DRAWER F 7270, (50,] 521-7700 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS for a TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY INVESTIGATION of LAND APPLICATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER INTRODUCTION In April, 1982, the City of Fayetteville completed a draft Step 1 - Facility Plan. In May, 1982, two firms (Camp, Dresser and McKee; Henningson, Durham, and Richardson) were retained to complete independent reviews of the draft Facility Plan. The reviews were completed in July, 1982. Based on the findings of the reviews, it has been determined that land application of secondary effluent from Fayetteville's Pollution Control Plant may be a viable alternative in the solution of Fayetteville's wastewater treatment problem. On August 18, 1982, the City of Fayetteville received Statements of Qualifications for a technical feasibility investigation of land application of Fayetteville's secondary -treated wastewater. Based upon a review of these Statements of Qualifications, your firm is invited to submit a proposal to conduct and report on a detailed investigation of land application alternatives. SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work will consist of detailed evaluation of slow rate land appli- cation of secondary -treated effluent in the White River Basin on a total flow basis and in both the White River and Illinois River Basins on a split flow basis. The present average daily flow is 7.0 million gallons per day, and the projected design year average daily flow is 11.8 million gallons per day. The selected consultant will be expected to perform those activities necessary to demonstrate the feasibility or nonfeasibility of land application of secondary -treated effluent. Specific areas to be addressed in determining feasibility will include the following: 1. Possibility of application on croplands and/or woodlands. 2. Suitability of native soils (by on-site testing) to facilitate land application (permeability, depth of suitable soils, probable application rates, etc.). The City of Fayetteville will obtain permission from land owners to enter lands. 3. Storage requirements for effluent during the wet season and winter months (location, size, days of storage, period(s) of year when storage is required, etc.). 1 -2 4. Identification of environmental problems associated with land application of sewage effluent and possible solutions to same. Identification of elements which could potentially damage land and/or surface and ground waters. 5. Land requirements for present and projected flows. Locations of suitable lands and suggested methods of securing lands for use, i.e., purchase, lease or combination thereof. 6. Crops which would be suitable for the specific conditions of the project. The selected proposer shall develop cost estimates which include all necessary elements for implementation and operation of the land application alternatives. If feasibility is demonstrated, an implementation plan in outline form shall be developed This plan shall address phase development commensurate with expected availability of federal funds. It is the intent of the city that the report submitted as a result of this investigation contain sufficient technical information and documentation to permit amending the Facility Plan in the event the city elects to do so. BASE DATA The facilities planning consultant has completed detailed design and cost estimates, including capital costs and operation and maintenance costs, for the necessary facilities to obtain secondary treatment prior to possible land application. This data has been developed for total flow to the White River Basin, total flow to the Illinois River Basin and on a split flow basis. The selected land application consultant need not include the design of these facilities in his scope of work. This information may be obtained from the facility plailaler for use as needed by the land application consultant. The land application consultant may review the relevant design and cost data which have been developed. If, based upon his review, additional work is deemed.to be needed, the necessity for and the cost of such additional work must be approved by the City before it is undertaken. Under separate cover, the City is providing one copy of the Facility Plan, one copy of each of the two independent Facility Plan reviews, and will provide any other pertinent information requested which is available to the City. COMPLETION TIME Proposers shall indicate the time which will be required to complete this project. Completion time should not exceed 100 calendar days • 1 -3- PROPOSAL CONTENTS Proposals shall include the following: A. Qualifications in relation to specific project to be performed. B. Experience, competence and capacity for performance. C. Past performance. D. Information on your firm's ability to perform work within established budgets. Include both study/design work and subsequent construction work. E. A proposed plan (description of how the project would be conducted as well as other facts concerning approach to scope you wish to present) indicating methods and schedules for accomplishing each phase of the work. Include with this the amount of work presently under contract which could potentially conflict with timely performance hereunder F. If employing subcontractors, provide detailed breakdown of subcontractor's staff to be used, how they are to be used, and information on their organization, capability, and experience. NOTE: The information requested in A, B and C above was included in the Statement of Qualifications. This information need not be submitted again unless the proposer wishes to update or add to that previously submitted. PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION Proposal evaluation and negotiation shall consist of three steps. STEP A - Selection of top qualifying firms: Description Maximum Points 1. Qualifications 25 2. Experience 20 3. Proposed method of doing work 20 4. Past performance 10 Sub -total points 75 Proposals will be reviewed by the selection committee using the above selection criteria Each member of the committee will assign points to each criteria based on the content of the proposal. The three firms receiving the highest accumulated sub -total points, as rated by the selection committee, will move on to Step B. All other firms submitting proposals will be notified in writing and thanked for their interest in the project. i -4- STEP B - Selection of the top rated firm: The three firms receiving the highest accumulated sub -total points will be interviewed and asked for the following information: Description Maximum Points 5. Price - Total estimated price (not -to -exceed maximum) of professional services for this project 25 Total points 100 Following the interviews, the selection committee will re -rate all criteria awarding up to the maximum points indicated for each category. A maximum of 100 total points will be awarded. The firm receiving the highest accumulated total points will move into Step C. STEP C - Negotiation The selection committee will then negotiate to achieve the most advantageous contract for the City starting with the selected firm (firm with the highest accumulated "total points" from Step B). If, after reasonable effort, a contract cannot be negotiated within available funds, the negotiations with the selected firm shall be terminated. The firm will be requested to submit in writing a best and final offer and the selection committee will move negotiations to the next highest accumulated "total points" firm. This will continue until a mutually satisfactory contract is achieved. At this time the other two firms frau Step B will be notified in writing and thanked for their interest in the project. SELECTION COM'fil'1't The selection committee's membership will consist of the City Manager, members of the Board of Directors, and the City Engineer. CONTRACT AWARD AND DETAILS The selection committee will recommend, after negotiations and review by the City Attorney and Finance Director, the most advantageous contract to the Board for awarding. If the scope of the project is substantially changed, a new proposal will be solicited before any additional work is performed. Proposers are hereby notified that the selected firm might not be afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal for engineering services under Step 2, Plans and Specifications, of the project. • • • 1 Ten copies of the sealed proposal shall at the address below no later than 5:00 Proposals received after this time will considered. 5 be submitted to the City Engineer p.m., on September 17, 1982. not be accepted and will not be For information, contact Don Bunn at (501) 521-7700, extension 358. Donald R. Bunn, City Engineer City of Fayetteville P.O. Drawer F Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702 CHANGE ORDER AIA DOCUMENT G707 Distribution to: OWNER ARCHITECT CONTRACTOR FIELD OTHER PROJECT: INTERIM CITY HALL BUILDING (name,address)FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS ,TO (Contractor): WMurtrey-Cullers Const. Co.] P.O. Box 977 Springdale, AR 72764 [Attn: Charles W. Cullers CHANGE ORDER NUMBER: INITIATION DATE: ARCHITECT'S PROJECT NO: CONTRACT FOR: CONTRACT DATE: You are direc ed to make the following changes in this Cont act: 1. Furnish and install 2. Furnish and install 3. Furnish and install 4. Omit asphalt paving. 01 20 August 1982 88110 General Construction reinforced concrete Parking Lot pad as detailed at pump. concrete steps and handrail. 5. Furnish and install form work and concrete stem as detailed. 6. Furnish and install handrail as detailed. 7. Furnish and install louver at West wall. NET TOTAL 12 April 1982 ADD $ 7,340.00 ADD 200.00 ADD 1,264.00 DEDUCT (4,400.00) ADD 1,000.00 ADD 500.00 ADD 280.00 ADD $ 6;184.00 Not valid until signed by both the Owner and Architect. Signature of the Contractor indicates his agreement herewith, Including any adjustment in the Contract Sum or Contract Time. The original (Contract Sum) ¢0orir)0C0Xe.I:(NEJPcMUttMXg05/dXvas $ Net change by previously authorized Change Orders S The (Contract Sum) iCxuArymtM94(1)4x7tnxtwx gryjsibprior to this Change Order was b The (Contract Sura).X$23t%tXaktpgd<XA.X)4r (rX4COMXwill be (increased)XdtKrX3tXdiXIXIXIxiXEddX by this Change Order S The new (Contract Sum) (f430071(049 )MPXiAVJmXGPxtXincluding this Change Order will be $ The Contract Time will be XOUttitaXedi XdeKtlCJ(sedd Xunchanged) by The Date of Substantial Completion as of the date of this Change Order therefore is HAILEY•POWERS•FRONING McMURTREY-CULLERS 201,843.00 0.00 201,843.00 6,184.00 208,027.00 ( ) Days. Authorized: THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE WcHin ects, Ltd. E BRACT? tion Co., Inc. A°tuiicipal Corporation Addres Address Address Fayetteville, Arkansas Springdale, Arkansas Fayetteville, Arkansas t3Y 4 jTp DATE /ry/Z•IV7 L FP/Fit (�Q7 DATE - -2 - Sz DATE AIA DOCUMENT 0701 • CHANGE ORDER • APRIL 1970 EDITION • AI" • D.CC 1978 ?1978 THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, 1735 NEW YORK AVE.. N.W., WASHINGTON, G701 —1978