HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-09-21 Minutes1
MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
237
A meeting of the Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, September
21, 1982, at 7:30 p.m., in the Board of Directors Room ,City Administration
Building, Fayetteville; Arkansas.
PRESENT: Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, Todd, Osborne (who arrived
at 7:57), Sharp, and Noland; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager
McWethy, City Attorney McCord, and City Clerk Kelly; members of the press
and audience.
•
237.1
237.2
CALL TO ORDER
00 Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of 237.3
respectful silence.
ANNEXATION
[n Mayor Noland introduced, for consideration by the Board of Directors, 237.4
Q an ordinance calling for a referendum on the question of aunexing certain
territory into the City. He indicated that this matter had been dis-
cussed at previous Board Meetings (March 2, 1982 and April 6, 1982),
and at those times the matter had been postponed until this date. He
indicated that this would be the last opportunity for the Board to take
any action in order to have this referendum placed on the ballot for
the November 2, 1982 election.
It was determined that the Board of Directors would review the 237.5
proposed annexations section by section.
Site 1 - A parcel northeast of the City, east of Highway 265
between Albright Road and City Park property to the 237.6
north.
Director Todd stated that this tract was a sort of "island area"
between two parts of the City which needs to be squared off. He
stated that the correspondence from the Mayor of Springdale, Charles
McKinney, about this site, was unclear as to whether Springdale
wished to include this tract within their City limits. It is in the
Springdale water system, but the correspondence from the City of
Springdale was not clear as to whether they wanted it under their
jurisdiction.
City Manager Grimes stated that everything north of Clear Creek
is served by the Springdale water system. He added that the
developers of this area had come to the City originally and had
asked that the City of Fayetteville serve their water needs, but they
were directed to Springdale.
Director Noland added that the map indicated that this section
is surrounded on three sides by City Limits, and on two sides by
Lake Fayetteville Park.
237.7
2378
237.9
23 S Director Bumpass agreed that the City should include this
section within the city limits, unless there was a strong state-
, 238.1 ment by the City of Springdale to the contrary
City Attorney McCord interjected that procedurally, the
ordinance in question had been read twice previously, and left
238.2 on third reading in order to see what progress was made on a
proposal to enact county land use regulations, and would there-
fore need a motion to amend the ordinance to include the areas
in question at this meeting.
238.3 Director Todd, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion
to amend the original ordinance to include the area of Site 1
(as described above).
Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0, Director Osborne being
238.4 absent for this vote.
Site 2 - A parcel northwest of the City, west and south of
238.5 Highway 122, near Chris Hollow Road; and a parcel
west of the railroad tracks along Gregg Avenue,
which includes Van Asche St. and Lime Kiln Road.
238.6
238.7
2388
Director Lancaster stated that the Planning Commissions of the
City of Fayetteville and the City of Johnson had agreed on this
annexation.
Director Bumpass said that he had been contacted by a landowner,
Mr. Denny Time, of Time Construction, who stated that he owned
approximately 20 acres in Section 27 (Lime Kiln Road and Van Asche
Road,)and he was opposed to the annexation of his property, which
rums west of the railroad tracks to Lime Kiln Road. Director
Bumpass reiterated that all of these areas that are brought before
the Board for annexation were not necessarily recommended for
annexation, but rather were to be considered for annexation.
There was some discussion on the costs to be involved as a
result of this annexation. It was pointed out that the parcel
described by Director Bumpass (Lime Kiln Road and Van Asche Road)
would cost approximately $90,000 for road construction, while the
remainder would cost approximately $9,000.
238.9 Director Todd asked whether the new expressway would cross this
area, and City Manager Grimes stated that it would go through the
middle of this area (between Highway 112 and Gregg).
238.10 There being no further discussion, Director Bumpass, seconded
by Director Noland, made a motion to delete the area shown on the
map as Section 27 (Lime Kiln Road), but to include the rest of the
area in the annexation at Site 2.
238.11
Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0, Director Osborne being
absent for this vote.
1
1
Site 3 - The right-of-way along Highway 112 (Garland Avenue),
which nuns through the University of Arkansas
Experimental Farm.
City Attorney McCord stated as a matter of background, that the
City had initially received correspondence from the University of
Arkansas, which indicated that they had agreed to voluntary annexa-
tion, and Mr. McCord had prepared the necessary pleadings to file
at the County Court, and after the review by the University's
general counsel, the University had changed its decision on this
annexation. Mr. McCord recommended annexation, in that the City's
ordinances would not really be in effect there, except in the
case of "hot pursuit," whereby the ordinance is violated within
the City and pursuit is made outside the city. The city ordinances
do not have extraterritorial effect for land development regulations.
239
239.1
239.2
r There being no further discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded 239.3
U by Director Todd, made a motion to delete this area from the
CO annexation.
Q Upon roll call, the motion to delete failed by a vote of 4-2,
with Director Lancaster and Director Todd in the minority, and
Director Osborne being absent for this vote.
Site 4 - Two parcels of land along Mt. Comfort Road, north
of the bypass, running past Salem Road.
Director Bumpass asked the reasoning behind this annexation
and asked the responsibility of the City with regard to annexations,
and City Attorney McCord stated that the statutory obligation of the
City with regard to annexation includes specification of what
services the City will provide within three years and he stated
that the ordinance included police, fire, sanitation and water
services. He added that by annexing these areas, the City is not
obligated to pave the roads, but hopefully will be able to do so
in the future.
Director Noland added that the estimate for improvements, in
order to meet City standards, is approximately $34,000.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Noland, made a motion
to annex the two parcels in question.
Upon roll call, the notion passed 6-0, with Director Osborne
being absent for this vote.
Site 5 - Strip along Highway 16 West, beginning at the
existing City limits and would extend 660 feet
north from the center line of Highway 16, 660
feet west of Double Springs Road, and 1/2 mile
south from center line of Highway 16 West
Director Todd voiced concern that the figures were not available
on how much this would cost the City. Director Noland indicated that
the figure submitted to the Board was approximately $15,000, but this
figure didn't include sanitation costs. It is expected this $15,000
would be an annual cost, not a one time cost.
239.4
239.5
239.6
239.7
239.8
239.9
239.10
239.11
240
240.1
240.2
240.3
240.4
240.5
240.6
240.7
240.8
240.9
240.10
240.11
240.12
A resident of the area, Mr. Russell Jack, spoke to the Board
in favor of this annexation, and indicated that the majority of
the residents in this area are also in favor of the annexation.
Director Bass wondered whether the inclusion of this
area for fire protection would effect the Class IV fire rating,
and Assistant City Manager McWethy stated that to keep the present
fire rating a Fire Station would have to be put in at the north-
west part of town, within three years or so, regardless of the
annexation in question.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Osborne, made a
motion to include the area in question in the annexation.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-1, with Director Todd in
the minority.
Site 6 - A 3 -acre parcel in the southeast part of the
City of Fayetteville, east of Highway 71, and
south of the new airport terminal building.
Director Noland, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a
motion to include this area in the annexation.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
Site 7 - Strip of land along Highway 45 east.
Charles bluest spoke to the Board and indicated that there
has been good cooperation between the City and the County with
regard to this annexation. He asked that the Board postpone
this annexation, and give the Quorum Court the opportunity to
review this issue at the October 14th meeting.
David Hensen, a resident of the Highway 45 east area, spoke
to the Board. He wondered what the procedure would be for voting
for or against the annexation.
City Attorney McCord stated that all proposed areas to be
annexed would appear as separate questions on the November 2nd
ballot, and the majority of votes on each question will cause
approval.
Mr. Hensen also asked whether the City planned to pave the
roads in this area and make additional improvements, and
wondered at whose expense these improvements were to be made.
City Attorney McCord stated that under the Constitution,
the City cannot assess any property owner for street improve-
ments. However, he stated that the property owners themselves,
with signatures of the majority of assessed value, could form
an Improvement District to do so, but that the Board does not
have the authority to do so. Its taxing authority is limited by
the Constitution.
1
1
1
1
Director Bumpass reiterated to Mr. Quest that the City
cannot levy a tax for this purpose, and Director Noland added
that the road in question is a state highway, and therefore
state responsibility. Mr. McCord added that even if the
Board were to change the zoning without permission of the
residents in the area, that the residents would have the right
to continue the present use of. the land in question.
Directors Sharp and Lancaster agreed that the county should
be given the opportunity to follow through on its annexation
of this area at its October 14th meeting, but Director Lancaster
pointed out that if this is turned down by the Quorum Court, then
it will be becessary to hold a special election on this matter.
241
241.1
241.2
00 Director Noland reiterated that the purpose for this annexa- 241.3
tion is to help control the development of this particular area.
At this point there is no control on development.
U Director Todd, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to 241.4
CO delete this strip of Highway 45 east from annexation, and the
matter would be brought back to the Board at the first meeting
in December, for further consideration.
1
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
Additional Site - Danita Street
Residents of Danita Street, Mrs. Dunham and Mrs. Dickinson,
spoke to the Board in favor of including their area in the
annexation referendum.
These property owners had been under the impression that
they were within the city limits, and in actuality, in the
case of Mrs. Dunham's property, the city limits extend to the
middle of her lot. Mrs. Dunham has paid city taxes on this
house structure since 1969.
It was determined that approximately 100 feet of their
property, (Dunham property, including the house), is outside
the city limits.
With regard to cost for improvements on this area, Director
Todd stated that drainage would cost approximately $11,723,
street improvements, $3,600, and an additional $6,000 would be
needed to extend the sewer to within the city limits, for a
grand total of approximately $20,000.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Osborne, made a
nation to place this property from Lewis Woods Lane, west to
the existing City limits, on the ballot for the November 2, 1982
election.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
241.5
241.6
241.7
241.8
241.9
241.10
241.11
2 4 2 City Attorney McCord stated that the original ordinance, which
had been placed on third reading previously, had to be amended to
242.1 change the election date from May 25, 1982 to November 2, 1982.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to
242.2 amend the original annexation ordinance to change the date of election
from May 25, 1982 to November 2, 1982.
242.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
242.4 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the third and final
time.
242.5 Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion to
accept the ordinance, as amended.
242.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
ORDINANCE No. 2857 APPEARS ON PAGE 138 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Xtkl
SIDEWALK REMOVAL/EASTGATE SHOPPING CENTER
242.7 Mayor Noland introduced a request by tenants of the Eastgate Shopping
Center that the recently -installed sidewalk along the southside of
Huntsville Road be removed at city expense and relocated on the north side
of the road.
242.8 Mr. Walter Niblock, attorney, addressed the Board. He stated that
he represented Mr. Raymond Mitchell, Mitchell Oil Company, Mr. Morris
Collier, Collier's East, Mr. Jim Watson, Watson Supermarket, and Mr.
Terry Spencer of Mexican Originals, owner of the property. He added
that a resident of the area, Mr. Charles Pope, was also present.
242.9 Mr. Niblock stated that when this sidewalk first came to his atten-
tion the concrete was already being poured on it, but since that time
he has viewed the area and he has discussed at length the inconveniences
and loss of business to his clients which have been created by the
placement of the sidewalk at this location.
242.10 Mr. Terry Spencer spoke to the Board and indicated that when Mexican
Originals had first met with the Planning Commission about the large
scale development of this area, in conjunction with the Act 9 industrial
revenue bonds, the Commission had approved the plans.
242.11 Mr. Spencer stated that he had appeared before the Planning
Commission at three separate times and he had informed the Planning
Commission that problems would develop if the sidewalk were placed
along the south side of Huntsville Road, and he had offered at that
time to pay for placement of a sidewalk along the north side of
Highway 16, which would eliminate these problems. He stated that
Mexican Originals was forced to comply in order to go forward with this
development.
1
1
1
Mr. Jim Watson of Watson Supermarket, spoke to the Board
and indicated that he had been doing business in this location
for twenty-one years and during that period he had never had any
kind of traffic or pedestrian problem. But the placement of
this sidewalk has taken away approximately one-half of his
available parking spaces.
Mr. Niblock again addressed the Board and stated that Mr.
Spencer had fulfilled the requirements expressed to him by the
Street Superintendent, Mr. Clayton Powell. He then introduced
Mr. Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers to the Board. Mr. Gray is
the engineer who had designed the entrance ways for this shopping
center. Mr. Gray stated that he had attempted to make the design
CO in accordance with Arkansas Highway Department guidelines regarding
spacing between entrances to the center. The Highway Department
allows for three to four entrances, and Mr. Gray felt that the use
of curbs, gutters, and striping would help control the traffic flow
(� but there is no state requirement to do so.
COMr. Charles Pope, a resident of the area, spoke to the Board
and distributed photographs of the sidewalk, and pointed out that
he felt the sidewalk as it has been constructed, is not safe for
pedestrian traffic, and wondered why the use of green strips had
been eliminated in the blanket sidewalk ordinance.
Director Lancaster made reference to the minutes of the Planning
Commission whereby Terry Spencer addressed the Commission, stating,
"The developers have no objection to this recommendation provided
that is what the City wants." Director Lancaster stated that the
material in the agenda for this meeting stated that the tenants
were objecting to the sidewalk construction, and Director Lancaster
wondered if Mr. Spencer had discussed the prospect of the sidewalk
with the tenants. Mr. Spencer said that there had not been any
discussion between himself and the tenants.
Mr. Ray Mitchell, of Mitchell Oil Company, addressed the Board.
He stated that his tankers have difficulty with ingress and egress
in this area, due to the sidewalk. He said the tankers must either
drive aver the sidewalk, which will eventually do damage to it,
or they are forced to back into oncoming traffic, which is a safety
hazard.
Director Johnson asked whether any type of striping could be
placed an the parking surfaces for directional purposes, and Mt.
Niblock said that there is a surface area to which the striping
could be applied.
Director Bumpass stated that the idea of ripping out the side-
walk would probably cause a lot of damage to the existing parking
lot, and he felt it should be referred to Perry Franklin, of the
City's Traffic Department, for recommendations on what can be done
to help reduce the existing traffic and parking problems. Mr. Gray,
of Northwest Engineers, stated that he felt painting the sides of
the sidewalk yellow and using some form of striping at the entrances
of the shopping center would help to improve the situation.
243
243.1
243.2
243.3
243.4
243.5
243.6
243.7
2414 City Manager Grimes made the recommendation that Perry
Franklin meet with Mr Harry Gray to discuss the situation
244.1 and Perry Franklin would then report back to the Board on
this matter at the October 5th meeting.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Noland, made a
244.2 motion to table this matter until the October 5th meeting of
the Board of Directors.
244.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
REZONING APPEAL - PETITION R82-14
244.4 Director Noland placed before the Board an appeal of a
decision by the Planning Commission regarding rezoning petition
R82-14.
244.5 Attorney Jim Rose addressed the Board stating that this
appeal had been before the Planning Commission on August 23, 1982,
and that he had gone before the Circuit Court on an appeal to
have the petition reconsidered within a twelve-month period.
He stated that Judge ' s, sitting in for Judge Jameson, had
allowed the appeal to be reard and that he mad again gone before
the Planning Commission but the appeal had been denied by a vote
of 8-0.
244.6 Mr. Rose reiterated that this petition is to rezone the parcel located
at the northeast corner of East Huntsville Road and South Crossover Road,
(approximately 0.97 acres) from C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial" to C-2
"Thoroughfare Commercial," in order- to afford the highest and best
use of the property, which he contended was the most important issue
in considering a rezoning petition.
244.7 Mr. Rose distributed to the Board for their review a State
Highway Department traffic count, as of September 14, 1982.
Mr. Rose stated that it is his contention, based on these vehicular
traffic counts, that this area be considered a mayor intersection,
and that C-2 development at this intersection should be favorably
considered.
244.8 Director Noland pointed out that these traffic counts had
not been made available to the Planning Commission, and they
therefore were not taken into consideration.
Mr. Rose said that he believed that the main reason the
244.9 rezoning was disallowed was because of the drainage problem in
that area. He said that when he appealed this rezoning, that
most of the property under the application was within the flood
hazard area. And that since the last application there has
been some landfill placed on the property to raise the elevations,
which was done under the direction and approval of the City
Engineer.
1
1
Mr. McCord respectfully disagreed with Counsel Rose's contention 245
that "highest and best use""is the controlling factor in a rezoning
case. He stated that under the Arkansas Supreme Court cases an
existing zoning` classification must permit a. reasonable use of the pro-
perty in question, not -the most profitable:pse of the property. Other
factors to be considered are the availability of essential public ser-
vices, the effect that development would have on dangerous traffic
conditions, as well as the most compatible use of -the property, taking
into account existing uses of surrounding property. 245.1
Mr. Richard Mayes, resident of the area, spoke to the Board
in opposition to the rezoning of this area He felt that this
rezoning would open up the area for strip zoning and he stated
03 that the traffic controls in the area at present are limited, and
(Y) that the rezoning would only aggrevate the traffic problem.
245.2
OMr. Carl Osborne, representative for the Stiller estate, which 245.3
CO adjoins the property in question, said that the rezoning of this
property to C-2 would reduce the value of the Stiller property, and
Q will change the character of the neighborhood, while causing addi-
tional traffic problems.
City Attorney McCord pointed out that the fundamental purpose
of zoning is to preserve property values and to encourage orderly
development. He stated that the Board should not concentrate on
one possible use that might be permitted if the property is rezoned
in a certain manner, namely the placement of a liquor store on the
property The Board was asked to consider the fundamental land
use planning considerations.
Mr. Rose stated that the liquor store issue had been brought
up many times and he has heard much speculation about this issue,
and he pointed out that the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Fayetteville, Appendix A, Article -7, paragraph 22, stated "Retail
liquor stores may be located in those zoning districts where such
use is permitted, subject to the following conditions: No retail
liquor store shall be located on any property, two or more sides
of which abutt, or across the street from and perpendicular to
property zoned Residential. For the purpose of this section the
term "Street" shall not include any federal highway. He pointed
out that two state highways are involved, residential on both
sides, and if the area is rezoned C-2 a liquor store couldn't
be put up in this area
Director Bumpass stated that the area in question is a major
intersection and that the C-2 zoning ordinance states that the
purpose of C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" is designed to encourage
the functional grouping of commercial enterprises catering to
highway travelers. He feels that because of the logic behind the
zoning ordinances this is a reasonable request for rezoning.
He added that C-1 is a neighborhood commercial district, to provide
convenience goods, and personal services for persons living in
the surrounding residential areas.
1
245.4
245.5
245.6
246 Director Sharp reiterated that this request for rezoning
had been before the Planning Commission twice and since it did
246.1 not meet their requirements, it was denied 8-0. He stated that
this area was recommended for lower land use because of the
serious traffic hazards involved, and he felt that C-1 zoning
gave adequate opportunity to develop the land to very intensive
use
246.2 Director Todd stated that he would support the Planning
Commission's decision, in that he felt the C-1 zoning would
offer the petitioners opportunity for adequate business,
without compounding the traffic problan in that area
Director Todd, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to
246.3 deny the appeal for rezoning petition R82-14.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 4-3, with Directors Noland,
246.4 Bumpass and Osborne in the minority.
PROPERTY DEMOLITION - EAST SIDE OF HAPPY HOLLOW ROAD
246.5 Director Noland called for the third and final reading of
an ordinance ordering the demolition of dilapidated and irreparable
houses located on the east side of happy Hollow Road, north of
the Industrial Park.
246.6 Mr. McCord referred to the letter before the Board which he
had directed to Mr. Bill Murphy, attorney for the property owners,
the Kellers, in which he had asked Mr Murphy to contact him to
attempt to resolve the problan being a.dtressed. Mr. McCord and
Mr Murphy had visited the site in question on Monday, Septanber
20, 1982, and after discussing the situation, Mr. McCord had
requested a letter from Mr Murphy outlining the position of his
clients. Mr. McCord read frau the letter written by Mr Murphy
in response to this request, "After we had our meeting and surveyed
the property, I had a meeting with the Kellers. They stated that
they have started cleaning up the property and will continue to
clean this up and will place the old vehicles behind the sheds.
There is a house unoccupied and it could be fixed up, but their
request for a permit was turned down by the City sane time ago
I think this permit should be allowed and I will go to the proper
courts to ask that this be allowed." Mr. McCord said he had made
contact with the Planning Department late on Septanber 21st,
regarding this permit, and was awaiting a response from then.
246.7 he suggested that the Board give the Kellers some additional
time before taking any final action.
Director Todd stated that he hoped it could be communicated
246.8 that the Board is expecting same significant action to take place
before the first meeting in November, and Mr. McCord said that
he would send a follow up letter to Attorney Murphy expressing
the Board's position on this natter.
246.9 Director Noland, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion
that this matter be tabled until the first meeting in November.
246.10 Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
1
1
1
PARKING METERS/REQUEST FOR ORDINANCE REDUCING HOURS WHEN
COINS ARE REQUIRED
Director Noland introduced for further consideration a previ-
ous request by Director Bumpass for an ordinance reducing the
hours when parking meters require coins, from 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
to 8:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., and exempting federal, state, county and
city holidays, including Saturdays and Sundays.
Director Bumpass stated that his purpose for making this
suggestion was as a convenience to downtown employees.
He asked that the issue continue to be tabled, and that a
request be made to the Finance Committee to look into the overall
CO parking situation in the downtown area, particularly with regard
(Y) to how the increase in rates on gated lots is being received, and
the current figures from the parking deck.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Osborne, made the
motion to table this matter and to seek the recommendations of the
Q Finance Committee.
1
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
AIRPORT BIDS
Director Noland introduced a request by the City Manager for
a retroactive authorization to advertise for bids for taxiway and
ramp construction on the east side of Drake Field.
City Manager Don Grimes stated that this matter had been
discussed by the Board many times, and when the FAA sent the
letter to the City indicating that plans and specifications had
been approved, it was decided to start advertising for bids to
expedite the project. Mr. Grimes stated that this bid award
should be before the Board by the October 5th meeting, and he
indicated that 110 calendar days is expected for completion of
this construction.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion
to grant retroactive authorization to advertise for bids on this
project at Drake Field.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT/ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING APPLEBY ROAD STREET
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
City Attorney McCord suggested that this matter be tabled
He added that the Intervenor in the lawsuit has filed Notice of
Appeal from the rendering of the Writ of Mandamus, and has filed
a Motion for a stay, which is scheduled for hearing on September
28th. The City Attorney felt that the Board would be acting in
contempt if it took any action in view of the pending Motion.
He felt the matter should be tabled until the October 5th Board
meeting.
Director Noland, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion
to table the matter under the October 5th meeting of the Board.
247
247.1
247.2
247.3
247.4
247.5
247.6
247.7
247.8
247.9
247.10
247.11
24IS Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0-1, with Director Sharp
248.1 abstaining.
DEVELOPMENT IMPROVEMENTS
248 2 City Attorney McCord stated that the City Manager's office
has made a recommendation that an ordinance be executed authorizing
a developer to execute a "Bill of Assurance" to guarantee payment of
the proportionate share of off-site improvements, which may be
needed because of demands created by the development. Mr. McCord
felt that the ordinance was self-explanatory.
248.3 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to
suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading.
248.4 During discussion, City Attorney McCord stated that this
ordinance was designed to cover a situation where the particular
developers proportionate share would not be sufficient to cover
half of the costs of the improvement being contemplated, and
rather than requiring the developer to put up the cash, the recamien-
dation is that the developer should be allowed to execute a Bill of
Assurance, guaranteeing payment of the amount determined to be the
proportionate share, plus interest, at a later date. He added that
it was a policy decision for the Board to make as a whole, and the
Board should keep in mind that this would apply to any delayed off-
site improvement.
248 5 Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion
to leave this ordinance on first reading.
248.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed 4-3.
248.7 There was further discussion following this roll call.
248 8 Director Bumpass said that he questions the Planning Commission
setting the standards and the amount of the proportionate share of
the cost of said off-site improvements.
248.9 City Attorney McCord stated that the Planning Commission, in
determining the developer's proportionate share of the cost, relys
on input frau the City staff, that is frau the Street Superintendent,
City Engineer, and Water & Sewer Department. He added that under
the enabling legislation the approval of subdivision plats and large
scale development is not required to be done by the City Board. He
added that several years ago the City Board had amended the
Fayetteville Subdivision Ordinance to delete the requirement that
every subdivision come before the Board for approval, and allowed
the Planning Commission to exercise its statutory authority to ad-
minister the subdivision and large scale development ordinance.
248.10 Director Todd stated that it is his understanding that those
issues delegated to the Planning Commission can cane back to the
Board for appeal.
1
1
1
Mr. McCord stated that the City Board prescribes the standards
to be applied by the Planing Commission in determining what a
subdivider or a large scale developer shall be required to do, and
then the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Board's pre-
scribed standards, determines the amount of contribution, and he
added that this ordinance would allow the developers to execute
Bills of Assurance, rather than post the amount of money determined
by the Planning Commission, pursuant to the prescribed standards
of the City Board
Director Osborne withdrew his motion that this ordinance be left
on first reading, and recommended that this matter be taken to the
Street Committee for their consideration.
City Attorney McCord made the recommendation that the ordinance
could be modified to read in part "the subdivider may guarantee
payment of said amount so determined by executing a bill of assurance,
in a form approved by the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville;
...and shall obligate the landowner to pay to the City the amount so
determined by the City Board of Directors... He added, however, that
the Board delegates the administration of the ordinance to the
Planning Commission, and would therefore have the authority to repeal
that litigation and administrate it themselves.
It was determined that the Street Committee would report to the
Board on this matter at the meeting scheduled for October 5, 1982.
SANITATION BUDGET
The 1982-83 Sanitation Fund Budget was put before the Board for
approval. This budget included a 10% across-the-board rate increase.
Scott Linebaugh, Finance Director, made two recommendations to
the Board from the Finance Committee. Under Professional Services,
there is one major change, which is the addition of $68,000, a
revision for legal fees to Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery
Authority, for drawing up the Waste Flow Contract. It was an
anticipated cost, but Mr. Linebaugh said that it would be required
sooner than anticipated.
Mr Grimes felt it should be left in the budget, but that he
would get more substantiation of this amount. The City Attorney
and Director Osborne voiced the opinion that this was a rather high
fee. Mr. Linebaugh stated that the total anticipated fee would be
$75,000.
Mr. Linebaugh stated that he had received a request from the
Sanitation Superintendent to alter the amount budgeted for part-
time employees for 1982-83, changing this amount from $20,000 to
$15,000, and changing the amount for Overtime -Other from $4,000 to
$9,000, in that the Superintendent felt that he would be using more
part-time men this year than he had used last year.
249
249.1
249.2
249.3
249.4
249.5
249.6
249.7
249.8
250 Mr. Linebaugh also added that the use of regular employees in
overtime work, after they had completed their regular shifts, was
250.1 discontinued. He also stated that most of the work that had been
done in overtime would now be done in the course of the regular
shift.
250.2 Discussion followed on the increase of the collection charges
for sanitation services, from $5.00 to $5.50 for Residential
service, and under Commercial service, for Can -Regular, from
$5.00 to $5.50; for Cans -Additional, from $.44 to $.50, and under
Lodal, frau $1.82 to $2.00. City Attorney McCord was to prepare
the appropriate ordinance amending these rates accordingly, and
the rate increase was to be effective December 1, 1982.
250.3 With regard to the reduction of sanitation crews which has
taken place within the past year and one-half, Mr. Linebaugh
indicated that the crews have been reduced by two crews, and these
crews are working 4, 10 -hour days, but they have been given more
work to do in that ten-hour shift, while retaining the incentive
system. Director Osborne said he has heard some complaints frau
City residents that the crews are hurrying to complete their
shifts, and as a result have been messy in picking up the trash.
However, Director Noland felt that this was not the case, that
he felt the solid waste pickup was fairly efficient.
250.4 With regard to the 10% across-the-board salary increase,
Director Todd indicated that it had been a year since the last
increase, and Director Osborne added that this increase was
subject to the discretion of the individual Department Heads.
250.5 There being no further discussion, the City Attorney read
the ordinance, as amended, for the first time. Director Osborne,
seconded by Director Johnson, 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
Director Todd, made a motion to further suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the
motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the final time.
250.6 Upon roll call, the ordinance, as amended, passed 6-1, with
Director Bumpass voting in the minority.
Director Noland called for a resolution to adopt the budget
250.7 as amended, and Direct Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made
a motion to adopt the 1982-83 Sanitation Fund Budget, as'amended
by the ordinance.
250.8 Upon roll call, the budget was adopted by a vote of 6-1, with
Director Bumpass voting in the minority.
ORDINANCE NO. 2855 APPEARS ON PAGE 132.4 OF THE ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XIII
RESOLUTION NO. 115-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 'D{ OF THE ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK Xd
1
1
1
RECORDS DESTRUCTION
City Attorney McCord put before the Board a resolution
approving the destruction of certain permanent records and
support documents. He added that an additional list was forth-
coming from the Police Department.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Noland, made a motion
to accept this resolution.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0-1, with Director Bumpass
abstaining.
RESOLUTION NO. 114-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 93 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
CO BOOK X V
CO BID AWARDS
N
(� Bid No. 503 - Street Striping
CO Director Sharp stated that the City had received a letter from
Traffic Safety Sales & Services Company on August 6, 1982, stating
that they would stripe the streets at .10 per linear foot for white
or yellow skip lines, and -.08 per linear foot for white or yellow
continuous lines, and $50.00 each for left and right arrows. And
then, four weeks later, the company increased their quotes to .11,
.09, and $60.00, respectfully. Director Sharp is not agreeable to
dealing with a company which changes its quotation to the City within
II/
this short period of time.
Mr. Sturman Mackey, Purchasing Agent, stated that at the time
of the August 6th letter, Traffic Safety Sales & Services Company,
had made this quote because they needed the business, and now, at
this later date, they increased their quote because they had
increased their contracts and bids. Mr. Mackey added that he had
contacted seven other companies on this bid and all responded
"No Bid."
He then contacted Safety Coatings, Inc., of Foley, Alabama,
having obtained their name from the Municipal Index, and they
responded that they manufacture paints, but do not perform street
striping He mentioned that the companies which had given "No Bid"
responses did so because they felt they couldn't afford to bring
in their equipment for a $10,000 contract In that Traffic Safety
has an $80,000 truck which will hold several thousand fallons of
paint, Nr. Mackey feels they can handle this job, probably within
a period of two months.
Director Todd asked what standards are written into the bid
regarding how long the job will last, and Mr. Mackey stated that
the bid must meet the standards of the State Highway Department on
application and durability.
Director Johnson asked how often the streets are striped and
Director Todd stated that relative to this question, he wondered
if some work would be done in the spring, would Traffic Safety do
the work for the same price, but Mr. Mackey stated that he didn't
know.
251
251.1
251.2
251.3
251.4
251.5
251.6
251.7
251.8
252 There being no further discussion, Director Todd, seconded by
Director Noland, made a motion to accept Bid No. 503, for street
252.1 striping to be performed by Traffic Safety Sales & Services
Company.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
Ratification of Price Quote #50 - Diesel Fuel
Mr Mackey stated that the only way this type of diesel fuel
252.2 can be purchased is by taking telephone quotes, and purchasing from
the lowest bidder.
Director Noland, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion
252.3 to ratify the purchase of 17,200 gallons of on -the -road #2 diesel
fuel from Mitchell Oil, the lowest bidder.
Upon roll call, the nation passed 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
252.4 Mr. Bill Carter of the Goodyear Store, spoke to the Board to
amend his request of a few months ago for a variance of the sign
ordinance. (The sign is located on North College and Spring).
252.5
The sign
received from
currently two
fully intends
sign in their
Goodywar, and
of the sign r
is 4 feet tall, and this exceeds the permit he had
the City previously He stated that there are
free-standing signs at this location and Mr. Carter
to remove then if he is allowed to use this 4 foot
place. He had contacted the company officials at
they were not very cooperative in having the size
educed.
Director Sharp asked whether this could be placed on the
252.6 agenda for the October 5th meeting, in order to enable the Board
to review this request for a variance of the sign ordinance.
Director Todd said that since this is a large variance, it
252.7 would be looked at carefully. He estimated that all that would be
allowed would be a 15-20 square foot sign, and this sign is
approximately 60 square feet.
252.8 Director Sharp suggested that Mr. Carter write to the Goodyear
Company and request that they write to the Board indicating that
this is the smallest sign that Goodyear can authorize.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
Delinquent HMR and Supplemental Beverage Accounts
252.9 Director Noland noted that the Board was very interested in
trying to see if collection can be made of those delinquent accounts,
at least some of the larger ones, wherever they possibly can. He
suggested that the City Attorney look into some procedures to
follow.
1
1
253
Mr. McCord said that we will have to file civil action. The
criminal process could be dragged out in Circuit Court, and he
thought the best action would be to file a civil action. 253.1
College Club Dairy Letter/Requesting Waiver of Sidewalk•Ordinance
Director Noland asked whether it would be necessary to go to 253.2
the Street Committee for a recommendation on this matter, or would
the Board wish to respond to this request with a Bill of Assurance
to the effect that the sidewalk would be built at the call of the
city. He recalled that there was a house and a wholesale fruit
company to the east of College Club Dairy which have been given
CO Bills of Assurance to build sidewalks.
CO It was determined that it would be referred to the Street 253.3
Committee.
U
m Malco Theatre Sign - Memorandum
Director Todd asked whether City Attorney McCord was still 253.4
pursuing this matter. Mr. McCord stated that John Dietzen,.Sign
Inspector, had indicated that Malco had contacted him and they were in
the process of compliance. On Friday, September 24, 1982, Mr. McCord
received a call from the Ft. Smith office of Malco, and they indicated
they might be asking the Board for additional time, and they were
to send a letter to Mr. McCord outlining their position and their
request for additional time, and Mr. McCord would put it before the
Board. Mr. McCord said he is inclined, since the case is pending in
the Supreme Court, on the issue of the constitutionality of amorti-
zation, to take a more lenient posture, than he might otherwise take
in this type of situation.
Donrey Case
Director Lancaster asked what the status was in the Donrey case,
and Mr. McCord stated that Judge Butt japes to have a decision
shortly.
One of the issues involved in that case is also the issue of
amortization. The Judge has had the case under advisement for over
a year
Agreement with CEC for Use of Their Faciity - Board Meetings
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Todd, made a motion
to authorize the execution, by the Mayor, of an agreement with
the Continuing Education. Center, for use of their meeting rooms
in conjunction with meetings of City Boards and Committees.
It was mentioned that janitorial fees after 5:00 p.m. involved
will be $5.00 per hour each for two janitors working during the
meetings times.
253.5
2536
2537
253.8
254 Ordinance Waiving Competitive Bidding/Purchase of Two
Chlorinators, Pollution Control Plant
Director Noland made reference to the memorandum from the
254.1 City Engineer requesting an emergency purchase of two chlorinators
for the Pollution Control Plant
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time.
254.2 Director Noland, seconded by Director Johnson, 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 Noland, seconded
by Director Johnson, 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
by a ovote of 7-0.
254.3
The bid was awarded to Capital Controls Company, the lowest
bidder.
There was some additional discussion in which City Manager
254.4 Grimes mentioned that the chlorinators were needed to help reduce
the sludge bulking problem which results from the filamentous
bacteria in the aeration basins.
Director Osborne stated that possibly the source of the problem
254.5 should be asked to participate in paying for the purchase of these
chlorinators.
ORDINANCE NO. 2856 APPEARS ON PAGE /35 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
Booz
KILI
FAA Grant Agreement - Construction - East Side of Drake
254.6 City Manager Grimes stated that the Grant Agreement in con-
junction with the Planning Area/Drake Field had been received from
the FAA and he requested authorization from the Board for the
Mayor to execute the agreement. He added that the city's portion
of the cost for this construction is $25,000.
Director Osborne, seconded by Director Noland, made a nation
254.7 to authorize the execution of the FAA Grant Agreement.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 116-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 102 OF RESOLUTION BOOK XV
Fish Kill
254.8 Director Osborne made reference to the letter from the City
Engineer, Don Bunn, to the Plant Manager of Campbell Soup, regarding
the fish kill. He said that he felt it was worded too mildly.
1
Opposition to City Election Change
Under the current election system, all Board Directors are
elected by City voters, and then those Directors, in turn, select
one Director to serve as Mayor.
The City of Little Rock has passed legislation to change their
laws and allow the popular election of mayors Linder the city manager
form of government, but this Board of Directors.wanted to go on
record that they are opposed to any further changes in state laws
which mandate statewide the election of city officials under the
city manager form of goveiianent.
03 Director Todd stated that he felt it should be a local option,
and if the City of Fayetteville decided to change their procedure
for elections at some point in time, that that would be agreeable,
but he felt that decision should not be made by the City of Little
U Rock.
CO
a Director Todd, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to
oppose this change.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 122-82 APPEARS ON PAGE 137 OF RESOLUTION BOOK XV
Nominating Committee
Director Johnson has been appointed to serve as Chairman of
the Nominating Committee.
Petition
Petition by the residents of the Highway 45 East area for
installation of a traffic stoplight was introduced.
This area was surveyed by the State Highway Department and
they felt a traffic stoplight was not justified.
Meetings
A meeting of the Street Committee was scheduled for Wednesday,
September 29, 1982, at 3:30 p.m.
A meeting of the Finance Committee was scheduled for Tuesday,
September 28, 1982, at 2:30 p.m. It was determined that Scott
Linebaugh, Finance Director, and Petty Franklin, Traffic Superintendent
would make their recommendations regarding the downtown parking
situation.
Other
Director Osborne stated that the Board of Directors was invited
to an Anniversary Celebration at the Mt. Sequoyah Assembly on
Thursday, September 23, 1982, at 5:30 p.m. They were asked to R.S.V.P.
255
255.1
255.2
255.3
255.4
2555
255.6
255.7
255.8
255.9
255.10
256
256.1
256.2
2563
256.4
Minutes
Director Noland cited the following changes to minutes of
previous meetings: Meeting of August 17, 1982, paragraph 181.8,
reference to "Street Department" should be changed to "Street
Committee."
Meeting of August 25, 1982, paragraph 195.6, "Burn" should
be changed to "Berm." Also, paragraph 198.10, "Vernon Rowe of
Mccoodwin" should be changed to read "Vernon Rowe of McClelland
& Associates." Also, paragraph 201.3, change "Director Sharp
wondered if her position...would pose any conflict..." to
"Director Sharp asked Mrs. Johnson what she foresaw her relation-
ship could be regarding the Board and Fayetteville Open Charnel."
Also typographical error in minutes of this date, change vote
from 5-0 to 6-0, throughout.
Meeting of September 7, 1982, paragraph 205.7, "the Curfew
Ordinance will be adopted," should be changed to read "the Curfew
Ordinance will become effective."
Meeting of September 13, 1982, paragraph 224.6, "would be
preferable to the use of some sort of ground cover," should be
changed to read "would be preferable to the use of gunite."
ADJOURNMENT
256.5 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at
12:00 p.m.
1