Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-03 Minutes1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the at 7:30 p.m., on May 3 Fayetteville, Arkansas PRESENT: Mayor Noland Lancaster; City Manage McWethy; City Clerk Ke CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland silence. EMPLOYEE AWARDS Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held , 1983, in Room 107, Continuing Education Center, , Directors Osborne, Orton, Sharp, Bumpass, Johnson, and r Grimes; City Attorney McCord; Assistant City Manager lly; members of the press and audience. 13 13.1 13.2 called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful 13.3 Mayor Noland pres 1983. They are: Willi Loge, Patrolman, Poli Department. The Mayor be eligible to compete ented the awards to the Employees of the Month for April, am Kirk Bradley, Meter Reader, Finance Department; Roger ce Department; and Howard Mahone, Groundskeeper, Airport congratulated these individuals and noted that they would for the Employee of the Year Award. REZONING ORDINANCE Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance requesting rezoning of property located on the west side of Highway 71, north of Old Farmington Road. The request to rezone from A-1 "Agricultural" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential" was approved by the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Nol seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote o 6-0-1, with Director Bumpass being absent for this vote. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to further suspend the rules an place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Bumpass being absent for this vote. The Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. and, the f d passed City There being no one present to oppose this rezoning, upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Bumpass being absent for this vote. ORDINANCE NO. 2916 APPEARS ON PAGE /0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X 1 U SIDEWALK INSTALLATION/BILLS OF ASSURANCES Mayor Noland stated that Director Osborne had requested consideration of an. ordinance authorizing a property owner to execute a Bill of Assurances to guarantee the installation of a sidewalk and such Bills of Assurances would be executed administratively. The ordinance was read and left on third reading at the Board Meeting of April 19, 1983. Mayor Noland pointed out that these Bills of Assurances would be subject to appeal to the City Board of Directors, if particular circumstances prevailed. City Manager Grimes was confident that the City Staff was sufficiently familiar with the practice used in the past by the Board on granting these Bills of Assurances and that City Staff would follow those practices. Mayor Noland called for roll call. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0. 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 13.7 13.8 13.9 14 ORDINANCE NO. 2917 APPEARS ON PAGE /3 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XlY FIRE ORDINANCE RECONSIDERED Mayor Noland called for further consideration of an ordinance imposing 14.1 fire protection standards on residential property providing sleeping accommodations for less than fifteen persons. The Mayor pointed out that this ordinance was considered in several meetings which took place during the past year among members of the Ad Hoc Fire Committee. That committee was comprised o f landlords (Jerry Sweetser, Frank Kerr, and Fred Hanna), tenants (Leslie Oelsner, Gordon Floyd, and Mary Ann Sennett), representatives of the Fire and Inspection Departments (Freeman Wood, Larry Poage, and John Durham), and Directors Bumpass and Sharp. 14.2 Director Bumpass, Chairman of the Committee, addressed the Board and o utlined the circumstances which prompted the formation of the Ad Hoc Committee. He stated that the Fire Department had made a recommendation that the committee investigate the fire hazard situation in the City. The committee deliberated the question of smoke alarms being placed in rental units and the question of whether fire inspections should take place in those units. After several meetings, on February 2, 1982, the Committee recommended an ordinance containing the following terms that would apply to the rental of all buildings providing sleeping accommodations for fewer than 15 persons: (1) After July 1, 1983, no person shall o ffer for rent such accommodations "unless the building...has been inspected by the Fire Department"; (2) The owner of the building shall be required to install smoke detectors meeting minimum specifications and shall "inform each occupant o f the location of all smoke detectors, their method of operation and their required maintenance"; (3) Tenants shall be responsible for installing and maintaining one Type ABC "portable, dry -chemical type, fire extinguisher"; and (4) Other regulations regarding adequate means of egress, storage of materials, separation by fire walls, and the installation and use of heating, air conditioning, end cooking equipment. Director Bumpass stated that the Committee had addressed the general policy decision of whether or not smeke detectors should be installed in all living units. After deliberations, the Committee determined to (1) delete the fire extinguisher aspect of the proposed ordinance, (2) require that at some arbitrary date all living units in the City be required to have smoke alarms. Director Bumpass stated that he voted against the recommendation and believed that Director Sharp had also voted against it. 14.3 Mayor Noland called for discussion. Director Sharp stated that he felt the scope of the ordinance was in question. He felt the Board should examine (1) whether smoke alarms should be required for every dwelling unit, (2)...for Just rental units, or (3)...should not be required for any living units. Director Johnson felt that if it would become a requirement of rental units only, she would be in favor of a public relations campaign to enlighten the public to the benefits of smoke detectors. Director Bumpass stated that this had been considered by the Committee in their deliberations. 14.4 Mayor Noland then called for a reading of the ordinance. City Attorney McCord stated that that would not be necessary in that the ordinance as ori- ginally drafted was read three times at the meeting of February 2, 1982, and tabled. Since then various provisions had been deliberated by the committee. His recommendation was that, if the Board desired, they could amend the original o rdinance, followed by a vote. He pointed out that those amendments could delete the paragraph pertaining to smoke detectors, if the Board deemed that appropriate. Procedurally, however, it was necessary to move to take the o rdinance from the table. Director Orton, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to take the ordinance from the table. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 1 In discussion, Director Orton made reference to Section 9-32 of the 15 ordinance, "Smoke Detectors Required," and stated that she had noticed that in Kansas City they had included a phrase in their ordinance, which read, in 15.1 effect, "the owners of lodging houses and dwelling units are responsible for maintenance of the systems in those locations." She suggested that the ordinance being considered should include a phrase which would read, in effect, "individual tenants would maintain the smoke detectors, except in cases where it is a rooming house or hotel." It was pointed out that rooming houses and hotels are covered under the Arkansas State Fire Code. Mr. Freeman Wood of the Inspection Department stated that the State Fire Code does not address smoke detectors at the present time. Mr. George Blackwell, a landlopd, addressed the Board and stated his feelings that the constitutional rights of individuals would be jeopardized by the require- ment of smoke detectors, and the inspection of those detectors by the Fire Department. Mayor Noland pointed out that if Mr. Blackwell were building living units today the Fayetteville Building Code would require the installation of OJ smoke detectors. This rule covers all dwellings, owner occupied, and single (j family residents inclusive, that is, any building with sleeping accommodations. Q This has been a part of the Fayetteville Building Code for several years. Mr. Blackwell asked whether this ruling pertained to the dormitories at the University and City Attorney McCord stated that the City does not have the legal authority to regulate state owned property. However, Mr. Wood pointed out that he had met with the Housing Officials at the University and they had indicated that they would abide by whatever ordinance was approved by the Board. Mr. Jerry Sweetser addressed the Board and stressed the fact that the Committee had worked many months to prepare the second draft of the ordinance, as it appears in the agenda material, and that he would favor this ordinance. Director Bumpass stated that Mr. Sweetser was suggesting that the Board consider amending the original ordinance by replacing it in toto by the ordinancedrafted most recently by the Ad Hoc Committee. Director Lancaster made a motion to reject the ordinance which had been left on third reading. There was no second to this motion. Mayor Noland pointed out that the original ordinance had been taken from the table and a vote had not yet taken place on that ordinance. City Attorney McCord reiter- ated that the Board could move the amendments reflected in the second ordinance, and make any additional amendments they would deem appropriate. Director Sharp felt that there was much in the original ordinance which the Committee had agreed upon, and suggested discussing that ordinance on a point by point basis, and any amendments could be made on that basis. Mr. Sweetser disagreed in that he felt the matter had been thoroughly reviewed by the Committee during their deliberations. -However, Director Sharp pointed out that the final decision was a Board decision. Director Bumpass made a motion to amend the original ordinance in toto, by substituting the ordinance drafted most recently by the Committee. Director Orton seconded this motion. Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of 4-3, with Directors Orton, Bumpass and Johnson voting in the minority. Director Johnson asked the basic differences between the first and second drafts of the ordinance, and Director Sharp stated that the first ordinance applied to rental units only, while the second ordinance applied to every dwelling unit in the City. 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 16 16.1 Director Bumpass then asked John Durham, of the Fire Department Inspection Department, to address the Board. Mr. Durham had received a copy of an ordinance adopted in Kansas City concerning smoke detectors, and he suggested scheduling an additional meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee to review its merits and make their recommendations to the Board. He pointed out that the original intent of the ordinance was to devise an affordable, workable alternative for aids to saving lives in fires. Larry Poage added that he felt the smoke detectors would greatly help in life safety. Mr. Durham stated that fire hazards will always exist, but he felt these smoke detectors would be one step toward fulfilling life safety requirements in the community. He said he would be in favor of education of the public to the fire hazard situations which exist, and felt that public awareness to the use of smoke detectors would be extremely beneficial. Director Bumpass stated that he agreed with Mr. Durham that the original intent of the ordinance was life saving and the Committee had hoped to identify extremely substandard rental units and seek to advise those landlords and tenants on how to avoid fires. However, Director Bumpass was concerned about the requirement of smoke detectors in all dwelling units, and he felt that civil liberties should override any imposition that could be made from a policy standpoint on all residents, even if cited as a health and safety measure. 16.2 There was discussion and disagreement on the actual results of votes taken on the drafted ordinance by the Ad Hoc Fire Committee. No concensus was reached. 16.3 Director Osborne made a motion to refer the matter back to the Committee. There was no second to this motion. Again, Director Johnson stated that if health and safety for all was the 16.4 main consideration, smoke detectors should be required for evern "living unit" Fayetteville, but she was not certain that an ordinance was the best way to achieve this. She .felt that it would be better accomplished through a public relations campaign and the continuation of .some of the Fire Safety Promotion plans which the Fire Department has been performing for the community. Jerry Sweetser again voiced his concern that this type of ordinance could 16.5 lead to stronger governmental regulations in the future, and he feared its consequences. But he added that the landlords, as a whole, were certainly not opposed to the use f life saving devices. 16.6 Mayor Noland state6 that there seemed to be concurrence among the Board that the matter needed further deliberation in order to crystalize their views on the matter. Director Orton, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to table consideration of this matter until the meeting of June 21, 1983, and instructed the Fire Inspection Department to prepare a proposal on the procedure and cost estimate of a public relations campaign to educate the public on fire safety measures. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed by a vote of 7-0. 16.7 Director Bumpass stated that he felt the Board would be interested in this proposal in order to carry out the original intent of the ordinance, which was to increase life safety. Following the vote, Dr. Anthony DePalma, a manufacturer of fire protection 16.8 devices, addressed the Board and stated that he was in favor of educating the public as to the maintenance of the smoke detector devices, as well as their location. Mayor Noland stated that the Board would receive any information which Dr. DePalma cared to provide for informational purposes. 1 REQUEST TO DELAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS '17 Mayor Noland introduced a request by Willard Johnson for authorization to delay installation of certain street improvements (for a period of three years), in connection with the development of property at the southeast corner of South 17.1 School Avenue and Ninth Street. Mr. Gordon Cummings, attorney for the petitioner, addressed the Board and stated that this property was to be developed as a 12 -car used car lot, with a fit x 28 foot portable buil-ding placed on the property. His client was seeking this delay in street improvements until three years hence in order to stabilize the business prior to this expenditure. He stated that the curb, gutter and street improvements had been estimated at $30,000. Director Sharp asked the City Attorney if this matter should be reviewed by 17.2 the Planning Commission for their recommendation before the Board review. City Attorney McCord stated that this was not necessary in that it is not a large scale development, being less than one acre. He added that there is no (Y) subdivision involvedand it is not a large scale development, but_there is:.a.;require- CO ment in the land development regulations that when any development abuts a C9 substandard street, the developer is required to bring the street up to standards. The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of said improve - Q ment which bears a rational nexus to the needs created -by= -the development. Mr. McCord stated that the manner in which that requirement is administered in this particular fact situation could very well result in the developer not being required to bear $30,000 worth of improvements. The Board, he added, should determine whether it is a reasonable request to delay these improvements. Attorney Cummings stated that the possibility exists that this particular ordinance may be unconstitutional, as written, or it may be unconstitutional as it applies to certain circumstances. City Attorney McCord stated that, if it was the will of the Board, he would • 17.4 suggest the preparation of a form of contract between the City of Fayetteville and Mr. Willard Johnson, the petitioner, which could include wording to the effect, that if the business in question is an ongoing business three years from the date, the property owner's obligation would be to comply with the rational nexus requirements of the ordinance, and the property owners could reserve the right to challenge the constitutionality of the ordinance,_as applied, to protect ;the property owner's. rights. Mr. McCord felt that the contract draft-•sho,uld be reviewed by the Board as a whole. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a draft contract delaying the proposed street improve- 17.5 ments, subject to approval by the Board of Directors at the meeting of May 17, 1983. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 1 17.3 ENGINEERING CONTRACT/HIGHWAY 16 WEST DRAINAGE/SEWERAGE STUDY Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services, with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., in the lump sum amount of $12,500, for Highway 16 West drainage and sewerage study. Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize this resolution and contract. In discussion, Mayor Noland pointed out that this area is in the recently annexed area and this study will cover plans for that area for sewerage and drainage. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 5183 APPEARS ON PAGE 3/, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XVI 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 18 APPROVAL OF FOURTH SPLIT/LOT 16/FAYETTEVILLE INDUSTRIAL PARK Mayor Noland stated that Cal -Gas has requested the City Board approval 18.1 of the fourth split of Lot 16 of the Fayetteville Industrial Park. City Manager Grimes stated that it has been difficult to pre -determine configurations of lots within the Industrial Park, because invariably those configurations are altered by the developers. The area is equipped with utilities, street, curb and gutter. 18.2 Director Lancaster asked whether the Industrial Park Committee had reviewed this request and the City Manager felt that it had not, but added that the Board could approve this lot split, subject to the approval of the Industrial Park Committee. Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to 18.3 approve this fourth split of Lot 16 at the Fayetteville Industrial Park, subject to concurrence by the Industrial Park Committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. CHANGE ORDER/CITY HALL RENOVATION 18.4 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a change order in the renovation of City Hall, to cover ceiling, wall, and floor finish changes, which have previously been approved by the Board. Mr. Don Froning, of Hailey-Powers-Froning, Architects, addressed the Board and stated that the amount of the change order would total $12,955.00, in that the price of the vinyl asbestos tile was set at $700, lowering the original estimate from $24,675, to $12,955. 18.5 Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to approve this resolution authorizing the change order in the contract for the renovation of City Hall, in the amount of $12,955. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this vote. RESOLUTION N0.58 -83 APPEARS ON PAGE 3,Z5 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(all CLARIFICATION OF PROCEDURES/CHANGES IN ZONING ORDINANCE Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance clarifying the procedures by which 18.6 the City Board may make changes in the City's Zoning Ordinance. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules 18.7 and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this vote. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this vote. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. 18.8 In discussion, City Attorney McCord pointed out that the substantive change is that a public hearing does not have to be held by the Planning Commission in order to amend the Zoning Ordinance. There is statutory authority to that effect but under a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision, a local implementing ordinance provision is necessary. Mr. McCord stated that if the Board determines to amend the ordinance differently from that as recommended by the Planning Commission, that it will not be necessary to refer it back to the Planning Commission for public hearing. The standard procedure will continue to be followed, except for unusual situations. 1 1 1 Upon roll call, Osborne being absent the ordinance passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director for this vote. '19 ORDINANCE NO. 2920 APPEARS ON PAGE 19 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV BID AWARD BRidgewater Lane Water Line Extension Mayor Noland called for a resolution authorizing the award of a bid and 19.2 contract for the extension of the Bridgewater Lane water line, in the lqw-bid amount of $15,127.80, to the John Miller Construction Company. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a.motion to award this bid contract to John Miller Construction Company, in the amount of 19.3 $15,127.80. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Osborne being absent for this vote. RESOLUTION NO. 59_83 APPEARS ON PAGE 31.9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(V/ ORDINANCE WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDS Mayor Noland called for an ordinance waiving the competitive bid require- ments for the purchase of assorted pipe and fittings for the Water & Sewer Department. 19.4 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the 19.5 ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with Directors Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with Directors Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0-2, with Directors 19.6 Osborne and Bumpass being absent for this vote. ORDINANCE NO. 2919 APPEARS ON PAGE /7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X lV ORDINANCE WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDS/II Mayor Noland called for an ordinance waiving the competitive bid requirements for the purchase of two vacuum pumps for the Pollution Control Plant; and award 19.7 of the bid to Arkansas Industrial Machinery, Inc , in the amount of $9,532 each. 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. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Bumpass being absent for this vote. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Bumpass being absent for this vote. The .City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call, Bumpass being absent ORDINANCE N0. 2918 the motion passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director for this vote. 19.8 APPEARS ON PAGE /45-. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XV' 19.9 20 OTHER BUSINESS Master Sidewalk Plan 20.1 Director Sharp asked that the members of the Board submit their proposed amendments to the Master Sidewalk Plan to Assistant City Manager McWethy. Appropriations Act ("Jobs Bill") Fund 20.2 Community Development Director, Sandra Carlisle, addressed the Board concerning an additional CD grant entitlement of approximately $277,000 which would be received by the City of Fayetteville. She added that it is a separate appropriation from the 1983 grant, with CDBG regulations being applied to the funding. 20.3 In discussion, the Board determined to hold a Public Hearing at the Board Meeting of May 17, 1983, to consider possible uses of these funds. 227 West Dickson/Proposed Use As A Cafe Mr. Marshall Carlisle, attorney for Dr. and Mrs. David Harner, property 20.4 owners of a parcel at 227 West Dickson, addressed the Board concerning the possibility of his clients obtaining an on -premises beer and restaurant wine permit. He stated that due to the history of this location and the City's direct involvement in the closing of The Landing Strip, which was located at this address, he felt he should inform the City Board of his client's intentions. City Attorney McCord stated that he construed this letter as a matter 20.5 of information, and he did not think the proposal per se would be in violation of the decree that is entered of record, which decree enjoined the defendant in that case from operating The Landing Strip at that site, or a private club within 600 feet of Dickson Street. He felt that this proposal was not contrary to the terms of that decree. Mr. Carlisle stated that he wanted to make clear that the proposed use did not in any way conflict with the Court Order. He added that when an application for any alcoholic beverage permit is made in Little Rock, a copy of that application must, by law, be sent to the Mayor, the City Administration, and the Police Chief, for whatever comment they might want to make. He didn't want to go ahead with the project without giving the Board the information that the application was pending. Mr. McCord stated that the Board should determine whether or not the application ought to be opposed for whatever pertinent reason. However, this letter from Mr. Carlisle was just a matter of information. 20.6 Director Johnson expressed a concern over the number of parking spaces that are available at that location and hoped that Mr. Carlisle's clients would address that problem. Mr. Carlisle stated that this has been an ongoing problem in that region for some time, but added that the proposed use of the area for a cafe would certainly require substantially less parking that the previous use. 20.7 There was no further discussion on this matter. 1 1 Bid Award 21 Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation from the City Manager of a proposal to extend Joyce Street from the existing end to Old Missouri Road. 21.1 The Mayor indicated that the City's share of the construction costs would be $174,405.23 for 8" inch concrete construction. Director Sharp pointed out that the engineering costs indicated on the proposal were $3,000, to cover the increase in concrete depth from 7" to 8". He asked that the City Staff be instructed to negotiate the $3,000 additional engineering costs. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to award 21.2 the bid for the construction on this project to Jerry Sweetser Concrete, Inc., in the contract amount of $174,405.23. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. cr In further discussion, Director Osborne pointed out that the last para- 21.3 (10 graph of the proposal stated, "It is further recommended that the unused 00 $16,410.20 budgeted for this project be used on the east side of Old Missouri (' Road intersection to construct a four lane transition for approximately T00-150 Q feet to relieve the traffic congestion that will otherwise exist. a Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize the City Manager to negotiate this transition construction. The $16,410.20 unused budgeted funds would be used for this purpose. Upon roll call, the motion 21.4 passed by a vote of 7-0. Construction of Sidewalk/Lafette.and West Street Intersection City Manager Grimes stated that he was requesting Board approval on the construction of a short section of sidewalk at this location. 21.5 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to approve this construction. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 21.6 Report from Street Committee Frontage Road Extension Director Sharp stated the Street Committee is recommending extending Frontage Road to Zion Road, and placing this on the Master Street Plan. The Committee proposed looping to bypass the existing house on that piece of property, but do not recommend placing a definite route for a road in that area. Director Sharp requested approval from the Board of the concept and proposed referring this matter to the TAC Committee of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Orton, made a motion to recommend extending Frontage Road to Zion Road and referring this recommendation to the TAC Committee of the Northwest Arkansas Regional Planning Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0. 21.7 21.8 Signs on Right -Of -Way Director Sharp stated that if citizens have shrubbery on existing right-of- ways, they should contact the Traffic Department or the Street Department to 21.9 determine if these shrubs are creating hazards on the right-of-way. If they wish to maintain these shrubs and prevent them from being cut by the Street Department, they can obtain signs which can be placed on these shrubs for this purpose. 22 Mission Street Sidewalk City Manager Grimes stated that the project to construct sidewalk on 22.1 the east side of Mission Street is proceeding and the appraisals have been received. He added that most of those appraisals were within the $100-200 range. The City's Right -Of -Way Agent, Ed Connell, will begin contacting the property owners. 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 Request for Contract Cancellation/Howell Trumbo Director Osborne stated that he had been unavailable for the Board Meeting of April 19, 1983,at which time Mr. Howell Trumbo had requested an ingress to his property off of Highway 71 North, from Lots 3 and 4 in Bassett's Place Subdivision. This request had been denied by a vote of 4-2-1, with Directors Bumpass and Johnson voting in the minority, and Director Osborne being absent for this vote. Director Osborne made a request that this matter be reconsidered by the Board and stated that Mr. Trumbo had retained an attorney, F.H. Martin, who would request an opportunity to address the Board about this matter. In discussion, City Attorney McCord was requested to prepare a written opinion of the circumstances surrounding the binding effects of the contract. This written opinion would be directed to the Board for their consideration, at a forthcoming meeting of the Board, and the opinion would be forwarded to Mr. Trumbo, as well. Mr. Trumbo was asked to furnish a copy of the Escrow Agreement to Mr. McCord. Mayor Noland stated that based on the City Attorney's o pinion, the Board would determine whether a motion to reconsider this matter at the meeting of May 17, 1983 would be in order. Resolution/Proposed Jail Director Orton introduced the following Resolution for consideration by the Board: 22 6 "Whereas, in order to comply with a court order, Washington County proposes to construct a new jail; and Whereas, a Jail Advisory Board comprised of twenty-five citizens from Washington County recommended construction of a new jail facility and the funding of that jail by passage of a limited millage for a limited number of years; and Whereas, the Quorum Court is in the process o f approving a Master Plan for the Court House area which assures continued o peration of county offices and courts in the present vicinity; and Whereas, financing the proposed jail with millage would free funds for implementaion o f the Master Plan; and Whereas, the proposed jail would protect the health and safety of all Washington County citizens; Be It Therefore Resolved, that the City of Fayetteville supports the passage of the millage to construct the jail. 22 7 Director Orton, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to approve this resolution. 22.8 In discussion, Director Lancaster stated that there seemed to have been some elements omitted from this resolution, such as the location of the jail. He also stated that he would prefer deferring action on this resolution until the estimated cost of the project were firmed up. 22.9 Director Bumpass stated that in order to comply with the Arkansas Constitution, a vote would be taken to the people, as to whether they approve a move of a portion of the seat of county government, and, secondly, that the 1 1 jail would be proposed with a specific price and the necessary millage increase to fund the project. He added that the scope of the project was greatly expanded since the Jail Advisory Board made their original report on the project. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion to table consideration of this resolution until the Board Meeting of May 17, 1983, to afford the Board members an opportunity to reach a concensus on their views. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-1, with Director Orton voting in the minority. Special Meeting of the Board Scheduled Mayor Noland stated that the engineering firm of CH2M Hill is preparing Zln five different alternatives pertaining to the sewage treatment plant, for con - (10 sideration by the Board. These alternatives are expected to be received by May CO 16th or 17th. The Mayor asked that a Special Board Meeting be scheduled for 0 Thursday, May 19, 1983, at 3:30 p.m., in the Continuing Education Center. The purpose of the meeting would be to review the Draft of Sewage Disposal C Alternatives to be included in the revised 201 Facility Plan; and to Select Q the final Sewage Disposal Alternative to be contained in the revised 201 Facility Plan. It was determined that Director Orton would furnish a written response to these proposals, in that she would be unavailable for that Special Meeting. 1 23 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 "Main Street" Project Director Bumpass will submit information to the Board at an upcoming meeting concerning the availability of funds through the Little Rock Historical Society 23.5 for restoration of cities with population under 50,000. He hopes to obtain funding to use to restore a portion of Dickson Street. MINUTES Changes to Minutes of Board Meeting of April 19, 1983: 2.2 At the middle of the paragraph, which states, "He pointed out that the existing rates which were first computed ten years ago were not based on cost of service," should be changed to "existing rates which were first computed ten years ago were based on cost of service, but they are no longer based on cost of service." 4.4 "Fayetteville Open Channel providing the camera" should be "Fayetteville Open Channel providing the cameras". 23.6 10.3 The last sentence should read "Mr. McCord felt that the ultimate Decree would authorize that the signs be removed at the sign owner's expense, although the City Attorney has had some discussion with the Plaintiff's counsel about the effect of the Supreme Court ruling in so far as who must bear the cost of removal." 10.4 This should read, "Director Orton stated that she hoped that future Committee Membership appointments would include more -women. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. 23.7