Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-05-17 Minutes24 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING A meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held at 7:30 p.m., on May 17, 1983, in Room 107, Continuing Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Directors Sharp, Johnson, Lancaster, and Osborne; City Manager Grimes; City Attorney McCord; Assistant City Manager McWethy; City Clerk Kelly; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Directors Orton and Bumpass. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. 125th ANNIVERSARY OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH NOTED Mayor Noland stated that the First Baptist Church recently celebrated the 125th anniversary of their founding. He stated that he had been unable to attend this celebration but that former Mayor Ernest Lancaster, now a director, had attended in his absence and represented the City. Director Lancaster presented an enscribed gavel to the Mayor as appreciation to the City of Fayetteville for the continuing spirit of cooperation between the City and the First Baptist Church. The Mayor noted that he was appreciative of this recognition and would use the gavel for future board meetings. JOBS BILL HEARING Mayor Noland opened a public hearing regarding items to be funded with federal "Jobs Bill" money. This recent federal legislation made available $280,000 of additional Community Development Block Grant funds for an additional 33.2% entitlement. The funding is designed for use in providing productive employment for jobless Americans, hasten or initiate federal projects and construction, and to provide humanitarian assistance to the indigent. Mayor Noland then called for comments on the proposed used of these funds. He stated that staff recommendations for use of these funds are as follows: a structure for Children's House ($92,500); sidewalks on Ellis Avenue from Dunn to Hill ($57,500); $23,000 for contingencies; paving of Oakland and Berry ($180,692); and engineering for construction of Lytton/Blair/Mashburn Streets and Bailey/Butterfield ($20,000). These projects have been pending the availability of funds and will be funded in the 1984 CD budget. 24.1 24.2 24.4 24.5 24.6 24.7 1 1 1 Paving of Oakland and Berry Streets ($180,692) A question was asked about how many people would be benefitted by this project. Mrs. Sandra Carlisle responded that many people would be benefitted because the area was densely populated. Ellis Street Sidewalk ($57,500) Mayor Noland noted that this item was on the 1983 CD project list and was not included previously because of the lack of funding. The Mayor stated that this was a sidewalk from 15th to Hill Street and runs through a residential neighborhood which is 10 to connect to an existing sidewalk off of Dunn. 0 Engineering of Lytton/Blair/Mashburn, and Bailey/Butterfield —� Streets ($20,000 - Construction to be Incorporated into 1984 Budget Mayor Noland pointed out that th& Community Development Q program has stringent engineering requirements which must meet HUD monitoring. Mr. Kenneth Bradley, a resident of Butterfield Street and representing a group of area residents, addressed the Board in favor of this project. He outlined some of the problems that existed in the area in expressing his desire for the impro- vements. 1 In answer to a question raised by Director Sharp, Sandra Carlisle stated that the engineering would involve that for sur- facing, grading, and bedding in preparation for asphalting on Bailey/Butterfield. Lytton/Blair/Mashburn would require engineering for cement streets to full city standards. Mr. George Blackwell addressed the Board and voiced his opi= pion that it was not proper for the City to finance this construc- tion, but Mayor Noland noted that the funding was for Community Development projects, and the City was not funding the projects -- rather it was being funded with CD funds. EOA Representative Addressed the Board Ms. Nancy Ewing addressed the Board and stated that the EOA of Washington County felt the most appropriate use of the emergency "Jobs Bills" money was the creation of employment for the low to moderate income unemployed who are in need of deve- loping job skills. She stated that the EOA would like the oppor- tunity to negotiate with industries within the city limits to meet their skilled worker needs through job training and place- ment, utilizing the current available funds for this purpose. The EOA of Washington County has significant experience in helping low income people and linking them up with the local pri- vate businesses through the Private Sector Initiative Program which is a two-year program. She added that the EOA has placed 25 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 26 approximately 130 persons in the private sector during that two year period. She stated that they felt confident that if given the opportunity, they could produce at a minimum, twenty-five new, permanent positions with local industry. They also felt that EOA could assist trainees in learning job skills and also to meet the local industry through a customized training program. She added that realizing the time factor involved, they were asking for two and one-half weeks to develop an indepth program plan for a customized training program with an industry or pri- vate business in the community. Director Johnson asked how much money would be involved and how many people would be helped. Ms. Ewing stated that this would involve a minimum of twenty-five people being placed in permanent positions after the training period was completed. She added that the amount of money in question would vary, depending on the experience and skill of the trainee. Ms. Ewing stated that the cost, tentatively, would be $150,000 to $175,000, and this would supplement one staff person who would do on-the-job counseling and coordinate the training program for industry, as well as pre-screening, to ensure that the placements were successful. Mr. George Balckwell asked about who would be in charge of the people in this position and who would be responsible for hiring them. Mayor Noland stated that the specifics of this had not been finalized at this point. He asked for further comments, and there being none, the public hearing on the use of these funds was closed. Director Sharp asked Ms. Carlisle what was needed of the Board. She stated that the Community Development Department needed authorization from the Board to apply for these funds. Ms. Carlisle stated that it is recommended that the application be completed by July 1, 1983. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to proceed with the recommendations of the City Staff con- cerning the use of these funds. He added that the grant specifications suggested to him that no portion of this money should be placed in escrow. He added that he would like the Board to commit to construction of Bailey/Butterfield in 1984. City Manager Grimes was in agreement and reiterated that he felt it was an opportune time to complete this project. 26.1 26.2 1.3 1 26.4 1 26.5 1.6 26.7 1 1 City Manager Grimes stated that it should be on record that the Board has made a tentative commitment to construct Bailey/ Butterfield from the 1984 Budget, in that the final decision must be made following the public hearing process for consideration of all options at that time. Mayor Noland then asked Ms. Carlisle if she had received any estimate from the contractors about how many people might be reemployed to complete these projects, particularly with respect LO to the paving and sidewalk project. She stated that since the sidewalk project had not been 'engineered or bid, she could not say; however, McClinton -Anchor received the bid on Eagle Street, and they had agreed to stand by their bid for Oakland and Berry. 7 They said that if they got the job, they would be rehiring people Q they had laid off one to one-half years ago. Ms. Carlisle said Q they would not have new hires; everyone that they hired for the project would be rehires that had been laid off some time ago. Director Sharp asked how many, and Ms. Carlisle stated that she did not know at this time. 1 Mayor Noland reiterated that Ms. Carlisle needed authoriza- tion to proceed. He asked whether the authorization should state what specifically should be done with the funds, before July 1st. Director Osborne stated that this was the intent of his motion. 27 27.1 27.2 27.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 27.4 Director Johnson asked that the minutes reflect that the Board would fund construction on Bailey/Butterfield in the 1984 CD funds. Director Osborne was in agreement. CITY HOSPITAL STREET IMPORVEMENTS/BID AWARD Mayor Noland called for consideration of the award of a bid for the improvements of Rock and South Streets (from South School to West Avenue) and West Avenue (from Rock to South), under the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mayor Noland stated that the low bidder on this project was Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. at $93,798.62, and Ms. Carlisle added that this was within the estimate of the engineer. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. for improvements to Rock and South School Streets and West Avenue under the Community Development Block Grant Program. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. 27.5 27.6 27.7 2S Mayor Noland pointed out that a formal budget adjustment was needed to be approved by the Board. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize a budget adjustment in the Community Development Fund to finance the cost of improving Rock and South Streets from South School to West Avenue and West Avenue from Rock Street to South Street. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 61-83 RESOLUTION BOOK )(VI RESOLUTION NO. 62-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 336 OF ORDINANCE & APPEARS ON PAGE 00/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XUII HEAD START FACILITY/BID AWARD Mayor Noland called for consideration of the award of a bid for the construction of a building to house the Head Start faci- lity, under the Community Development Block Grant Program. Mayor Noland stated that there were seven bidders on this project, with the low bidder being Harrison Davis Construction Company in the amount of $84,800.00. This bid was under the engineer's estimate. Director Johnson, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to authorize the award of the bid to Harrison Davis Construction Company, in the amount of $84,800.00. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 63-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 003 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(to! SIGN APPEAL I/PETITIONER-TOWN & COUNTRY BEVERAGES Mayor Noland stated that the petitioner is requesting a tem- porary permit for July 1, 2, 4, and 5, to install a 12' x 20' roof sign at 2016 West Sixth Street. Mr. Randy Morton, manager of Town & Country Liquor, addressed the Board. He stated that the use of roof signs is not permitted unless the Board determines that there are practical difficulties in utilizing a wall sign, and he felt that a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the sign ordinance. He submitted photographs of the inflated beer cans which they wish to display at this location (roof signs). He wanted to stress that this would be a very temporary sign, to be used on the dates mentioned earlier, and would be installed only through the daylight hours. Mr. Morton also pointed out they were making this petition in order to comply with the laws of the community. 28.1 23.2 23.3 28.4 33.5 2c3.6 28.7 28.8 1 1 Mr. Morton stated that it was his understanding that the spirit and intent of the sign ordinance would be to avoid traffic hazards and to maintain the beautification of the City. He felt that the sign would not cause any traffic hazards and would not be a detriment to the community from a beautification standpoint. He stated that Town & Country Beverages is willing to pay any reasonable variance fees that should be incurred. He added that this would generate impulse buying and would in turn, generate additional funds for the city, state, and county. He asked the Board to take all these factors into consideration in making 11) their decision on granting this request. 0 Director Lancaster was concerned that granting this request might prompt additional requests of this type. Mr. Morton stated that he realized the granting of this variance would be a privi- es lege, and they did not intend to abuse this privilege. a 1 There was discussion on whether under this sign ordinance variances had been granted in the past. Director Osborne felt that this had not been done in the past, at least for circumstances such as this. The City Attorney further discussed that the purpose of the ordinance is set out in the preamble and basically the purposes are twofold: one, to preserve the natural beauty of the com- munity, and two, to promote traffic safety. The ordinance sets out the standards for the Board to apply and that is: whether there are practical difficulties in utilizing a wall sign or a free standing sign. Director Lancaster did feel the sign might attract attention in a detrimental way. Mr. Morton said this had been done in the past and did not prove detrimental. Further, he asked what pro- visions are made for circuses, fairs, etc. He then asked about setting the sign out by the side of the building; City Attorney McCord said that would still be subject to other provisions of the Sign Ordinance. Mayor Noland stated there is a restriction of one pole sign per business and that Mr. Morton probably had one at this time. Mr. Morton stated that it is a "generic" sign which does not advertise Town & Country Beverages, Inc. specifically. 29 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 30 30.1 Mr. McCord informed Mr. Morton that he is going through the proper channels, and it is the decision of the Board as to whether he is entitled to the variance under the standards prescribed by the ordinance. If the Board gives a negative decision, he could appeal to the Circuit Court. He further stated that there are numerous cases upholding prohibitions against roof signs, and cases holding that billboards and signs that are designed to attract the attention of motorists raise a question as to whether of not they create a traffic hazard. The courts say when the issue is debatable, they are going to resolve the issue in favor of the legislative body. The presumption is in favor of the ordinance, and the burden of proof is on T & C Beverage. It is the decision of this Board to apply the standards set forth in the ordinance to the facts of this case. 30.2 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion to deny this request for a temporary variance of the Sign Ordinance. 30.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. SIGN APPEAL II/PETITIONER - RED LOBSTER RESTAURANT 30.4 Mayor Noland stated that the petitioner is requesting per- mission to erect a 180 square foot free-standing sign at a 15' setback from the street right-of-way, at the 3800 block of North Shiloh Drive. (This is south of the Ramada Inn). The Mayor stated that a sign of this size would require a 40' setback unless the Board finds that there is some practical difficulty. 30.5 Mr. Gerald K. Richards, agent for Red Lobster Restaurant, said his company had had preliminary site plans prepared, but after additional research on the site, they found that there was a 50' gas line easement at the 40' setback location; therefore, they had to make alterations to the building plans. 30.6 The Red Lobster people are attempting to follow the city's laws concerning the placement of signs, but have no alternative due to the 50' gas easement. Mr. Richards stated that he knew it was important for the city to maintain standards, and he does not feel, under the circumstances, the gas line, the non -traffic street, considerable distance from any traffic, that this is an unreasonable request. 30.7 There was general discussion about the placement of the sign. 30.8 Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion that the Board approve this request, stating that he thought this was a classic definition of "hardship." Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of 2 to 3, with Director Osborne and Johnson voting in the minority. 1 1 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Lancaster, moved to grant a variance to allow the Red Lobster to place their sign approximately 30 feet from the street right of way on the north boundary of the property. (This is a 10 foot variance.) Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. STREET IMPROVEMENTS/RECONSIDERATION Mayor Noland called for further consideration of a request by Willard Johnson for authorization to delay for three years the installation of certain street improvements, in connection with School Avenue and Ninth Street. Q Attorney for Mr. Willard Johnson, Gordon Cummings, addressed 7 the Board. He stated that at the board meeting of May 3, 1983, he had made a request for Mr. Johnson that the City consider entering into an agreement, in the form of a Bill of Assurances, to allow him to move the portable building onto the land in question and operate a used car lot for a period of three years without posting the amount of money deemed necessary for these street improvements. The estimate on these street improvements was $ 30,000. Mr. Cummings then submitted an agreement to the Board which reflected that at the end of three years, at the call of the City, if the business was still in operation, he would honor this agreement, upon receipt of a letter from the City requesting that he post a bond or other sufficient security to make those street improvements. Mr. Cummings stated that the land would become productive and benefit the City as well as his client. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize the acceptance of this agreement by the City of Fayetteville. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0. CONTRACT CANCELLATION/HOWELL TRUMBO Mayor Noland introduced for further consideration a request by Howell Trumbo for the Board's agreement to the termination of a contract cancelling access from Highway 71 North into Lots 3 and 4 in Bassett's Place Subdivision. 31 31.1 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 Mayor Noland stated at the meeting of May 3, 1983, the Board 31.6 had asked the City Attorney to render an opinion on the validity of a particular contract that was signed. The City Attorney has submitted that written opinion. He called for a motion to recon- sider the previous action of the Board, in view of the legal opi- nion from Mr. McCord. 32 32.1 Mr. F. H. Martin, attorney for Howell Trumbo, addressed the Board and stated that he agreed with the letter of the law, as expressed in the written opinion of Mr. McCord. 32.2 As background, Mr. Martin stated that in June, 1977, Mr. Bassett executed a contract to sell the property to Mr. Trumbo, and in November of that same year, Mr. Bassett had some remaining property. In developing that property, he entered into an agreement that when the frontage road to the east of Highway 71 was completed, he would agree to close the access to Highway 71; though at that time, Johnie Bassett did not own that piece of property. Mr. Martin felt it would impose a hardship to enforce this contract. 32.3 Mayor Noland stated that after reading Mr. McCord's letter, he wondered where the City would be in the absence of any con- tract with Bassett, as far as any access is concerned. Most of these accesses were granted by the Highway Department, at that time, as part of the settlement for the land. 32.4 Mr. McCord stated that he was aware of no case law on the issue of whether the City has the legal authority to require closing of an access point that has been granted by the Highway Department, to a state highway or a portion of an interstate highway that is maintained by the State Highway Department. The statute on Controlled Access Highways can certainly be construed as stating that authority is vested with the agency having jurisdiction over the service road. An argument can be made that the City does not have the authority to require the closing of an access point on an interstate or state highway that has been granted by the State Highway Department. 32.5 Mayor Noland stated that he was basing this on the last paragraph from Mr. Holmes, the Engineer for the Highway Depart- ment, in his letter of April 15, 1983. He stated that the issu- ance of an access driveway permit by the Highway Department does not supercede any requirement of the city or county which has jurisdiction over the development of the property. McCord said that the key phrase in the letter is "over the development of the property." That does not purport to address the issue of access onto the highway itself. Again, Mr. McCord could not give the Board a definitive opinion on whether the City has the authority to close an access point to a state highway or not, because there is no case law on that issue. He just pointed out that an argument can be made that the City does not have the authority because of the wording of the enabling legislation. 32.6 Mayor Noland said that he was uncertain whether or not an access point had actually been granted. Mr. Martin thought that 1 1 1 the access had been in existence for many years. Mayor Noland said that there were numerous access points that were closed in the Fayetteville area. Mr. Martin added that he did not believe that in this instance the Highway Department ever closed the access when they built the four -lane there, but that he could be incorrect. He felt that it had been open all this time. There was general discussion about the existence of the access highway. Mr. Martin stated that in the last phase of the bypass LO construction, when the Highway Department did close off some accesses not closed earlier, those property owners were paid to 0 close the access. However, he did not think that this had ever been done in this instance. Mayor Noland then asked for a motion to reconsider. Director Sharp stated that the will of the Board at a previous board meeting was that they did not want access points on the bypass, and then the Board had asked the City Attorney to review the situation, and apparently there are some legal questions, but he has not found any case law. The Board has given their feelings on the access points; however, it may be up to the City Attorney to defend those feelings. 33 33.1 33.2 33.3 Director Osborne did not agree with the action of the Board 33.4 on this matter. Mayor Noland stated that the City and the Highway Department have worked to develop controlled access highway around the City, and approving this would start a whole series of requests. Mr. Martin felt that this case had a great deal to distinguish it from a case where, for instance, a person owned land adjacent to the highway and someone wanted access. It seemed to him that in this case this property had access, and he did not think the Highway Department had ever taken it away. He thinks that the property owner is entitled to by paid by the Highway Department, when the access is taken away from him. Mayor Noland felt that should be between the owner and the Highway Department when they bought the right of way, rather than between the City. Director Lancaster asked whether Mr. Trumbo was asking for access on both of his lots. Mr. Martin said that just one twelve foot access was being requested. 33.5 33.6 33.7 33.8 34 34.1 Director Johnson stated that her major problem is that she cannot see how the City can enforce a contract that was signed by someone that does not own the property. Director Osborne said that Mr. Holmes' letter from the Highway Department makes it very clear that they are considering it an access. He felt the City was purporting to close an access which we have no authority to close. 34.2 City Attorney McCord said that it appeared to him that the majority of the Board does not want to go on record as approving additional access points on this controlled access facility. McCord continued that he did not know what would happen if the client got a permit from the Highway Department and actually installed the driveway, whether the Board would authorize the office of the City Attorney to seek an injunction requiring the closing. He sees these as two separate issues. 34.3 Mr. he has a that the the City improper Martin stated that the problem for Mr. Trumbo is that contract to sell the property, but the contract requires purchaser have access. Mr. Martin did not see where was putting themselves in a position of establishing an precedent with regard to opening accesses. 34.4 Mayor Noland stated that in the event that there had been no motion to reconsider, the original action of the Board would stand. CITY HALL RENOVATION/RELOCATION OF UTILITY LINES 34.5 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract with Northwest Electric, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $ 36,267 for the relocation of utility lines in connection with the renovation of City Hall. Mayor Noland stated that this does include an allowance for telephone conduit. 34.6 Mayor Noland, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to award the contract to Northwest Electric, Inc., in an amount not to exceed S 36,267. 34.7 Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 34.8 RESOLUTION NO. 64-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 0C6OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK y U l I 34.9 MAPLE STREET/INSTALLATION OF STREET LIGHTING Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Fayette Tree & Trench, Inc., in the amount of $ 35,814.91, for the installation of street lighting on Maple Street, from Arkansas Avenue to North Garland. Mayor Noland stated that this contract would require the authori- zation of a resolution approving a budget adjustment in the Public Works fund to transfer $ 26,287.98 from the Public Works fund balance to Public Works contract services. 1 1 1 1 1 Director Johnson, seconded by Director Lancaster,- made a motion to authorize the award of this contract to Fayette Tree & Trench. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize the budget adjustment in conjunction with this contract award. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 35 35.1 35.2 RESOLUTION NO. 65.83 APPEARS ON PAGE 0/J7 OF ORDINANCE & 35.3 RESOLUTION BOOK X U// / RESOLUTION NO. 66-83 APPEARS ON PAGE OS 7 OF ORDINANCE & 35.4 RESOLUTION BOOK ./(0/1 LOT SPLIT REQUEST Mayor Noland introduced a request to vary the 1.5 acre mini- 35.5 mum lot size requirement of Ordinance 2353 for subdivided pro- perty not having access to a public sewer. Mayor Noland stated that the land had previously been broken into three different tracts, and this request called for a fourth tract. Addressing the Board was Mr. Gary L. Carson, attorney for Zola Stanberry. He stated that Mrs. Stanberry wishes to convey approximately 9.815 acres to each of her three children while retaining .55 acres. 35.6 Director Johnson, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion 35.7 to grant this request. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. ORDINANCE WAIVING COMPETITIVE BIDDING/NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE STREET REPAIR Mayor Noland introudced an ordinance waiving the require- ments of competitive bidding for the repair of damage to North College Avenue (U.S. Highway 71 North) near Villa Boulevard caused by a break in a city water main. The contract was to be awarded to McClinton -Anchor Company in an amount of $ 4,500.00. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the ruls and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The City Attorney then read the ordinance for the final time. 35.8 35.9 3h 36.1 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to amend this ordinance to specify that the contract amount should not exceed $ 4,500.00. 36.2 Upon roll call, the amendment to the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 36.3 Upon final vote, the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 36.4 ORDINANCE NO. 2921 APPEARS ON PAGE Ai OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV 36.5 EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN RECONSIDERED Mayor Noland called for further consideration of a recommen- dation by Bob E. Hall, Hall Consulting, Inc., concerning the withdrawal of their money by employees from the city's retirement plan. 36.6 Mr. Bob Hall addressed the Board and reiterated the recom- mendation being made to the Board concerning the retirement plan. The recommendation is for "participants in the City of Fayetteville Retirement Plan shall not be permitted to withdraw their own contributions to the retirement plan prior to retire- ment, disability, death, or termination of employment." 36.7 Dr. Hall wanted it to be known that the employees are not required to participate in the plan, but if they do participate, they contribute a minimum of 3% of their money, and the City contributes an additional 6% to their plan. 36.8 Dr. Hall further stated that the current plan provides that if an employee decides to withdraw his money,he must stay out of the plan until the second anniversary following the withdrawal, and during that time the employee loses the interest on his money, and also the City's matching contribution. Therefore, he has made the above referenced recommendation. He noted that this recommendation is in line with the retirement plans of both the Fire and Police Departments, as well as the county, state, and the ICMA plans. 36.9 Director Lancaster, seconded by Director Osborne, made a motion to approve the recommendation of the city staff and of Dr. Bob Hall concerning the retirement plan. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 36.10 ORDINANCE/EXPENSES CONCERNING PROPERTY CLEANUP Mayor Noland intruduced an oridinace amending Section 11.3 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to provide that all expenses 1 1 1 1 37 incurred by the City in abating unsitely conditions on real pro- 37.1 perty shall be a lien on the property. City Attorney McCord stated that this amending ordinance is to delete a $.02 per square foot maximum, which had been proposed by the legislature a few years ago and has now been deleted. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Osborne, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Osborne, 'ri seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion to further suspend Q the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney Q then read the ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 0. 1 37.2 37.3 ORDINANCE NO. 2922 APPEARS ON PAGE A3 OF ORDINANCE & 37.4 RESOLUTION BOOK XIV RURAL FIRE CONTRACTS/PREMIUM INCREASES Mayor Noland called for consideration of Board approval of a 37.5 total yearly premium for rural fire contracts which would amount to $ 121.00 for each residence in a neighborhood contract and $ 242.00 for an individual contract. The Mayor stated that these premiums were reached by the use of a formula using the cost of operating the Fire Department, divided by the number of residences, and allowing for some depreciation. Director Johnson asked the effective date of these premium payments, and Finance Director Linebaugh stated that the contract holders are sent letters informing them of these amounts which are due. In the case of the neighborhood contracts, there is one individual who signs the neighborhood contract and is responsible for collecting monies and notifying them when the premium is due. Mr. Linebaugh stated that notices had been sent to the holders of the fire contracts two weeks prior to this meeting. Director Johnson asked whether a method of billing each individual in a neighborhood group could be investigated. Mr. Linebaugh said it would not be a great problem to bill the contract holders individually, but he added that when the fire contracts were approved, they intended that the City would not administer the entire neighborhood group. This was done to insure that the decisions were made by the neighborhood group without the influence of the City. Mayor Noland pointed out that the increase was due partially to the additional firemen hired and the increased allocation of funds from the sales tax. Mr. Linebaugh stated that the people have the option to join a neighborhood group or an individual contract. The neighborhood contract is better financially. 37.6 37.7 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion 37.8 to approve the yearly premium increases. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 38 38.1 RESOLUTION PROPOSED CONCERNING JAIL Mayor Noland called for further consideration of a resolu- tion introduced by Director Orton at the May 3, 1983, board meeting. 38.2 Director Johnson stated that the Board had deliberated and would propose the following resolution: 38.3 WHEREAS, Washington County proposed to implement a Civil Service Commission for continued professional operation and manage- ment of the Sheriff's Office and County Jail; and WHEREAS, in order to comply with a court order, Washington County proposed to construct a new jail; and WHEREAS, the Quorum Court has adopted a Master Plan for the expansion of the county's downtown Fayetteville courthouse complex which assures continued operation of county offices and courts in the present vicinity; and WHEREAS, financing the proposed jail with millage would free funds for implementation of 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 construction of a new jail, supports the Master Plan, and supports the professional operation and management of the jail through a Civil Service Commission. 38.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion to permanently table this resolution. Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of 3 to 2. 38.5 Director Sharp, seconded by Mayor Noland, made a motion to table this resolution until the June 7 meeting to obtain the input from Directors Orton and Bumpass who were absent from this meeting. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1 with Director Osborne voting in the minority. RESOLUTION/MEMORANDUM OF INTENT INTRODUCED 38.6 Mayor Noland called for consideration of a resolution authorizing a memorandum of intent by and between the City of Fayetteville and Andrew Corporation and Grasis Corporation per- taining to the issuance of industrial development revenue Bonds for financing the costs of acquiring, constructing, and equipping industrial facilities. 38.7 City Attorney McCord explained that there were two basic types of financing arrangements that are associated with Act 9 bond issues. One type is where the company deeds the land to the City and leases the land and facilities back from the City, pays lease payments in an amount equivalent to the debt service of the bonds, and when the bonds are retired, the City deeds back 1 1 1 the property to the company for a nominal consideration. Under that agreement, there is a payment in lieu of taxes provision where the company pays the City an amount equivalent to the ad valorum taxes that would have been collected if the pro- perty were owned by the company and taxable. Under the second financing arrangement, the company holds title to the property. During the entire time the bonds are outstanding, there is a note and mortgage executed in favor of the city that is assigned as a trustee. The note payments are equivalent to the debt service requirements on the bonds, and the property in that situation is taxable. Therefore, there is not a payment in lieu of taxes agreement. The language in the induce- ° ment resolution authorizes the flexibility for those two types of financing arrangements, with no obligation on the part of the Q city, and no potential liability on the part of the city. This is the standard Act 9 Inducement Resolution enacted by cities. 1 Mr. Dale Christy, President of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, addressed the Board and presented background infor- mation on the Andrew Corporation and Grasis Corporation. He stated some of the possible economic benefits to the Fayetteville area. The project in Fayetteville involves the acquisition of about 50 acres of land in the south end of the Industrial Park. They will be building, initially, a manufacturing facility for Grasis Corporation which will be the steel fabrication tower pro- ject. The first phase of the project will be about 7,000 square feet of manufacturing space and about 8,000-10,000 square feet of office space. The intent is to begin that construction within 30 days. The long-range aspect is that over a three to five year period they are intending on doubling the size of the Grasis Corporation. They will also be building a manufacturing facility for Andrew Corporation. Ultimately, on the 50 -acre site, there will be manufacturing facilities for both companies which will probably amount to 100 to 150 additional jobs in the community within the next two years and build up to approximately 500 in the future. Mr. Christy made a request for board approval of the resolution and memorandum of intent so that they can proceed with formal arrangements for Act 9 revenue financing if they so elect. 39 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Director Osborne, made a 39.6 motion to approve the resolution and memorandum of intent. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 60-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 3 go OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 39.7 BOOK xvr 40 40.1 Mr. Grimes stated that in conjunction with this project, approximately three of four years ago, the City was working with the State Highway Department on acquiring rights-of-way and uti- lity easements for the paving project of Willoughby Road and City Lake Road. The Highway Department was doing the construction on this project until they ran out of funding. The City has been asked by the Highway Department to continue obtaining the rights- of-way and easements. Mr. Grimes stated that the City would pur- sue these at this time. 40.2 Mr. Christy stated that the Industrial Park Committee has commited that they would work with the Highway Department in accelerating the construction of this project. He had been informed that this project was on the top of the highway department's priority list for projects of this type. FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES/REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF RFP'S 40.3 Mayor Noland called to the attention of the Board a request made by Finance Director Linebaugh for requests for proposals in conjunction with the financial advisory services regarding the sewer bond issue. Mayor Noland stated that this request is being made in order to separate the financial advisory service from the underwriter services. Mr. Linebaugh had advised the Board of several different areas whereby the financial advisory would aid in the performance of debt financing. 40.4 Mr. Linebaugh stated that the current trend is to partially depart from using financial advisory services and leave most of the work to the underwriters. It is his belief that due to the complexity of this type of bond issue, the City should utilize a financial advisory. The underwriter basically looks to sell the bonds. The financial advisory directs the underwriter in the direction of the city's benefit. He further stated that he felt this was important because past issues have been pretty restric- tive on the City, and it will be the duty of the financial advi- sory to keep this from occurring. The fee for this service is usually based on a percentage of the bond issue. Mr. Linebaugh stated that before he made this recommendation, he contacted many people knowledgeable in bond issuance matters, and the financial advisory method was recommended. 40.5 Director Sharp, seconded by Director Johnson, made a motion to authorize the issuance of requests for proposals for a finan- cial advisory service. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 1 1 1 1 • JUNIPER BUSH DISCUSSION Director Osborne brought to the attention of the Board a problem he felt needed some attention. He had owned, but recently sold, some property that required hedges for separation purposes between apartments. He had received four or five noti- ces from the City, and the new owner had received four or five. However, the bushes had not been planted yet. A criminal summons was issued against the new property owner, and he was arrested at LO the University during one of the classes he was teaching. Director Osborne felt the City was grossly in error in having O this man arrested during his class. In addition, he felt the City was not consistent in handling matters of this type. He used as an example "Ruble's Rubble" on Dickson Street that has Q been unsitely for quite some time. However, no criminal charges have been issued against the owner of that property-- rather the matter was handled in the civil court. Mr. Grimes stated this was the first he had heard of this matter, and he agreed with Director Osborne that the matter should have been handled in a different manner. Director Lancaster asked why nothing had been done in view of the fact that 8 to 10 notices had been issued. Director Osborne stated that the bad and wet weather had prohibited the planting of the bushes and moving of the ground that was required. He felt it was his fault that the bushes had not yet been planted, but he felt the matter should have been handled in a totally different manner. Mayor Noland agreed that the matter should have been handled better, and he requested that the City Manager look into this matter and determine a procedure to minimize this problem in the future. CH2M HILL CONTRACT/PLANT OPERATION ASSISTANCE City Manager Grimes stated that he had a memorandum from Mike Lawrence, Pollution Control Plant Superintendent, expressing his views concerning the proposed contract. Mr. Grimes stated that the plant is operating better now than it has for years, and this is the result of the advice from CH2M Hill. Mr. Grimes stated that at the present time they are not under contract for this advice; therefore, this is a recommendation to authorize these two contracts with CH2M Hill for plant operational assistance and for placement of larger aerators in the existing aeration basins as quickly as possible. The contract would be for a period of twelve months. 41 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 42 42.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Director Sharp, made a motion to authorize the execution of these two contracts with CH2M Hill. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 42.2 RESOLUTION NO. 67-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 035 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK "j(t.//( NORTHWEST ENGINEERS, INC., CONTRACT/SOCCER & SOFTBALL FIELD GRADING 42.3 City Manager Grimes introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with Northwest Engineers, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $ 1,500.00 for soccer and softball field grading at Asbell School. 42.4 Director Osborne, seconded by Director Lancaster, made a motion authorizing the execution of this resolution and contract. Upon roll call the motion passed unanimously. 42.5 RESOLUTION NO. 68-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 0'!S OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X SII MINUTES 42.6 The following corrections were made to the minutes of the May 3, 1983 meeting; 42.7 1. 16.4 - The first sentence should read "Again, Director Johnson stated that if health and safety for all was the main consideration, smoke detectors should be required for every 'living unit' in Fayetteville, but she was not certain that an ordinance was the best way to achieve this." 42.8 2. 17.2 & 17.4 - "rational annexus" should be "rational nexus". 42.9 3. 17.2 - "He added that if there is no subdivision involved, it" should be changed to "He added that there is no subdivision involved, and". 42.10 4. 18.8 - "There is statutory authority to that effect, due to a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision" should be changed to "There is a statutory authority to that effect, but under a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision, a local implementing ordinance provision is necessary." 42.11 5. 21.4 - "Lafayetteville" should be "Lafayette". ADJOURNMENT 42.12 There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned. 1 1