Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-02 Minutes1 i 1 MINUTES OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 105 A meeting of the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville was held at 7:30 p.m. on August 2, 1983 in Room 204 of the Continuing Education Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Johnson, Lancaster, Orton, Sharp, Bumpass; City Manager Grimes; Assistant City Manager McWethy; Nmi City Attorney McCord; City Clerk Griffin; and members of the 0 press and audience. 7 a ABSENT: Director Osborne Q CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. 1 1 EMPLOYEE OF THE MONTH AWARDS Mayor Noland presented each of the three employees of the month -- Rita Fouts, Community Development Department; Jesse Parker, Traffic Department; and Louise Powers, Inspection Department, with a certificate and a check for $150 and noted the comments made about the outstanding performance of the three employees by their supervisors. SALES TAX/ORDINANCE FOR REFERENDUM ON 1¢ CITY SALES TAX Mayor Noland introduced for consideration, an ordinance calling for a referendum on a proposed 1¢ City sales tax, explaining the reason for the special election and the need for the revenue to be derived from the proposed tax. In a preliminary statement, Mayor Noland said that if the Board authorized the election, they were, in essence, asking the citizens to decide how they would prefer to pay for the improvements to the City's wastewater treatment plant and system. He affirmed that the importance of this issue could not be overemphasized because Fayetteville's present plant could not, under any circumstances, meet the effluent limitations that the State Pollution Control and Ecology Board has given to the City, as it was beyond the physical capabilities of the existing plant, from an engineering standpoint. He further stated that the Board had looked at probably 20 different alternatives, trying to come up with the best possible solution as far as Fayetteville was concerned and now that the alternative had been chosen, the next step was to find out how the citizens of Fayetteville preferred to pay for it. Mayor Noland commented that there were two points in the Ordinance that he, as a taxpayer of the Community and not a City official, felt were important: (1) that the revenue from such a tax would be used strictly for capital costs including the interest on any bonds that are issued and (2) the tax will be specifically removed when the capital costs are paid. 105.1 105.2 105.3 105.4 1OG He concluded by saying that that's what this election is all about; it is the method by which we let you, the citizens of Fayetteville, tell us what you want to do. 106.1 City Attorney McCord summarized the major provisions of the Ordinance first 106.2 and then read the Ordinance in its entirety Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, 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 Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, 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. Director Orton asked City Attorney McCord why the Ordinance specifically mentioned revenue bonds when the Board had talked about short-term notes. Mr. McCord answered, stating that he used the term "bonds" because the Enabling Act that authorizes a pledge of sales tax revenues does not mention notes. It does provide that the bonds may have a term of up to 40 years, as specified by the Board, so the Board could issue very short-term bonds. He further stated that the advantage that Black & Veatch had advocated to the Finance Director was that a short-term note would not have to have the substantial reserve funds that bonds normally have, which would result in a significant saving of interest. Mr. McCord indicated it would be possible to issue very short-term bonds without substantial reserve funds. 106.3 Director Sharp maintained that the citizens have to make the decision after 106.4 we give them all the facts possible, both for and against. He stated that he felt there were some defects in the sales tax approach as it put a heavier burden on people whose total income goes for necessities. He said that the Municipal League had pointed out there was a long list of things that are sales tax exempt which makes it unfair on those who do pay it. He said that it would be important for the people that pay the sales tax to see it reflected in their sewer bills, adding that he did not know the best method for that, but perhaps a rebate system could be devised that would show them just how much they were saving monthly. Mayor Noland said that just on the preliminary information that Black & 106.5 Veatch had sent, if you were now paying $10 a month on a sewer bill, in five years, your bill would be $29.50 a month without a sales tax; with a sales tax, it would be about $16 00 per month. He added that Black & Veatch would have more definite rates available by the August 15 public hearing. Director Sharp inquired if these figures were adjusted for inflation and 106.6 Mayor Noland affirmed that they were. Director Bumpass said that he was a bit reluctant to throw this matter out 106.7 to the voters before the Board had the time to amply educate themselves and the public as to exactly what the effect of these rates would be. He said it was his personal belief that the three weeks between the public hearing on August 15th and the proposed September 6th election was a very short time to consider the overall impact of the sewer rate increases. He remarked that after what happened in the funding battle at Little Rock in July, he questioned if we would get approved for this project and asked if this was a fully "written - in -stone" project at this time. 1 1 Mayor Noland responded that we have to go through the public hearing on August 15th and then if there are substantial objections there, they will have to be answered and at that time, we would have to decide if we wanted to proceed. 107 107.1 Director Bumpass noted that we are going to have to pay a 107.2 substantial amount of money for the project and because of the funding cut, may or may not have to pick up even more of the tab. He asked City Attorney McCord about Section 3, Paragraph 1 of the Ordinance which states the estimated overall cost of the project is $30 million dollars and the amount of revenue bonds to be issued will not exceed $25 million dollars. He asked if we were anticipating getting the LO $5 million dollar difference from some other source such as a federal grant. He asked what advantage there Was in defeasing the old bonds. 0 City Attorney McCord answered that these figures were given to him 107.3 by the Finance Director and referred the question to Mr. Linebaugh. QFinance Director Linebaugh explained that the report that came 107.4 from CH2M Hill had shown a project cost of $25 million, in 1983 dollars; the figure of $30 million from Black & Veatch was adjusted for inflation and included principal, interest, fees and expenses in connection with the revenue bonds; the $9 million would be the defeasance and the remainder would all go towards the project. He stated that the figure was essentially the same as what we've always talked about - the only thing that changed was the cut we took from the EPA. He stated that the big advantage in defeasing the old sewer improvement bonds is that it eliminates the need for the 133% reserve requirements. He also stated that we could get a better interest rate with the defeasance and also because the City's financial picture is good now, i.e.,the City has a good municipal bond rating. He added that if we don't defease these bonds, we'll have to have 24% more in rate increases just to meet the 133% coverage requirements. Director Bumpass remarked that it appeared this particular part 107.5 of the Ordinance would save every ratepayer a substantial amount of money and Mr. Linebaugh affirmed that it would. Director Bumpass asked Mr. Linebaugh how much revenue the proposed 107.6 1¢ sales tax was expected to generate and how much the City currently received from the 1¢ County sales tax. Mr. Linebaugh answered that the projected figure from the proposed 1¢ City sales tax was $3 million and the projected County sales tax revenue was roughly $2 million. He stated that if the sales tax did generate more than the $3 projected figure, the bonds could be paid off earlier and the City sales tax would be repealed. Director Sharp then asked Finance Director Linebaugh how many 107.7 water/sewer customers the City had and he answered approximately 13,000. Director Sharp asked if there would be any way to show the customer on his monthly bill, by dividing the number of customers into the projected $3 million sales tax revenue, how much he was being rebated because of the 1¢ sales tax and Mr. Linebaugh stated that this could be handled any way the Board wanted it handled. Director Sharp said he would like to pursue that idea. 1 108 Director Johnson stated that she was in favor of the Ordinance levying the local sales tax. She said that the last cost -of -service figure they got from Black & Veatch resulted in a 20% across-the-board increase in sewer rates. She noted that the sales tax could be deducted from the federal income tax, which is an advantage. Director Bumpass declared that his first concern was being able to educate the public and have the Board commit to a certain projected level of rate increases based upon a cost -of -service. He said that he expected a lot of questions from the voters about whether their sewer bill would go up the projected 195% in 5 years without a 1Q sales tax. He added that it would depend a lot on what kind of an anticipatory commitment the Board would make as to a schedule of rate increases for all classes of users. He said, in his opinion, that most folks would favor a sales tax versus a very high monthly user fee, but we need to be able to provide information on what we're going to have to do to clean up Beaver Lake and how we are going to pay for it and he questioned whether this could be done between the public hearing on August 15th and the proposed September 6th election. He then asked if the penny sales tax was defeated this year, how long would it be before another election could be held and City Attorney McCord answered that the waiting period was one year. Director Lancaster made the remark that when we say "cost -of -service," no matter how you say it, it has to be paid and the issue is, do the people want to pay it with a high bill every month or do they want to take the sales tax route, where maybe more people will help pay for the sewer bill, because there are a lot of people who will be paying a sales tax that will not be paying a sewer bill. He asserted that he was in favor of taking a stand now and moving ahead and let the voters tell the Board how they want to pay the bill. Mayor Noland stated that he thought the bottom line was that the City was going to have to come up with 195% more revenue to fund this project and no matter what the residential/commercial percentage increase was going to be, we were going to have to accumulate 195% more money within 3-5 years to pay the more expensive maintenance and operation costs, pumping costs, land and sewage application costs, etc., that this proposed advanced wastewater plant required. Director Lancaster reiterated that all the Board could do is tell the people everything they know and if the voters say "No", he stated that he was not in favor of coming back in another year to try it again, as the citizens will have made their choice to pay for the system with a higher monthly water/ sewer bill. 108.1 1 108.2 108.3 1 108.4 108.5 Director Bumpass asked if, on August 15th, Black & Veatch would be supplying 108.6 the Board with a definite percentage of increase for cost -of -service without a sales tax, i.e., how much the residential and commercial rates would be increased, and if they did, would the Board take a formal stand at that time and adopt that rate structure in the future unless a sales tax is passed. Mayor Noland answered that at this time, all of the figures were 108.7 speculative, because a good construction contract could lower the project cost by one or maybe even two million dollars; he further stated that the figures they had at the present were the best estimates that were available as to how much it would cost to build the facilities and without the exact figures, an exact rate structure was not possible, but that during the three weeks between August 15th and September 6th, an estimated rate structure (with sales tax and 1 1 without sales tax) could be made available. He maintained that he felt the Black & Veatch figures that showed the City would need a 195% increase in revenues without a sales tax were very accurate and they took into consideration the loss of the $3.6 million in funding. Director Lancaster stated that at the last meeting the Board had on this issue, he had asked the question, in a memo, if any member of the Board had any ideas that we were trying to do anything other than a cost -of -service for everybody and there was no response. He said that Black & Veatch had been hired and paid to give us what they say is the cost -of -service and to stand behind these figures, and that they had no political ties in the community; they were hired to give us the truth. O Director Johnson asked when the new rates would become effective and Mayor Noland answered that they could start at the beginning of the first month after they had been published. Mayor Noland invited comments from the audience and three members of t",e audience requested to address the Board. Mr. Jim Miller, Harrison, Arkansas, addressed the Board, stating there'were a great many people in Fayetteville and downriver from Fayetteville who are concerned about the quality of water in Beaver Lake, and whereas he does not get his water from Beaver Lake at this time, hopefully, the Boone -Carroll Water District which will service Eureka Springs, Harrison, Green Forest, Berryville and eventually Mountain Home will be using Beaver Lake water. He stated that Beaver Lake is the first of four Corps of Engineers lakes and if it became polluted irretrievably, it would dump into Table Rock and then into Bull Shoals and on into Norfolk. He stated that his main concern is for the White River Basin where the sewage treatment plant is presently operating, noting that the proposed facility would lock Fayetteville into disposing its wastes in the White River Basin for the next 20 year. He acknowledged that the waste would be treated and not thrown into the river pell-mell, but the leaching of the soils in the drainage ponds and the sludge that will be spread over 500 acres of this prime White River bottem land would certainly leach into the White River and into Beaver Lake. 1 Mr. Miller expressed his concern over what heavy flooding (such as the "100 year" flood did to Harrison in 1962 and to Clinton last year) would do to Beaver Lake. He stated that the Ozarks are prone to flooding because of our mountains and river systems that overflow quickly when we have heavy rains. He said that there was nothing to stop Beaver Lake from becoming a cesspool virtually overnight if this were to happen in the White River Basin. He concluded by saying that he hoped the Board of Directors and the citizens of Fayetteville would reconsider the options they were faced with. 109 109.1 109.2 109.3 109,4 109.5 109.6 110 The next speaker to address the Board was Mr. Russ Purdy, former Mayor of Fayetteville (1973-74). Mr. Purdy stated that he was not willing to build this sewer system for someone who pays no part of it and that perhaps the cost -of -service to a considerable extent covered that, but he did not believe it would cover amortization for the building of the system. He said that, in his opinion, the cost of a project should fall on the users of that project and not be distributed to the general public. He added that he would be perfectly content with the sales tax if the Board would assure him that the people that don't pay sales tax but do use the sewer facilities will pay their part of the cost of this system. He further stated that a lot of Fayetteville citizens were not going to understand this issue and what he would like to see is a simplified statement, if possible, as to what the vote is all about. Mr. Purdy concluded his statement by complimenting the Board for the good representation the City had at the State Pollution Control and Ecology Commission meeting in Little Rock and the integrity that had been displayed. The last speaker from the audience was Mr. Kit Williams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and resident of Fayetteville. He stated that he agreed with Director Bumpass in that this might be a rushed judgment that would not allow the citizens of Fayetteville to weigh the issue, which in his opinion, had good points for and against it. He said he felt that it would be almost unfair to opponents of this bill to allow them only three weeks to argue their side of the issue because the proponents of the sales tax have a natural organization in the ten largest users who will have to pay more money proportionately if the sales tax is not passed. He added if they are going to save money, it only makes financial sense to these corporations to lobby very hard and to organize a group to push for the sales tax. He felt the opponents of the sales tax would have a much more difficult time getting organized and to launch any sort of an education campaign to present their side of the issue. He concluded by stating that he wondered if we might be rushing this too quickly to allow both sides to have a chance to present their views to the voters of Fayetteville. Mayor Noland summarized his feelings by saying that we are going to have to have 195% more revenue, and if opposition was based on that figure, it would be in the ballpark. He said he felt it is going to be critical for the people of this City how the investment was going to be financed. He further stated that this was the biggest investment that Fayetteville had ever made and that we had been working at it for ten years. He added that this was a "cafeteria election" - are we going to vote a special tax dust for this purpose or are we going to pay it each month - the bill for this project has to be paid; the voters must choose. 110.1 110.2 110.3 1 Director Orton asked Mr. Kit Williams if he had any suggestions as to 110.4 what would be a fair amount of time between the public hearing and the election. She stated that she knew that in most cases, the voters don't really get interested until near election deadline and she would like to fair about this but would also like to move along with it, too. Mr. Williams replied that he thought a couple of months would be 110.5 11/ sufficient, at least until after the special session of the legislature, which would let the people know if they were going to be faced with an additional state sales tax as well as this. L Mayor Noland then called for a vote on the Ordinance. The Ordinance passed by a vote of 5-1 with Director Bumpass voting in the minority. City Attorney McCord suggested a separate vote on the Emergency Clause because the Ordinance did not pass unanimously. Mayor Noland asked for a vote on the Emergency Clause, to put the Ordinance into effect immediately. Upon roll call, the motion passed. unanimously. ORDINANCE NO, 2933 APPEARS ON PAGE 55 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV 1.0 FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF REQUEST FOR VARIANCE -STREET IMPROVEMENT/ N-1 TAYLOR STREET/BY DONALD ROLLER WILSON 0 es)Mayor Noland introduced for further consideration, a request by William Storey, on behalf of Donald Roller Wilson, for a variance Q from the literal requirements of street improvements, in connection Cr with the development of property on Taylor Street, noting that this request was originally placed before the Board on July 5, but was referred to the Board Street Committee for a recommendation. 1 Director Sharp presented the Street Committee's recommendation to the Board: (1) the petitioner be granted a temporary waiver so as to allow the four -unit condominium to be build, set back from the existing street right-of-way, with (2) the petitioner dedicating the additional street width when a Certificate of Occupancy is issued and (3) entering into a Bill of Assurance stating that the required street improvements will be installed at some later time, at the call of the City. Mr. Storey addressed the Board and stated that the Wilsons do acquiesce with what the Street Committee's recommendations were. He presented the Board with a Bill of Assurance that was executed by the Wilsons, formalizing the Street Committee's recommendations. Director Sharp stated that the Board would need to decide when the street improvements are to be installed: (1) after the condo- miniums are built; or (2) when there is more construction on Taylor Street. Director Sharp made a motion to grant the variance, based on adherence to the Street Committee's recommendations. The motion was seconded by Director Orton and upon roll call, passed unanimously. ENGINEERING SERVICES/AWARDING OF CONTRACT/NORTHWEST ENGINEERS Mayor Noland called for a resolution authorizing the award of a contract to Northwest Engineers, for improvements to One Mile Road, Old Farmington Road, Sandra Street, and Stonebridge Road, and for basketball courts and parking lots at Walker Park North and Finger Park. He noted that these were Community Development projects. 111 111.2 111.4 111.5 111.6 111.7 111.8 112 Mayor Noland inquired of the City Attorney if this would require action on the part of the Board, to ask for a Declaratory Judgment, and City Attorney McCord advised that it would. Mayor Noland, seconded by Director Bumpass, made a motion to authorize the City Attorney to file a Declaratory Judgment action for the purpose of obtaining a judicial determination that the roadway between the ditches on One Mile Road between Highway 62 and Old Farmington Road has become public right-of-way by prescription. 112.1 112.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 112.3 Sandra Carlisle, Director of Community Development, addressed the Board and stated that the requirements given the Engineers included storm drainage, sidewalks, and curbs and gutters on the West side of the road where there is some dedicated right-of-way. She advised that the total amount of the contract was $11,499. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the award of the contract to Northwest Engineers. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. There was further discussion, initiated by Director Sharp, regarding the engineering for the basketball court at Finger Park. He asked Mrs. Carlisle if this area had been looked at by a landscape architect. Mrs. Carlisle responded that there was nothing but scrub and high grass in this area. Director Sharp stated that he would like to see the whole area assessed before any development is done, taking into consideration walking areas, etc. Mrs. Carlisle said that the Parks Board was pursuing this right now, with discussions that included nature trails. Director Sharp reiterated that he would like to see the whole area assessed by a trained landscape architect. He stated that he felt that this action had avoided problems in the past. After general Board discussion, Director Sharp, seconded by Director Orton. made a motion to solicit proposals from landscape architects on a general plan for Charles A. Finger Park, explaining that what he was re- questing was a general architectural layout of what we have now so that the development of this land, which was acquired for park land, could be made in stages. With no further discussion, the roll was called and the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N090-83 APPEARS ON PAGE /95 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION B001 06)11 112.4 112.5 112.6 112.7 112.8 ENGINEERING SERVICES/AWARDING OF CONTRACT/MILHOLLAND ENGINEERS Mayor Noland called for a resolution to authorize the award of a contract 112.9 for engineering services to Milholland Engineers and Surveyors, for the design and construction management of a sidewalk along Ellis Avenue, a Community Development project. 1 $ Director Lancaster, seconded by Noland, made a motion to award the contract to Milholland Engineers. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO 91-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 27/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XVII AMENDMENT TO SIGN ORDINANCE/TEMPORARY SIGNS Mayor Noland introduced for consideration an ordinance authorizing non-commercial, temporary signs to be placed on public property, noting that there were several non-profit organizations that may have a need to �-� put up signs for several days, a few times a year, to direct people to 0 the site of their activity, who were currently not operating under the provisions of the sign ordinance. He further stated that this proposed Q amendment to the sign ordinance had been brought up to enable them to pursue their activities and comply with the sign ordinance. a 1 1 113 113.1 113.2 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor 113.3 Noland, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-0 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Sharp, 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 with Director Bumpass absent for this vote, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Director Orton stated that the proposed amendment to the sign 113.4 ordinance called for no one organization to be issued a permit for a temporary sign more often than four times a year, and it had been brought to her attention that whereas the Red Cross Bloodmobile had only been conducting four drives a year, they were now planning to expand their program to six times a year. Director Orton stated that she would like to amend Section G of the proposed ordinance to show that this type of permit could be issued six times a year instead of the four that had originally been requested. There was general Board discussion on this point and Lina Long of the Red Cross, who was present in the audience, was asked to address the Board regarding future plans of the organization, relative to how many blood drives the Red Cross was planning. Mrs. Long stated that starting September, 1983, they would be conducting 5 drives per year, and in September, 1984, planned to go to six drives a year. Mrs. Long asked if the permit would need to be acquired each time or if they could get the permit once a year, with the dates needed listed. Mayor Noland asked City Attorney McCord if he would interpret this point - could one permit be issued for a whole year when the dates the permit was needed were known in advance. Mr. McCord stated that if an application specified the dates, he saw no reason to require anyone to get 4-6 permits a year, but the Board -would need to decide whether they wanted to handle this administratively or amend this section of the ordinance.to expressly provide for this. 113.5 114 Director Orton stated that if it could be handled administratively, 114.1 she would just as soon not put it in the ordinance. She questioned Section D of the ordinance, asking if three days would not be sufficient, instead of the five specified in this section. Director Johnson replied to this, stating that, judging from past experience, she thought there were probably other non- commercial, non-profit organizations that would need the full five days. Mayor Noland asked if there was a second to Director Orton's motion to 114.2 change Section G to read, " six times within a twelve month period," and Director Sharp seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 3-2, with Director Bumpass absent for this vote and Directors Lancaster and Johnson voting in the minority. The motion passed. It was decided that Section D of the Ordinance would remain as written, 114.3 with five successive days permitted. Director Lancaster requested that Item A of the ordinance, which read, "The maximum display surface area of each sign shall not exceed twelve (12) square feet" be changed to read, "The maximum display surface area of each sign shall not exceed six (6) square feet," as he felt this size sign was sufficient. After general Board discussion, Director Lancaster, seconded by Sharp, made the motion to change the size of the sign from twelve feet to six feet. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Noland then called for a vote on the ordinance in its entirety, as amended. The ordinance passed by a vote of 4-2, with Director Johnson and Lancaster voting in the minority ORDINANCE NO. 2934 APPEARS ON PAGE (Q OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV 114.4 114.5 ORDINANCE TO AMEND CITY CODE/STREET IMPROVEMENTS Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the City Code to specify 114.6 that certain street improvements, normally required in connection with the development of property, will not be required where the development will not increase the amount of vehicular traffic on the abutting street. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, 114.7 seconded by Sharp,made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Orton, seconded by Noland, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously, and the City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Mayor Noland explained that what this ordinance says, in essence, that if 114.8 you want to build a swimming pool, sauna bath or like improvement at your home, you wouldn't have to enlarge the street or put in curbs and gutters. With no further discussion, the roll was called and the ordinance passed unanimously. ORDINANCE 2935 APPEARS ON PAGE (0A OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV 114.9 1 1 1 1 AIRPORT BIDS Mayor Noland introduced a request for authorization to advertise for bids for certain projects at the Fayetteville airport: Construction of a paved roadway from Highway 71 South, to serve the East side aircraft storage and control tower facilities; Construction of a hangar (approximate size: 140' x 50') on the West side of the airport to house twin -engine 1 executive aircraft; and Construction of a row (of ten to thirteen units) of Q "T" hangars" on the new ramp at the East end of the airport. 115 115.1 QIt was noted that there would be discussion of the possibility 115.2 of relocating the fuel farm to a location North of the Airport Fire Station, to make room for an additional executive aircraft hangar. Director Lancaster stated that the Airport Committee had pro- 115.3 posed to take bids on one row of ten "T -hangars" and one row of thirteen "T -hangars" in order to get the bid price, then they would decide what they wanted to build; he stated that these hangars were built with electric doors, bifold or sliding, and they proposed to have them bid both ways. Mayor Noland asked if these would be leased to private aircraft owners and Director Lancaster said they would. Director Sharp inquired if the large hangar that was being proposed to be built on the West side of the airport was being put there because of the fuel facility. Director Lancaster replied that.the building site was by the fire station, where the old hangar had been torn town; they wanted bids on a 140' x 50' - building with a partition through the middle, to make two areas for the,larger corporate -type aircraft. Director Lancaster stated that they were proposing relocating the 115.4 fuel farm to the North side of the fire station in an area where they could notput anything else , such as a building; by taking out the old fuel farm,there would be space for another hangar. He noted that some of the fuel tanks at the present fuel farm were:quite old. Mayor Noland asked if Director Lancaster wanted authorization 115.5 to take bids for the moving of the fuel farm, in addition to the other three items and Director Lancaster responded that this was the request; after they got the price on these, they would decide. what was feasible and come back to the Board for authority to proceed. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to authorize 115.6 the taking of bids for these airport projects. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Director Lancaster then stated that he had another item that should be brought before the Board, that related to the advertising for bids for the airport projects, these were the utility lines, 1 115.7 116 (water, electric, including lighting, and telephone) to the new control tower site and the access road, noting that the bids for the access road would be opened on August 25. Director Lancaster stated that Ede Hogue, Airport Manager, was going to apply to the State Aeronautical Commission in Little Rock for possible funding for these items. It was determined that no formal action needed to be taken on these items at this time as long as Mrs. Hogue keep the Board informed as to the status of the application. Director Lancaster said that during the Airport Committee Meeting Mr. Max Pinkerton had made a request to build a "K -Span" type hangar on the West side of the airport to house their corporate aircraft. As there was some question as to the type of hangar he was proposing to build as well as the location he had chosen, the Committee had asked Mr. Pinkerton to come to the Board Meeting to present his proposal. Mr. Pinkerton addressed the Board, stating that this proposal had originally been made last March, to lease approximately 200' from the City in order to build a hangar for their corporate aircraft, which they wanted to move down to Fayetteville. The site they requested was close to where the old fuel farm was located, which is being proposed to be relocated. He stated that the lease would have the usual terms, to lease the ground from the City for twenty years and after this time, the ownership of the hangar they would build would revert to the City. Mr. Pinkerton stated that they wanted to build this hangar on the West side because of convenience and the proximity of flight services. He stated that he had been told last March that an airline was anticipated to move in there but subsequently this did not occur. Director Lancaster stated that he felt the type of hangar Mr. Pinkerton was proposing to build was more of a quonset hut type of construction and the consensus of the Airport Committee was that they would not want this type of hangar because they have a standard they have been working by with the buildings on the West side of the airport. He added that the Committee had asked Mr. Pinkerton if he would be interested in a building site on the East side and he declined this suggestion, stating that he was only interested in the West side at the particular spot he had mentioned. They also asked if he would be interested in leasing half of the 140' x50' building that was being proposed to be built by the City and Director Lancaster said that Mr. Pinkerton did not indicate that he was interested. Mr. Pinkerton replied that the Committee was not able to give him any lease price as the bids had not been let yet for the hangar. He further stated that his hangar was not a quonset-hut type construction but a "K -Span" type. Mayor Noland advised Mr. Pinkerton that it would be approximately 30 days before they would have a bid price on the hangar the City was proposing to build and at that time, they could give him the lease price of half of this hangar. He requested that Mr. Pinkerton bring a picture of the "K -Span" type hangar he was proposing to build so the Board could look at it. Mr. Pinkerton indicated he would. There was no formal motion on this matter. BID AWARDS Mayor Noland introduced for approval the award of five bids, as listed: 116.1 116.2 116.3 116.4 1 1 1 117 Bid #527/Liquid Oxygen/Pollution Control Plant 117.1 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the award of this bid to the only bidder, Union Carbide Corporation, Linde Division, at $.693 per 100 cubic feet for a contract price to begin August 3, 1984. Bid #529/Liquid Chlorine & Ferric Chloride/Pollution Control Plant 117.2 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the award of the bid for liquid chlorine to Arkla Chemical, Shreveport, Ln' Louisiana, for a contract price of $.155 per pound; the award of the bid for ferric chloride to Conservation Chemical Company of Mission, Kansas for $1.65 per pound. These were the low bids. 0 Both bid awards are for contract periods beginning August 6, 1983, Q and ending August 6, 1984. Q Bid #530/Oxygen & Vaporizer Rental/Water & Sewer Department 117.3 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the award of the bid for oxygen and vaporizer rental to Air Products, of Fort Smith, Arkansas for a bid price of $1.24 per 100 cubic feet (oxygen) and $33.00 per month rental price per cylinder. This equipment and oxygen is to be purchased on a monthly basis, as needed for sewage lift station odor control; prices are from contract period from August 6, 1983 -August 6, 1984. This was the low bid. Bid #532/Computer Upgrading Work 117.4 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the award of the bid for computer upgrading work to Computerized Data Management of Springdale, Arkansas, for a bid price of $15,752.00 plus4% tax, plus freight and insurance. This was the low bid. Bid for Five Year Lease of Airport Hay Removal Rights 117.5 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the bid to.be awarded to Arthur Miller, Jr., the only bidder, for the airport hay lease, and for the Mayor and City Clerk to be authorized to execute the lease agreement. The total bid for a five (5) year lease was $7,500.00. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to accept 117.6 the recommendations of the Purchasing Agent and award all five bids as recommended. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. JOYCE STREET WIDENING PROJECT/APPROVAL OF INCREASE Mayor Noland introduced for consideration approval of a $22,767.84 117.7 increase in the Joyce Street widening project, for the tapering of the four -lanes down to two lanes to the East of the intersection of Old Missouri Road, noting that this was not part of the -original project, 118 but that this would make a transition zone for vehicles continuing down Joyce Street to the East. Mayor Noland commented that this would involve some right- of-way acquisition plus the construction costs. Director Bumpass inquired if we would be acquiring right-of-way or was it being dedicated. City Manager Grimes replied that we would have to acquire part of it. Following general Board discussion, Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the increase. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 118.1 118.2 OTHER BUSINESS Participation with National Municipal League/Withdrawal from Social Security Mayor Noland stated that several years ago, the Board decided to withdraw 118.3 from Social Security; then Federal legislation was passed prohibiting munici- palities from withdrawing before the Board acted. He stated that the National Municipal League wanted to know if we wanted to pursue with them on a national basis, joining with other cities to appeal this legislation or get it declared unconstitutional. He inquired if the Board wanted to discuss this. There being no strong feeling in the Board to do this, this item was 118.4 dropped. 1 PC&E Commission Appeal 111 Mayor Noland asked the Board what action they might want to take with 118.5 respect to the Pollution Control Commission's action recently in Little Rock and whether they wanted to try to follow up on whatever legal recourse we might have as outlined in the memorandum from. City Attorney McCord with respect to appealing to the Regional EPA in Dallas or taking some other action. He stated he felt the City had several alternatives. Director Bumpass stated that after reading the City Attorney's memorandum, 118.6 he thought that the Commission had committed a legal error and he would like to go ahead and put them on notice that we intend to appeal and file an objection. He added that he would also like to ask for a rehearing on the priority list after we present them with these factual matters. He inquired of Mr. McCord how long they had to file the Notice to Appeal. The City Attorney replied that we should not wait longer than 30 days from the date of the meeting at which they took the action, which was July 22. Director Bumpass stated that he would like to go ahead and file a request 118.7 to reconsider or rehear the priority list, then at some later date, we could make a decision to actually file an appeal of the issue. City Attorney McCord said he thought, if the Board wanted to pursue a 118.8 legal remedy, we should go ahead and get the Notice to Appeal filed within the 30 day period; the Board could ask them to reconsider this after the Notice is filed. 1 1 119 Director Lancaster stated that after reading Mr. McCord's memo 119.1 he was convinced that we should follow through. Mayor Noland commented that it seemed to him like the Board had two routes, as outlined in Mr. McCord's memo, that we can appeal directly to the Regional EPA on some basis or we can appeal through the judicial system of the State. Mr. McCord advised the Board that his recommendation was, if the Board wants to challenge the action taken, that they could adopt a resolution formally objecting to the action taken and forward it to the Regional EPA Administrator. He stated that he did not find, in the 10 Clean Water Act or in the regulations promulgated thereunder, a specific provision authorizing an applicant to appeal a State agency's determina- tion but he did think that the City did have the inherent power to adopt this type of resolution and let the Administrator know the City does Q object to the actions taken for the apparent failure to follow the regulations. He added that he thought the City did have a clear right - Q of -appeal under the statute outside it to the Washington County Circuit Court if the Notice to Appeal is timely filed. He concluded by stating that these were policy decisions for this Board to make. Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to adopt this resolution formally objecting to the action taken and to forward it to the Regional EPA Administrator, and to file an appeal with the State Pollution Control and Ecology Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO.92-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 2/9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X I/a 1 • • • • Opposition to Legislation Director Lancaster stated that the Board members had received a copy of the proceedings of the meeting we had with the Municipal League last week. He said that he would like to make a motion that the Board pass a resolution to go out over the signature of the Mayor, to all the governing bodies representing Washington County, with a copy to the Governor, saying that we do not want the special session of the legislature to "monkey" with the sales tax we already have, which was passed by the people. Mayor Noland seconded the motion and upon roll call, the motion to authorize the resolution passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0.93-83 APPEARS ON PAGE 2;=/OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(j/ J j AML Director Johnson stated that she would be attending the Executive Committee Meeting of the Arkansas Municipal League on August 10-12. She stated that at that time they will be considering resolutions to change regarding the policies and goals of the AML. She asked the Board if there were any changes in policy that they needed to follow as far as the position of the AML, to let her know and she would present these changes at the meeting. 119.2 119.3 119.4 119.5 119.6 120 Street Improvement Plan City Manager Grimes requested that the Board formally adopt the Street Improvement Plan, noting that although the Directors had been present at the Street Committee Meeting when this plan was approved, it still needed to be formally adopted. 120.1 Director Sharp, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the Plan. 120.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION N0.94-83 APPEARS ON PAGE ,'LIZ, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X VI1 Condemnation/Appleby Road Bridge Project City Manager Grimes requested a resolution authorizing condemnation of one additional parcel in conjunction with Appleby Road Bridge and Skull Creek. The parcel is owned by James Powell and Harvey Smith and is in the process of being sold. We have not been able to negotiate a settlement with them. Director Orton remarked that when we were working on the Master Street Plan, we talked about Drake Street and the need for a bridge across that same creek. She asked if we are going to have a fairly sizable bridge at the Appleby Road crossing, would we be knocking ourselves out of a bridge down the line that will be within 1/4 of a mile. Mr. Grimes answered that he did not think the State would participate in the construction of new bridges like the one we want to build on Drake Road. The Appleby Road bridge is covered under the bridge replacement pro- gram the Board is participating in. He explained that this is a two-lane bridge with sidewalks on one side. Director Lancaster asked how much land were they talking about and Mr. Grimes answered approximately 1/3 of an acre and the appraisal was $1,825 and the owners were asking $7,500. He added that this parcel was in addition to the right-of-way we have and that the existing bridge is one lane and our right-of-way is quite restricted, a good portion of which lies in the creek bed. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson made a motion to authorize the resolution and proceed with the condemnation. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5-1 with Director Orton voting in the minority. RESOLUTION N0.95-83 APPEARS ON PAGE Z25 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK)/01 120.3 120.4 120.5 120.6 120.7 1 1 1 Permit for Variance/Noise Ordinance Mr. John Adams, a member of the audience, requested a permit for variance to the Noise Ordinance, for a rock concert to be held at Wilson Park on August 6. Mr.Adams stated he needed more than the 75 decibels he had been granted at their Spring, 1983 concert, and was requesting 80 decibels for a period of six hours, from 3 p.m. to 9 p.m. He stated that he had called the.City Manager's office for this permit and had talked with Assistant City Manager McWethy, but was unable to get the permit. Director Lancaster asked Mr. McWethy to address the Board and state the reasons the request was not granted. 0 Mr. McWethy stated that Mr. Adams had called on Friday, July 29, but that he had been unable to talk with him at that Q time. He further stated that thistelephohed request was too late to get on the agenda for the August 2 Board'meeting. He added that he had subsequently spoken with Mr. Adams, at which time Mr. Adams told him he was requesting an unconditional variance and if this was not agreeable, he would request 80 decibels. Mr. McWethy stated that he could not find any reasonable alternative but to deny the request and that he had told Mr. Adams if he wanted to get this resolved quickly, as the concert was scheduled for Saturday, August 6, he could appear before the Board tonight. There was general discussion between the Board and Mr. Adams concerning the reason he felt he needed the variance to permit 80 decibels. Director Sharp, seconded by Orton, made a motion to grant a variance for 75 decibels for 3-1/2 hours, from 5:30 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. on August 6, 1983. Mr. Adams stated that this would not be acceptable to him. Upon roll call, Directors Orton, Sharp and Noland voted in the affirmative and Director Bumpass, Johnson and Lancaster voted in the negative. The vote was tied and the motion failed. 1 121 121.1 121.2 121.3 121.4 121.5 MINUTES The minutes of the July 19, 1983 meeting of the Board of 121.6 Directors were approved as submitted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. 121.7