Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-08-23 Minutes123 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 August 23, 1983 in Room 107 of the Continuing Education Building, Fayetteville, Arkansas PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Johnson, Lancaster, Orton, Sharp, Bumpass, and Osborne; City Manager Grimes; Assistant City Manager McWethy; City Attorney McCord; City Clerk Griffin; and members of the press and audience. OCALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of Q respectful silence. Q SALES TAX/SEWER BILL/FORMULA FOR EQUITABLE ALLOCATION 1 1 Mayor Noland introduced for consideration a recommendation regarding 123.1 the formula under which proposed City sales tax revenues will be applied against monthly sewer bills. He stated that when the Board formulated the decision to proceed with 123.2 the sales tax election at the last meeting, they agreed that the entire proceeds from the sales tax should go towards capital construction costs of the sewer treatment facility, plus any interest costs and that none is going to be used for operation and maintenance of the plant. He continued that there had been several suggestions made by various Board Members as to how the $3 -$3.5 million estimated sales tax revenues might be used within this formula and applied towards the sewer costs, noting that the Board had met several times and discussed the various alternatives. Mayor Noland observed that Fayetteville citizens are very knowledgeable, they have always responded in the way they felt they should respond to any choice of this nature and they will make the decision whether to go the municipal bond route or the It City sales tax route in the Sept. 6th election, which is what the Board was asking them to do. He stated that the Board had some new information to present which would help each resident of Fayetteville to see whether or not they felt it would be to their advantage to go with the sales tax or the municipal bonds, adding that if the sales tax fails, there is no alternative for the Board to take except the sale of municipal bonds. He said that one of the revealing figures that had come out during the meetings was that if Fayetteville went with the municipal bonds, we would have to pay something in the neighborhood of $34 milion in interest for the 20 -year revenue bonds. If the decision is made to go with the sales tax, the interest would be $7 million if we are able to retire these short-term sales tax bonds in approximately 7 years. Mayor Noland concluded by declaring that it was up to the Board, if they do not make any further changes in the proposal, to get the facts to the people before the election so they can make a intelligent decision. Mayor Noland then asked for comments from the Board Members. 123.3 123.4 124 8-23-83 Director Bumpass requested that Scott Linebaugh, Finance Director, 124.1 elaborate on his August 23 memo to the Board on Sewer Rates. Mr. Linebaugh addressed the Board and stated that, basically, his memo was in response to questions he had been asked in the different meetings regarding anticipated residential/industrial/commercial sewer rates, with a sales tax and without; average monthly usage, etc. He stated that the average residential customer's bill in 1983, with an average usage of 5,600 gallons, is $11.01; proposed charges under the sales tax option would make this $13.14 in 1987. This would mean an increase of $25.56 per year or 19%. Without a sales tax, the average residential customer will be paying $120 more per year which is a 56% increase. He presented the computed increase for Campbell Soup, for comparison. He stated that Campbell Soup's average monthly bill (1983) is $32,022.84 (which includes $7,188.56 SS & BOD surcharges). The proposed charge under the sales tax option would be $57,938.79/month, including $17,895.24 SS & BOD surcharges). This would mean an increase of $310,991 per year, or 81%. He then discussed what the average citizen of Fayetteville would pay in sales tax citing a median household income in 1984 (adjusted for inflation) of $14,620. With 40% of income subject to tax (figures from Tynan Report for Rockefeller Foundation) the average citizen would pay $58.48 sales tax per year, or $4.87 per month. Combined with the $13.14 sewer bill figure mentioned previously, the average residential customer cost with sales tax would be $18.01 monthly as compared to a monthly sewer bill of $28.02 without a sales tax. With regard to Campbell Soup, he stated that in 1987, the total additional revenue above sales tax that must be generated from all customers will be $517,400. Campbell Soup will be paying $310,991 or 60% of this additional revenue; total revenues required in 1987 are $2,986,200; Campbell Soup's estimated sewer bill will be $695,265 or 23.3% of the total required revenue; their total water and sewer bill in 1987 will be $990,501, if rates stay the same. Finance Director Linebaugh then discussed the cost of the two options. He stated that sales tax will be applied only towards capital; operation and maintenance cost under both options are identical for the period 1984-2004 (EPA guidelines state that these costs must be paid through user fees) - therefore, without a sales tax, the old debt service cost is $12,975,250 and the new debt service cost is $51,390,000 for a total cost of $64,365.250. With a sales tax, the new debt service (including defeasance of the old debt service) is $27,034,000; sales tax collected is $29,378,500 for a total cost of $56,412,500. The difference saved under the sales tax option is $7,952,750. The total interest cost, under the revenue bond option (new and old) is $33,890,000; the total interest cost under the sales tax option (including defeasance of the old debt service) is $7,033,900. He reminded the Board that when discussing the interest cost on revenue bonds, you're not only paying off new revenue bonds, but also the old bond revenue issue, which is why that figure is so high; with the sales tax, the old bonds will be defeased immediately, so you don't have that interest at all. 124.2 124.3 124.4 124.5 1 1 1 8-23-83 Director Johnson stated that with the gyrations we've done in the last year, in trying to find cost -of -service for industrial/ commercial/residential customers, she felt confident with the rates Black & Veatch gave the Board on August 19, 1983. She then made a motion to take the sales tax money, if the sales tax passes, and allocate that on the basis of Black & Veatch's figures, across -the - board -to residential/industrial/commercial customers. 125 125.1 Director Bumpass agreed that the present approach of Black & Veatch 125.2 comes closer to what he would like as far as rates go. He commented that he would have preferred no residential rate increases with the sales tax but he was satisfied that this was not technically possible LO under EPA guidelines. He further stated that he felt the motion of ri Director Johnson was a good motion. 0 Director Sharp stated that when the Directors voted on Director 125.3 7 Johnson's motion they should realize they are voting on two 'Cr questions: (1) allocation of the cost of treating sewage on the cost- a of -service and (2) allocation of $3-3.5 million revenue from the sales tax would we allocate that on the same ratioas cost -of - service. Director Lancaster stated that the main point to remember is that when we talked about allocation, we voted on the issue and the motion was that every dime of the sales tax revenue goes to capital costs, regardless of how much is received; when the capital costs are paid off, that's the end of it; we hired experts in this field, to give us rates based on cost -of -service, because the rate structure is so complicated. He asserted that he had to believe them because he had no other plan and also because he had no reason to disbelieve them. 125.4 Director Johnson's motion was seconded by Director Osborne. Upon 125.5 roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that if the 125.6 sales tax fails, we put into effect the rate increases proposed by Black & Veatch for the option without a sales tax. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Noland brought up another point for the Board to consider. 125.7 He asked if the Board felt it would be worthwhile to set up some meetings and invite citizens to come in and discuss this issue and to get an explanation of the two options. The Board agreed. Director Orton thought we should have at least two meetings, 125.8 possibly using the Junior High Schools. She also mentioned the possibility of the Directors going to differentcivic meetings, if possible, for purposes of giving information. Director Bumpass suggested taking the rate structure just adopted, 125.9 preparing an information sheet on what the different rates would be (taking this to several levels of usage), and direct mailing it, first class, to every customer on the water and sewer system. He said that 126 8-23-83 if this information sheet got to the customers no later than the weekend, 126.1 and the meetings could be set up, after people see what the rate structure is going to be, he thought they would get a lot of questions. He also cautioned that the mailout would have to be an "information -only" item that did not advocate passing or not passing the sales tax. Mayor Noland asked City Manager Grimes to see if he could arrange 126.2 2-3 meetings and report back to the Board. It was decided to hold the meetings on at least two separate nights so people who could not attend one meeting would have an alternate date. Director Johnson stated that she thought they should use the facilities of Open Channel for a call-in question/answer program. The Board agreed this was a good idea. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to allocate $5,000 for the preparation of the information packet to be mailed out. The motion passed unanimously. SWEPCO HEARING Mayor Noland introduced a request by Director Johnson for a resolution requesting the Arkansas Public Service Commission to hold a public hearing in Northwest Arkansas to review a rate increase proposed by SWEPCO. Director Johnson stated that Peter Tooker of the Ozark Chapter of Sigma Delta Chi, the Society of Professional Journalists, had contacted her and she was interested in their resolution to the Arkansas Public Service Commission because of the rate increase proposed by SWEPCO, and the meeting that was scheduled at this time to be held in Little Rock, adding that SWEPCO's customers did not reside in Little Rock. She said that the resolution is requesting that they hold their public hearing in Northwest Arkansas where people here could get to the meeting more readily than they could get to Little Rock. She made a motion to adopt the resolution. Director Bumpass said he would like to amend the resolution to say that any time there is a rate increase that substantially affects the people in Northwest Arkansas, the hearing be held in this area, as there are other rate increase (hearings) that affect the customers of utilities in Northwest Arkansas and he did not want to limit it to just this one utility. Director Johnson said she would accept this amendment to her resolution. 126.3 126.4 126.5 126.6 126.7 Peter Tooker addressed the Board, stating that the Washington County 126.8 Quorum Court had considered this same resolution twelve days ago, and they had added a cover letter to it saying the very same thing - that any rate hearing that is going to affect customers in Northwest Arkansas, should be held in the area. Director Bumpass asked if there were any other cities in the area considering this action and Mr. Tooker responded that Fayetteville was the first City, that the Quorum Court had passed it twelve days ago, and they were the first public body to go on record with this. 126.9 1 1 1 8-23-83 Mr. B. I. Fouke, local Manager of SWEPCO, addressed the Board, stating that he would like the Board and SWEPCO's customers to know that SWEPCO fully and totally supports any decision that the Public Service Commission makes as to where they will hold their rate hearing. He stated, however, that only half of SWEPCO's customers live in Northwest Arkansas, and that there was a division of SWEPCO in Southwest Arkansas. He said that, in his opinion, perhaps a more appropriate and workable recommendation would be for the Commission to hold public hearings for public comment in both Northwest and Southwest Arkansas. He maintained that during a rate hearing, there is a period of open discussion where comments from the audience are invited. 1.0 Mr. Peter Tooker responded, stating that it was true that there were two divisions of SWEPCP in Arkansas, Northwestern and O Southwestern, but 60% of the customers were in Northwest Arkansas. He agreed that the idea of holding hearings in both areas was Q certainly in keeping with the spirit of this resolution, which is Q to have the people who are the most affected by the decisions of the public body be close to those hearings. He stated that if the hearing was held in Northwest Arkansas, that the people who would be most affected by the rate changes would be much more in- clined to attend those meetings, and the same applied to Southwest Arkansas. 1 Mr. Fouke reiterated that his figures were correct, and that he had not restricted the customers to divisions, but to counties. He stated that SWEPCO had customers in Washington, Benton and Carroll counties, as well as Logan, Sebastian and Scott, the latter three of which were closer to Little Rock. 127 127.1 127.2 127.3 Director Orton said she would like to amend the original 127.4 motion to include Southwest Arkansas. Director Osborne said that it might be more appropriate to pass a resolution that said anytime there is going to be considera- tion of a rate increase that affects ratepayers in Northwest Arkansas, that some form of public hearing be held in Northwest Arkansas, and let Southwest Arkansas take care of themselves. Director Bumpass stated that they had eliminated the SWEPCO statement in the resolution and he did not think it would be necessary to add Southwest Arkansas to the original motion, as they would be getting SWEPCO's name back in it that way. Director Orton seconded the motion of Director Johnson, as amended by Director Bumpass. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. Q4 -g3 APPEARS ON PAGE 226 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK X U11 127.5 127.6 127.7 128 8-23-83 LOT SPLIT/FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF PETITION BY TERRY BEACH Mayor Noland introduced for further consideration a request by Terry Beach to vary the 1.5 acre minimum lot size requirements of Ordinance #2353 for subdivided property not having access to a public sewer. He noted that this had come before the Water and Sewer Committee several weeks ago and the recommendation was to grant the request. Director Osborne, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the request. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. LOT SPLIT/PETITIONER - LEONARD LINSTEAD Mayor Noland introduced for consideration a request by Leonard Linstead to vary the 1.5 acre minimum lot size requirements of Ordinance #2353 for subdivided property not having access to a public sewer, noting that this property is in a growth area of the City and was a new request as far as the Board was concerned as it had not come before the Water and Sewer Committee; however, this request for a fourth lot split had been presented to the Planning Commission on Monday, August 8 and had been forwarded to the Board for action as only the Board has the authority to approve more than three lot splits. 128.1 Mr. Linstead, Petitioner, addressed the Board and gave a brief history of the property, which is located outside the City limits, South of Highway 45 East and West of Fox Trail. It was explained that the first lot split consisted of the parcel of land comprising "Fox Run Addition"; as a result of a property settlement, 39.6 acres East of Fox Trail had been deeded to Mr. Linstead and Tract II West of Fox Trail was deeded to Mrs. Linstead; the rest of the property, with frontage on Highway 45, was also deeded to Mr. Linstead and this parcel is the subject of the lot split request. Mr. Linstead explained that he was requesting the lot split in order to donate .79 acre of the property fronting on Highway 45 to the Goshen Fire Depart- ment, sell the remaining 1 62 acres frontage, and retain the parcel containing 1.99 acres which has access to the Highway by way of a 30' wide strip extending to Highway 45, which would be a private drive. He added that this roadway had been approved by the County. Director Lancaster asked Mr. Linstead where the septic system would be located for the proposed fire station, provided they built one. Mr. Linstead replied that there was room on the property for a septic system and he had checked with the Water Department, and they would run a one inch line, at his expense, and set two meters, one for Tract A and one for Tract B. 128.2 128.3 128.4 128.5 Director Sharp made a motion to refer this matter to the Water 128.6 and Sewer Committee for their recommendations. This motion was seconded by Director Orton. 1 1 1 8-23-83 Director Orton advised Mr. Linstead that the City had an Ordinance that requires an acre and one-half and they don't consider variances unless they have results of a perc test. .Sheiadded that there were certain setback requirements from adjoining property lines for septic fields. Mr. Linstead responded that he had a perc test run by Northwest Engineers and Mayor Noland answered that the perc test had only been run for Tract B, the lot to be sold and what he thought Director Orton was referring to was Tract A, which seemed to be the only one that is non -conforming . He added that Mr. Linstead needed to see if the Health Department could site two septic tank fields on that lot, and then if the percolation was adequate, they could consider this variance. H Director Lancaster commented that in his opinion, what they were looking at, if this goes through the Planning Commission, was a J tandem lot and the Planning Commission should decide whether they 7 wanted to run a private drive between the two lots. 129 129.1 129.2 129.3 aQ Mr. Linstead asked if there would be any objection to going ahead 129.4 and selling Tract B to Rick Stroud as he was very anxious to get his home started. It was the consensus of the Board that this was strictly up to Mr. Linstead. Mr. Charles Kenter, a neighbor of Mr. Linstead, addressed the Board. 129.5 He said his property was immediately to the South of the proposed Tract C. He contended that his problem with this issue was water, he was not concerned over the Northern two tracts (A&B) as he would be glad to have a fire station as a neighbor. He continued that his sole source of water was a water well, 82' from the property line to the South of Mr. Linstead's Tract C. He stated that the slope of that property, and as far as he could tell, the slope of all the underlying rock, was South and West - towards his well. He said he could expect an outflow from any septic tank drain field in Tract C because there is a geologic dome right there on the property split at the North end of Tract C where everything in Tract C slopes his way. He said he had no objection to getting on City water but he was looking at having to ditch 720' of water line, the majority of which would be through solid rock, which would be expensive. He said he would like for Mr. Linstead to obtain a report from a qualified geologist or hydrologist which would assure him that a drain field is not going to drain directly into his water supply. He added that if Mr. Linstead could get this assurance, he would have no objections. Mayor Noland stated that the Health Department would have to get into 129.6 some of these questions if the Board voted to refer this issue to the Water & Sewer Committee. He then called for a vote on Director Sharp's motion. Upon roll call, the motion to refer this matter to the Water & Sewer Committee passed unanimously. PROPERTY CLEAN-UP/806 VANDEVENTER Mayor Noland introduced an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to 129.7 have the dilapidated and irreparable structures located at 806 Vandeventer demolished at the property owner's expense. 1 1 130 8-23-83 City Attorney McCord read the Ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, 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 7-0. The City Attorney read the Ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, 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 Bumpass noted that in the agenda material, there was a note from Bert Rakes, Sign Inspector, stating that it was the Inspection Department's understanding that Mrs. Adams had a written contract with Mr. Forrest Lane to comply with the City requirements to remove the structures from the property. Mayor Noland noted that Mrs. Adams had first been notified on January 6, 1981 and had been given one extension, to October 31, 1982 and that apparently the contract with Mr. Lane was unfulfilled. 130.1 130.2 Mayor Noland called for a vote on the Ordinance. Upon roll call 130.3 the Ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0. ORDINANCE # .M9.36 APPEARS ON PAGE 67+ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIV SIGN APPEAL/PETITIONER-TED PATEL/HI-WAY INN/]140 NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE Mayor Noland introduced for consideration an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance, stating that the petitioner, Ted Patel, was requesting permission to allow three portions of an existing free-standing sign, totaling 67.3 square feet, to remain at a 6'2" setback from North College Avenue. (This is the Hi -Way Inn sign). Mr. Larry Douglas, an Attorney representing Mr. Patel, who was in the audience, showed the Board a drawing of the proposed sign. He stated that the existing sign was within 5.3' of the roof as it was now situated, and the proposal was to Keep the Hi- Way Inn Billboard and Vacancy/No-Vacancy portion of the sign and delete all other portions, including the star on top. He added that the sign was structured by a single pole running up through the center. Mayor Noland noted that this would amount to about 30 square feet and Mr. Douglas responded that his computation showed it would be closer to 32 square feet because the sign itself was 6' at the bottom and 81/2' at the top. Director Lancaster stated that before they got into the merits of this sign, he would like to make a motion to rescind the action the Board took 31/2 years ago. He explained that the City Board had granted a variance for this sign to the Petitioner and former owner of the Hi -Way Inn, Rex Benham, at the February 19, 1980 Board meeting and it had never been acted upon. The sign was still there. He did not feel it was appropriate to discuss a new variance when a previously granted variance had not been used. Director Orton seconded this motion and upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 130.4 130.5 130.6 130.7 1 1 1 8-23-83 Mr. Douglas pointed out to the Board that the Patels had bought this property after the February, 1980 hearing and were totally unaware of the action the Board had taken on the request of the former owner. He added that only after receiving the letter from City Attorney McCord were they made aware of the fact that they were not in compliance with the sign ordinance. He contended that it was impossible to move the sign much closer to the building as it presently existed and it was about the only place in front of the building that a sign could be placed. Director Sharp asked Sign Inspector Rakes what size sign could be put on the pole, at that setback. Mr. Rakes answered that there was no provision in the sign ordinance for a sign that close to the street right-of-way. 131 131.1 131.2 10 `..I Director Lancaster made a motion that the variance be denied and 131.3 O the sign be brought into conformance with the ordinance. Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the variance was denied 7 by a vote of 6-1, with Director Osborne voting in the minority. Q Q AIRPORT LEASE/CAUDLE AIR FREIGHT 1 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the renewal of a lease agreement with Caudle Air Freight. He noted that the terms of this lease were the same as the existing lease agreement except for a 10% increase in the monthly rent. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to adopt the resolution and authorize the execution of the lease agreement. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION # 97_335 APPEARS ON PAGE 22S OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(01 . 131.4 131.5 AIRPORT LEASE/FAA/AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and 131.6 City Clerk to execute a lease agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration for a site for the new air traffic control tower at Drake Field. He added that under the terms of this lease, in exchange for the FAA constructing and operating a new control tower on the East side of the airport, the City agrees to lease the government 4.26 acres for the site, build a new access road to the property line and extend utilities to the site. It was noted that an application will be made to the State Aeronautic Commission for 50% funding of the $69,000 cost of these projects. Mayor Noland, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to adopt the 131.7 resolution and execute the lease agreement. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION # 9R -g3 APPEARS ON PAGE 233 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(tin 132 8-23-83 ENGINEERING SERVICES/MCG00DWIN, WILLIAMS & YATES/INDUSTRIAL SEWER Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement for engineering services with McGoodwin, Williams and Yates Consulting Engineers for the updating and revisions of portions of the EPA -mandated industrial pretreatment program. City Manager Don Grimes said that Director Osborne had stated he had a problem with the reimbursable expenses portion of this agreement, in that there was no lid on that portion. He said that he had just talked with Mr. Yates that day and he indicated we would be looking at possibly two trips to Dallas, oneof which had already been taken. He thought a $1,500 maximum on the reimbursable portion should cover these costs. Mayor Noland asked if this was in addition to the $5,500 fee for engineering services. Mr. Grimes responded that it was, which would make the total cost of the project approximately $7,000. Mayor Noland stated that the pertinent thing to remember is that this is an EPA -mandated industrial pretreatment program, something they are requiring us to do to qualify for matching grant funds. City Manager Grimes said that Fayetteville apparently had a lot of company, in that he had read several other cities were going through the same thing; they thought they were in compliance, when the EPA suddenly hired a private consulting firm to review these; this resulted in a lot of cities having to go back and make some changes. Director Osborne made a motion to approve the resolution and authorize the execution of the engineering agreement. Director Sharp seconded the motion and upon roll call, the resolution was adopted by a vote of 7-0. RESOLUTION # 99-13 APPEARS ON PAGE 2413 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK y vie . RECORDS DESTRUCTION Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the destruction of certain old records and support documents, generally from the 1976-1979 time period, which have all, except for 1978-1979 lake fishing permits, been microfilmed. 132.1 132.2 132.3 132.4 132.5 132.6 132.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve 132.8 the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. RESOLUTION # tool_ si.3 APPEARS ON PAGE ,252, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X UII 1 1 1 1 8-23-83 LEASE AGREEMENT/BEST WESTERN/THE INN/DIRECT DIAL PHONE SPACE Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the renewal of a lease agreement with Best Western/The Inn for direct dial phone space in the airport terminal building, with no changes in the terms and conditions of the lease. Director Osborne, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to adopt the resolution and authorize the execution of the lease agreement. Upon roll call, the resolution was adopted by a vote of 7-0. BID AWARDS 133 133.1 133.2 10Mayor Noland introduced for approval, the award of three bids, 133.3 0 as listed: 7 Bid #525/Car Wash Machine Replacement for the City Shop 133.4 1 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the award of this bid to the only bidder, Freeman Equipment and Supply of Siloam Springs, Arkansas for $2,990 plus tax of $89.70 for a total cost of $3,079.70. Mr. Mackey noted that the invitation to bid had been mailed to eight bidders with only one bid received. He further noted that this item was budgeted at $4,000 in the current general fund budget. Bid #535/Water-tight Manhold Frames and Covers for the Water 133.5 and Sewer Department Purchasing Agent Mackey recommended the award of this bid to the only bidder, Vulcan Foundry Company, Denham Springs, Louisiana, for 20 Type B manhole frames and covers at a unit price of $260 and a total cost of $5,200. Bid for Asphalt Overlay and Patching Work at Drake Field 133.6 The recommendation from Purchasing Agent Mackey is for the award of this bid to the only bidder, McClinton -Anchor Company, Division of APAC-Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas at $48,475.00. It was noted that this is a budgeted item with partial funding from the State Aeronautics Commission. Mr. Mackey stated that McClinton -Anchor was the only bidder of three that were invited to bid that responded; they were the only suppliers of the Type IV asphalt overlay which is what this project required. Director Johnson, seconded by Noland, made a motion to accept the recommendations of the Purchasing Agent and award all three bids as recommended. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 133.7 133.8 134 8-23-83 OTHER BUSINESS Appleby Road Bridge - Director Lancaster asked City Manager Grimes 134.1 if there had been any progress on the Appleby Road Bridge project. Mr. Grimes responded that he had received a copy of a letter written to Congressman Hammerschmidt by the Highway Department Director and it indicated that this project was scheduled for the September bid letting. Variance/Expansion of Nonconforming Building - Mr. Johnson, a 134.2 member of the audience, addressed the Board regarding finishing the building of a carport on his property. He stated that he had a small motor repair shop on Highway 45 and had started a small carport, which consisted of six posts and a roof, for his pickup truck. He said he did not know he needed a permit until the City came out and notified him. He said the posts were already in the ground and he had spent $1,229 for a turnkey job on this carport. He requested a variance so he could get the job finished, as all it lacked was the top. Mayor Noland asked Mr. Johnson if he had been told he was in violation because he had a non -conforming business in a residential location. Mr. Johnson said that he did not think so, as when he moved to this location, it was in the country and had been annexed into the City later , after his business had been established. Director Bumpass, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to grant the variance. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Mayor Noland told Mr. Johnson to go to the Planning Office where he could get the permit to allow him to finish his carport. Response from Governor - Director Johnson stated that she had received a response to her July 26, 1983 letter to Governor Clinton regarding the Pollution Control and Ecology Commission's decision to cut $3.6 million from the funds Fayetteville was to have received for the wastewater treatment plant. She said that the Governor had told her he was very concerned about this and would do anything he could do to help, but that was the extent of it. Sidewalk/East side of Park Avenue - City Manager Grimes stated that a few weeks ago, the Board had received a request for the installation of a sidewalk along the East side of Park Avenue from Trenton to Louise, a short block just East of the swimming pool. He said the estimate on the installation was about $1,700 and the City could install it on the existing right-of-way. He added that he and the Street Superintendent were requesting authorization to go ahead with this small segment of sidewalk, which he thought would benefit the residents in the area, particularly a lady who is legally blind who must walk through the area. Director Sharp, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to grant authorization to the City Manager to install the sidewalk. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Suit Against Kahn Husain - Director Lancaster asked City Attorney Attorney McCord about the status of the City's suit against Kahn Husain to enforce the audit requirements in his contract. Mr. McCord stated that he was filing a motion for default judgment,August 24, and that he had an Attorney Ad Litem appointed so he could get a default judgment, and the Attorney Ad Litem had moved for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, which he was opposing, and filing a motion for default judgment which will be heard as soon as Judge Lineberger gets back. 134.3 134.4 134.5 8-23-83 Pending Litigation/Non-Conforming Signs III Director Lancaster asked City Attorney McCord if he had anything to report on the several lawsuits he had filed in regard to non -conforming signs. Mr. McCord responded that Boyer Sign Company had taken -down the non -conforming signs at the Sands Motel and the Townhouse Motel; the masonry sign at the McIlroy Bank on South School Street was off, as well as the D -Sign, Inc. sign, and also the Party Liquor Store and Bonanza signs - all should be down by the end of the month. _Director Lancaster asked if these had anything to do with the Donrey case and Mr. McCord answered that the Donrey case is before the Supreme Court and.hopefully, the Court would decide the case in early Fall. He added that this was the only lawsuit involving billboards off-site. Director Lancaster asked about the suit involving J. D. Fisher Buick and Mr. McCord responded that this case O was presently set for trial in early October. He added that the City Liquor Store case received a Partial Summary Judgment and hearing on the remaining issue is set for August 29. He stated that these constituted all the pending sign cases. Q 1 MINUTES 135 135.1 The Board had the following change to make in the minutes of the 135.2 August 2, 1983 meeting: 120.3 The second sentence of this paragraph should read: "The 135.3 parcel is owned by James Powell and Harvey Smith and is in the process of being sold. After this correction, the minutes were approved as distributed. 135.4 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Board, the meeting 135.5 adjourned at 9:20 P.M.