HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-10-04 MinutesMINUTES 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 October 4, 1983, in Room 107, Continuing
Education Center, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Directors Sharp, Johnson, Lancaster, Osborne,
Orton, and Bumpass; City Manager Grimes; Assistant City
Manager McWethy; City Attorney McCord; City Clerk Griffin;
members of the press and audience.
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment
of respectful silence.
SLUDGE MANAGEMENT
Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of a report from
the Water & Sewer Committee regarding the selection of a sludge
management alternative. This matter had been tabled at the September 20
meeting to allow City Directors, Engineers, Staff Members and Representa-
tives from the Wyman community to tour several facilities elsewhere in
the country that are similar to the ones being proposed.
Mayor Noland stated that he appreciated the time the citizens of
Wyman, as well as others, gave this trip and said that he thought it
had proved very useful. He then called upon Rick Hirsekorn, of CH2M
Hill, stating that he had some updating on;material-previously given
the -Board. ^.
•
Mr. Hirsekorn addressed the Board. He said his firm very much
appreciated the difficulty the Board has experienced in reaching a
decision in this very important matter, and respected the careful con-
sideration the Board had given all the information that had been given
them, i.e. input of local citizenry, regulatory agencies, etc. He
stressed that it was important, however, to reach a decision very soon,
because of the May 1, 1984 deadline, in order to obtain the federal
funding that is available for the project, as well as the seasonal
changes that must be taken into consideration. He stressed that the
necessary field work and detailed site investigations must be made
before the onset of winter, as winter conditions greatly inhibit or
even prevent the work on any system to proceed.
Mr. Hirsekorn then discussed in detail the composting alternative
(#3), stating that most of the questions generated by the tour of the
sludge management plants had been directed towards this alternative.
He said that if the Board chose this method, no matter which way it was
done, would cost the City more than a liquid land application system,
stressing that it was only an intermediate process and not one of ultimate
disposal; at the end of the composting process, there would still be a
product that must be transported away, either by the City or by interested
individuals, in large quantities. He continued that,to that end,
179
179.1
179.2
179.3
179.4
10-4-83
180.1 the product did not have as much nutrient value or moisture content for
the agricultural community,that stood to be the biggest user of the
stabilized product, as a nutrient supplement to the soil, and would not
decrease the Mud Creek or White River discharges of the treated effluent,
but rather, would increase it because of the need to dewater the sludge
to provide the composting system as dry a product as possible. He said
that the non -solid portion of the daily sludge production in stabilized
form would be 100,000 gallons per day that would come back to the plant
and eventually into the rivers, which, over the present current period
of time through which this area had just come (the dry period of the
year) would represent 36 million gallons of water that either goes into
the River and Mud Creek as a result of sludge dewatering or could be a
moisture source to the adjacent lands during the very dry times.
180.2 Mr. Hirsekorn stated that, taking all known factors into consideration,
they would again recommend that the City implement a liquid land application
system with adequate land to accept all of the stabilized sludge produced
from the wastewater treatment plant. They also recommended that the system
be designed and constructed to provide the treated, stabilized
sludge, to all of those in the area who wanted to use it. He continued
that they felt this would provide the City with a technically and economically
acceptable ultimate treatment and disposal system with the control to achieve
the goals the City needed to achieve through the system. He said that at
the end of the planning period or useful life period, the land has a definite
value. It would also involve a pipeline means of getting the sludge to the
agricultural land, and provide the Board with the opportunity, in accordance
with their resolution passed a few weeks back, to utilize the treated
effluent to the benefit of the agricultural community.
180.3 Mr. Hirsekorn then introduced Jim Otta, Assistant Project Manager
for Sludge Management for CH2M Hill, and Vernon Rowe of McClelland
Consulting Engineers, stating that they would be happy to answer any
questions the Board had and provide any information they might need to
help them reach a decision in this matter.
180.4 Director Orton inquired if irrigating with the treated wastewater
would involve an additional piping system and if so, was this included
in the cost figures they had been given. Mr. Hirsekorn replied that it
would include an additional piping system and this cost had not
been included. He said that all that had been discussed and decided on
at this point in time was that with this alternative, it would be
advantageous if you wanted to provide the effluent for purposes other than
flushing the sludge line out,(and they had always planned to clean the
line out with clean water at the end of the sludge application period) to
put an additional line in, in order to get additional water out to
adjacent areas. He said they had not done a detailed cost estimate on
this; prior to that point, it would involve a lot of work in and around
the proposed application area to find out who was interested in receiving
it, how much, what type of commitment could be obtained, etc. so the
Board would know how to financially plan for the extra cost associated
with this.
180.5 Mayor Noland asked if the same distribution system could be used once
it arrived at the field where it was to be used; in other words, whatever
type of application was used, a separate line coming from the plant to a
central distribution point would be needed, but from that point on into
the fields, could the same application system be used.
1
1
1
1
1
10-4-83
181
Mr. Hirsekorn replied that this was possible, but they would not want
to take away the detailed design privileges of the people who will actually
be doing the design, due to characteristics of the sludge and the application
system that will be used with the sludge. He stated, however, that the processes
were definitely compatible.
Director Bumpass stated that after visiting with some of the Board members
that had gone on the tour, there were several points about the composting
facility they had seen in Washington, D.C. that alarmed him. First, it used
an enormous building that was only processing 1/4 of the amount of sludge
in the facility that they would have to do in Fayetteville. Mr. Hirsekorn
stated that the Washington, D.C. facility was processing 4 tons a day of
biological sludge; Fayetteville would be looking at 13 tons a day. Director
Orton commented that the building had the capacity of 20 tons a day, though,
and they were only up to 4 tons a day, so a building to suit Fayetteville
would be around 2/3's that size, to the planned capacity.
Director Bumpass stated that another thing that bothered him about the
composting facility was that they were not able to sell it or give it away,
but had to put it on dedicated property, because of a health department ruling.
He asked how this would compare to Fayetteville's situation.
Jim Otta, of CH2M Hill stated that they were not using the building (in
Washington, D.C.) to stockpile the finished product; it was being put behind
the building because of regulations the State of Virginia currently has on
the use of compost material in that they regulate it very much the same as
land treatment: the sites have to be identified beforehand, they have to be
monitored, and the State of Virginia is implementing this. Director Bumpass
inquired how this compared with the situation here in Arkansas.
181.1
181.2
181.3
181.4
Mr. Otta answered that the State currently does not have an adopted set 181.5
of sludge regulations or guidelines; they do.have an interim, or proposed set,
and were currently awaiting for the EPA to issue a new set of guidelines;
_(they have withdrawn their guidelines and it will: be about: two years
before they will be reissued); the State is going to wait to see what these
guidelines say and either adopt them in their entirety or modifythe,
state guidelines to be stricter than the EPA guidelines. -.He.reported
that the guidelines they had been given to work with were those listed in the
40 CFR.257 Federal Guidelines that give the regulations for sludge if States
don't have their own regulations. He added that the interim guidelines were
much stricter than the guidelines the EPA had out. He said the mayor concern,
as with any land treatment, is the heavy metals. By composting, you still
have to get rid of the heavy metals in the material;c at this time,':there is
unrestricted use of it; someone could buy as much as they wanted to and
apply it whenever, wherever and in whatever quantities they wanted to. EPA
'is saying that is not a good idea and they are wanting to implement guidelines
very similar to what they use for land treatment for the ultimate disposal
of the compost material.
Director Johnson, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to adopt Alternative 181.6
No. 2, Application of liquid digested sludge on farmland, using a combination
of cooperating farmers and a city -owned dedicated disposal site.
Mayor Noland then opened the meeting to questions or comments from the 181.7
audience.
1b2
10-4-83
182.1 Bob Mayes, Attorney for the residents of the Wyman community,
addressed the Board, stating that he understood the heavy responsibilities
the Board faced with relation to this decision. He said he understood
from the last meeting, there was to be a study directed towards the
alternatives of land application and composting, and that he had detected
a strong majority element of the Board leaning towards the composting
method. He said that in regards to composting as an alternative, it
was a generally accepted method in all areas of the world without a
great deal of political problems, and is accepted as a safe method with
the exception of the retention of heavy metals. He said heavy metals
would not be a problem in Fayetteville at the present time because of
the nature of the industry here although in the future, it could become
a real consideration; therefore composting, in this respect, might well
be the improper way to go, in addition to the fact it is more expensive
as far as capital outlay is concerned.
182.2 He did say, however, that he questioned some of the statements
that had been made with regards to composting. He said he questioned
the statement that it all has to be covered in a building and that the
drainage from the compost would have a severe impact upon the waste-
water treatment plant. He continued that the official position of the
Wyman community was for the composting alternative. He continued
that if it were not for the prohibitive capital outlay, it would
be a growth towards the future in regards to sludge management. He
stated that he did not believe the land application process that was
being proposed here tonight was the answer. He said that the citizens
of Wyman did not oppose land application, but they did oppose the fact
that the sludge was going to be applied so close to the riverbanks. He
contended that putting sludge on a small dedicated site would lead to
eventual pollution of the City's drinking water source, Beaver
Reservoir, in addition to the area's shallow wells. He stated that he
did not believe the sediment, chemicals or hazardous wastes could be
diluted or rendered harmless before reaching the ground water level,
which in this area runs towards the river. He asked the Board to re-
consider the proposed sludge application site and move it away from
the river.
182.3 Director Bumpass asked Mr. Mayes just exactly what he would do with
relation to disposal of the sludge or did the Wyman Community consider
composting the only answer. Mr. Mayes responded that his response was
without complete authority from the Wyman Community, but he would like
to see the Board talk to more of the farmers in the area to see if
enough acreage could be obtained on a voluntary basis and by contract,
as to make the dedicated site unnecessary. During the times when the
farmers could not accept the sludge (due to wet fields, harvest time,
etc.), he said that storage tanks or laying it on sand beds as Springdale
does might be the answer.
182.4 Mayor Noland declared that inherent in the Alternative (#2) that
Director Johnson had moved to adopt,was the concept Mr. Mayes was talking
about, that of contracting with cooperating farmers for sludge disposal,
and every gallon they were able to sell to the farmers would just extend
the life of the dedicated site by that proportionate amount; but the City
needed a spot to be able to go to when the farmers were unable to take
the product. He then asked Mr. Mayes where he was during all of the
Community Action Committee Meetings, where they had 40 workshops over a
year's time and where the State Regulatory Agencies had come in and
explained this very concept to them.
1
1
1
1
10-4-83
Mr. Mayes argued that the dedicated site concept was the desire of
the Engineers, to make Fayetteville a showplace for the rest of Arkansas,
that would help, possibly, to sell their services. He contended that the
dedicated site was an unnecessary expenditure for the City of Fayetteville
and he felt a sufficient number of cooperative farmers would contract to
buy the product as to make a dedicated site unnecessary. He maintained
that this would not pass the regulatory agencies. He asked if it was known
how much of the proposed dedicated site area was in the floodplain.
Mayor Noland responded that the 100 year floodplain could not be used,
that they were restricted to areas outside this. He then asked the
Engineers of CH2M Hill to explain the safeguards that had been developed
with relation to the runoff.
Jim Otta, of CH2M Hill, explained that the State of Arkansas had some
strict guidelines that they would have to adhere to on this project, and
in addition, CH2M Hill's guidelines on site monitoring were stricter that
the State's. He said the site will have monitoring wells to monitor the
ground water, the soil, the sludge that is being applied, and the results
would be recorded by independent laboratories so there would be no doubt
as to the results of the tests. Rick Hirsekorn said it stood to reason
that the City would never receive a permit to operate the site without the
approval of the State Health Department or the Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology and whatever plan was developed, once they were authorized to
proceed with developing the details, would take into consideration the
physical details of how much groundwater was in the area, what direction
it flowed, the capacity of the soil to assimilate the water and nutrients
from the sludge, etc.
Mayor Noland stated that this proposal was about the fourth mayor
proposal they had sent to the State and with each proposal, there had
been mayor objections and rejections by regulatory agencies. He added
that at three of the workshops they had on the alternatives, the EPA,
DPC&E and State Health Department people had been there and explained
this concept to them as one of the alternatives the City could use. He
said it was now down to the point where the Board had to make a decision;
they had made the decision about what was to be done with the effluent
and it was now time to address the sludge problem. He said he would
welcome comments from others in the audience.
18a
183.1
183.2
183.3
183.4
There were no comments.from others in the audience. 183.5
Director Orton stated that whatever was decided, the-Bbard wanted -the
job done well, and the engineers had already.told them that if they decided
on another method, then that's the way they would do it; and would make it
work whichever way is decided. She added that the Board had not gone through
all the many phases"of the 201:Facilities Plan, which has involved countless
hours of work,'debate, etc. just to do -6 sloppy job..on the sludge management
aspect.
183.6
There was further discussion on the.alternatives, including the hauling/ 183.7
piping options associated with alternative #2, using airport land as a
dedicated site, and putting a terminal near the river, for trucks to operate
from,with cost comparisons of different plans.
10-4-83
184
184.1 Engineer Jim Otta said a loading facility could be built on the
East side of the river that would allow trucks to operate on that side,
eliminating the bridge problems associated with the other side that had
been discussed at previous meetings; whether the pipeline is extended
or whether trucks are used to deliver the material, there is a cooperating
aspect to that project which can be developed to whatever degree the City
wants to pursue it He added that it was conceivable that in the future,
more farmers would be willing to contract for the product and as one of
the visited sites, Madison, Wisconsin, has experienced, there might not
be enough to go around and farmers would have to go on a waiting list -
which would eliminate the need for a dedicated site. He noted that in
the Winter in Madison, the product was stored.
184.2 Mayor Noland again asked if there were other comments from the audience.
There was no response.
184.3 Director Johnson stated that the end results in dealing with the sludge
is that there would have to be a change in attitude, that the sludge would have
be looked at not as a liability, but as an asset. She added that it could be
an asset to the farming community if the farming community and the City worked
closely together in order solve the problems of irrigation, fertilizer costs,
etc. She stressed that the City had to have a dedicated site, not as a model
farm, but in wet periods and when farmers were harvesting their crops.
184.4 Director Orton stated that she was for composting and was not really
satisfied with the cost figures they had been given, but she felt that there
were more problems at this time with the composting because the EPA had not
even made a decision as to what was safe. She predicted that at the end of
this 20 -year period, they would go to composting, but at this point in time,
there were too many obstacles. She agreed with Director Johnson about a
change in attitudes and considering the sludge a resource.
184.5 At the request of Director Bumpass, the motion made earlier by Director
Johnson and seconded by Director Osborne was repeated.
184.6 With no further discussion, the Mayor called for a vote on the issue.
Upon roll call, the motion to adopt Alternative #2 was approved by a vote of
6-1 with Director Bumpass voting in the minority.
LOT SPLIT APPEAL/SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MASONIC DRIVE & NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
184.7 Mayor Noland introduced for consideration an appeal of a decision by
the Planning Commission regarding the denial of a lot split request, for
property located at the Southeast corner of Masonic Drive and North College
Avenue. The appeal had gone through the planning commission and had been
denied; the petitioner, Joe Morris, was appealing this decision.
184.8 Mr. William Greenhaw, Attorney for the petitioner, addressed the Board,
and gave a brief history of the property and why they had originally gone
to the Planning Commission. He said Mr. Morris, owner/operator of the
Houston -Taylor Motor Company, had received a letter from the Building Inspection
Department indicatingthat his free-standing signs were not in compliance with
the Fayetteville sign ordinance.
1
1
1
1
10-4-83
t...
185
The Inspection Department had been contacted trying to determine 185.1
a way in which Mr. Morris could come into actual compliance with the sign
ordinance and also meet tfie•contractual obligations of his automobile
franchise dealerships. He stated that both of the franchise agreements
required an exclusive free-standing sign advertising the manufacturer's
line of vehicle only and Mr. Morris' motor company has two automobile
franchises: Chrysler Motor Corporation and Nissan Motor Company. Currently,
Chrysler Corporation owns all signs that are located on all Chrysler
dealerships and they require that their sign be on the lot of the dealer
who is selling their autos, and that no other product be advertised on those
signs. Nissan has the same requirement. .
Mr. Greenhaw proposed to move the sign back to the required 40 ft; 185.2
he said his client, Mr. Morris, would also cut the signs down in size so
that the signs themselves are in actual compliance with the sign ordinance.
He requested that they be allowed to have two free-standing signs so
Mr. Morris and Houston -Taylor Motor Company would not be in breach of their
contractual obligations which were incurred prior to the enactment of the
sign ordinance. He said the reason he had proceeded in the form of a lot -
split application, rather than asking for a variance from the sign ordinance,
was based upon precedent before this Board, citing the case of Williams -
Ford Tractor Corporation in 1977. He said they were in much the same position
as Williams -Ford Tractor had a franchise for Ford tractors and also for
New Holland tractors (this request for variance was denied in 1977). At the
time, two possible solutions were discussed: to split the lot into two separate
lots so that one sign could be allowed for each lot or to erect another building
on which to place another wall sign. Mr. Greenhaw felt Mr. Morris was entitled
to consideration as a hardship case.
Director Lancaster asked if both signs could be put on the same post. 185.3
Mr. Greenhaw said this was not possible as Chrysler Corporation owns both
the post and the sign and would not allow the Nissan sign to share their
post.
Director Orton asked how car dealers in other cities with sign
ordinances managed. Mayor Noland stated that Vail, Colorado and La Jolla,
California had strong sign ordinances, much more prohibitive as far as
sign sizes were compared to Fayetteville.
Director Osborne made a motion to grant the lot split request. The
motion died for lack of a second.
185.4
185.5
Director Lancaster stated that he was in sympathy lith Mr. Morris, 185.6
but from the Board's standpoint, a lot of problems would be created if
they granted a lot split in order to comply with the sign ordinance.
Director Johnson thought the sign variance approach might be the best 185.7
way to handle the situation.
Mr. Greenhaw stated that if the Board concurred, he would be glad 185.8
to withdraw the lot split request and apply for a variance from the sign
ordinance.
Mayor Noland asked Sign Inspector Bert Rakes if he had any input
regarding this matter. Mr. Rakes replied that Mr. Morris' problem was
unique in that the type of building he has is not conducive to wall signs.
He added that it was an unusual problem that he had not run in to before.
185.9
10-4-83
186
186.1 After further general Board discussion, Director Sharp, seconded
by Orton, made a motion to uphold the decision of the Planning Commission.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6-1 with Director Osborne
voting in the minority. The lot split appeal was denied.
Director Sharp noted that this action would leave Mr. Greenhaw free
to pursue the other route (variance from the sign ordinance).
186.2 City Attorney said the action tonight would not preclude the filing
of an application for a sign variance or as had been pointed out, would also
not preclude the filing of a formal subdivision plat.
Mayor Noland instructed Bert Rakes to correspond with La Jolla, California,
186.3 (it had been noted that Vail, Colorado had no car lots) to see how they
accommodate this sort of thing in their city where they have two distinctly
different corporations, using the example of the car industry that was presented
tonight.
EASEMENT REDUCTION/GREENBRIAR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
186.4 Mayor Noland introduced a request to reduce a 25 ft. utility easement
along the East side of Lots 16, 17, 20 & 21 in Greenbriar Planned Unit
Development, to 20 ft. The request was made by Edmiston-Prewitt Development
Company, Inc. in order to build a two-family unit. Mayor Noland said that
it appeared to him that all utility companies had access off of Sweetbriar
down the easement in question, which would be at least 20 ft. wide on every
lot.
186.5 City Attorney McCord stated that this would require an ordinance and
there would be no emergency clause, so it would not become effective for
thirty days from date of publication, which would leave time for an appeal
or amendments, etc.
186.6 Director Osborne stated that he had asked Assistant City Manager McWethy
the purpose of the request (to build a two-family unit) and it seemed to be
for a logical purpose; he did not feel there would be a problem if a utility
company needed to go on anyone's property to work.
1
186.7 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Osborne, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place
the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 7-0. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Johnson, 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 7-0, and the ordinance was read for the final time.
186.8 There was general Board discussion on whether all the utility companies
had been contacted. It was noted that SWEPCO had signed off on the request
and Director Lancaster said he knew why they had done this, as they had
no utility pole out there. Ozark Electric had made a notation that they
would like to retain the right to use the lots outside the easement for
access to maintenance and repair of their lines, and there was Board
discussion on whether they would have any control over this.
1
1
1
10-4-83
187
City Attorney McCord advised the Board that if they felt it might 187.1
be a problem. for Ozark Electric, perhaps the solution would be to provide
relief tonight,to amend the ordinance to reserve within the vacated 5 ft.
a temporary. easement for maintenance purposes. Director Osborne, seconded
by Johnson, so moved. Upon roll call, the amendment to the ordinance was
passed by a vote of 7-0.
Mayor Noland then asked, "Shall the ordinance pass?" Upon roll call, 187.2
the ordinance was passed by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE # 2949 APPEARS ON PAGE qg OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS
BOOK XIV
STREET NAMING
Mayor Noland introduced a request by residents along County Road 650
that their street be named "Rainbow Loop." The petition was submitted by
Jacqueline Kinghorn and was signed by all but three of the twenty-nine
residents along the road. It was explained that this road makes a large
U-shaped loop off the South side of Highway 16 West. The petition requests
that there be two street signs erected at each intersection with the highway,
one named East Rainbow Loop and the other end West Rainbow Loop, with the
middle portion named South Rainbow Loop.
A member of the audience (unidentified) spoke in opposition to the'
proposal, stating that he lived on this road. He said it had been his
experience that whenever you have a loop, it has a lot of disadvantages,
not the least of which is the difficulty the fire department has in finding
a particular address. He presented a verbal diagram of the road layout,
and said he would prefer to have the loop given three separate names:
one for the East side of the loop, one for the West side and one for the
South side.
Mrs. Kinghorn addressed the Board and stated the petitioners' reasons
for wanting the road named Rainbow Loop. She added that -this area had Just
recently been annexed to the City of Fayetteville and in addition to the
lack of sewer, water and cable TV service for many of the road's'residents,
there was the additional inconvenience of trying to direct deliveries, as
well as friends and relatives to their homes. She stated that their
biggest fear arose from the need for emergency services from time to time,
a n d the lack of a street name made locating a residence difficult. She
said the petitioners felt the simplest solution to the problem would be one
street name, with a separate directional "prefix" for the East, West and
South leg of the loop (East Rainbow Loop, West Rainbow Loop and South Rainbow
Loop).
Director Lancaster, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to refer this
matter to the Planning Commission, as he thought was done on other street
namings, with the provision that they consult with the Fire and Police
Chief, to get their input on the problem of locating a particular business
or residence when there are streets with the same name and different endings
(such as court, place, avenue, lane, etc.)
187.3
187.4
187.5
187.6
10-4-83
186
188.1 Mayor Noland inquired if referring matters such as this back to the
Planning Commission was the way they were normally handled. City Manager
Grimes responded that he thought when most of the residents agreed on a
name they just presented it to the Board for approval. Assistant City
Manager McWethy said he could not recall of an instance when the Planning
Commission had a roll in naming a street, although the Street Committee
had, as well as the full Board.
188.2 Director Bumpass made a motion to amend Director Lancaster's motion
andrefer this matter to the Street Committee. The motion was seconded by
Director Osborne. The recorded vote was: AYES: Osborne, Sharp & Bumpass.
NAYS: Johnson, Lancaster, Orton and Noland. Mayor Noland declared the motion
failed.
188.3 Mayor Noland then called for a vote on the main motion, to refer the
matter to the Planning Commission. The recorded vote was: AYES: Lancaster,
Osborne and Sharp. NAYS: Johnson, Orton, Noland and Bumpass. Mayor Noland
declared the motion failed.
188.4 Director Orton then made a motion, seconded by Johnson, to name the
Street "Rainbow Loop" as had been requested by the petitioners, using
East, West and South directional designations in front of the street name.
The recorded vote was: AYES: Johnson, Orton and Noland. NAYS: Lancaster,
Osborne, Sharp and Bumpass. Mayor Noland declared the motion failed.
188.5 Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table this matter
until the next meeting, during which time the Directors could go out and
look at the street and talk to the Fire and Police Chief about the aspects
of this type of street naming. The recorded vote was: AYES: Johnson,
Lancaster, Orton, Sharp, Noland and Bumpass. NAYS: Osborne. Mayor Noland
declared the motion passed and the matter tabled to the next meeting.
188.6 Director Sharp requested the Fire Chief submit a written recommendation
before the next meeting. The Board concurred in this request.
SIGN APPEAL/NELSON'S FUNERAL HOME
188.7 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal requirements of the
sign ordinance. The location of the sign is 3939 North College Avenue and
the petitioner is Nelson's Funeral Home. The variance being requested is
to leave a 73 square foot free-standing sign at a 26 ft. 9 inch setback
from the Shiloh Drive right-of-way. A sign of this size requires a 40 ft.
setback unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable.
188.8 Duane Nelson, owner of Nelson's Funeral Home, addressed the Board, stating
that he had the same problem that the Ramada Inn and Red Lobster had, in that
an 8 inch high pressure gas line was just West of where the sign would have to
be moved to comply with the 40 ft. setback.
188.9 Director Osborne, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to grant the
variance . Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7-0.
1
1
1
10-4-83
BID WAIVER/TRAFFIC SIGNAL/TOWNSHIP RD. AT NORTH COLLEGE AVENUE
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance waiving competitive bidding
for the purchase of traffic controller equipment to signalize left -turns
onto Township Road at North College Avenue.
City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Osborne, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place
the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 7-0. City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the second time.
Director Osborne, seconded by Johnson, 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 7-0 and the City Attorney read the
ordinance for the final time.
Mayor Noland noted that the dollar amount of this purchase was
under the budgeted amount. There being no further discussion, Mayor Noland
asked, "Shall the ordinance pass?" Upon roll call, the ordinance passed
by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE # 2950 APPEARS ON PAGE# /00 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS
BOOK XI V •
BID AWARD/HANGARS
Mayor Noland introduced a report from the Board Airport Committee
regarding the award of bids for the construction of T -hangars for the East
side and an executive hangar for the West side of Drake Field.
Director Lancaster stated that the Board Airport Committee had met,
with Purchasing Agent Sturman Mackey present. Four bids had been received
for the construction of a 140' x 50' hangar for the West side of Drake
Field; three bids were received for the T -Hangars being proposed for the
East side of the field, and_the Committee chose.the lowest bids.. .Director..
Lancaster made a motion that the Board approve the bids as presented,
subject to the Mayor and City Clerk working.out the financing on the.
bonds. --
City Manager Grimes said that he had a proposal that would allow
construction to begin immediately. He said he and City Attorney McCord
had met with a local banker, who, with other.bankers,Were going to put.
together a revenue.bond.package on this. He said there:was_a'way that
would allow us to proceed immediately; the bond package would have a 30
day waiting period after it's put together, so it could be 60 days or more
before construction could begin. He suggested that the Board approve a
loan from the City's existing 1% County sales tax balancein.the'amount of
$250,000; it was doubtful that any of the money would have to be used to
pay the contractor until the bond package was approved; the loan would
be repaid from the bond proceeds, if any of the money was used. He stated
that this would allow the Board to award the contract immediately.
Director Lancaster stated that he would include this in his motion.
He added that both contractors had 120 day contracts with a penalty clause,
so if they could get started immediately, .:it_might—be-Passible for.the
work to -be completedbefore-bad weather seCin this Winter: Director
Osborne seconded the motion.
183
189.1
189.2
185.3
189.4
189.5
189.6
189.7
r
10-4-83
150
190.1 Director Sharp asked City Manager Grimes if they had only gone
to one bank. City Manager Grimes stated that they had talked with John
Lewis of First National Bank in Fayetteville and he is going to get
together with the other local bankers. He added that normally a
revenue bond package of this size would be worked with the local banks
and distributed among them.
190.2 Director Noland noted that the City had a verbal commitment on
the West hangar. City Manager Grimes said there were several notes
expressing interest in the hangars on the East side.
190.3 Director Sharp said he did not really mind going this route, except
that the City would be in a bad situation if a problem developed with the
revenue bonds. City Manager Grimes said no problems were anticipated in putting
together a bond package of this size. Director Bumpass said that none of the
banks in town needed any revenue bonds for the tax-free aspect. City Attorney
McCord responded that John Lewis had told them that he was not sure the local
banks would want to purchase the bonds, but he was confident that a financing
package could be developed where they could assist the City in seeing that
the bonds were placed. He added that if this assurance was not satisfactory,
then the Board needed to wait until the bonds were actually sold before awarding
the contract.
190.4 It was noted that the low bidder on the executive hangar was Structural
Systems, Inc. of Springdale, Arkansas; the low bidder for the T -hangars,
(10 unit T -hangars with bi-fold doors) was Weinland, Inc. of Springdale,
Arkansas.
190.5 With no further discussion, the roll was called. The motion to award the
bids to Structural Systems, Inc. & Weinland, Inc. respectively and approve the
$250,000 loan from the sales tax balance passed by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE AMENDING MASTER STREET PLAN
190.6 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Master Street Plan
by adding collector streets in the area of the Fulbright Expressway.
190.7 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Osborne, seconded by 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,
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.
190.8 With no further discussion, the Mayor asked, "Shall the ordinance
pass?" Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE # 2951 APPEARS ON PAGE /pa OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS
BOOK XIV .
1
1
1
10-4-83
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
Mayor Noland introduced a report from the Board Nominating Committee
regarding an appointment to the Advertising and Promotion Commission.
Director Johnson stated that there were appointments being recommended
for two Committees, the Electrical Licensing Board, and the Advertising and
Promotion Commission. Their recommendations for the Electrical Licensing
Board were James McGinty and Elmer Burkett. Terms for these appointments
will expire October 1, 1985. (It was noted that the appointment for James
McGinty was actually a reappointment). The recommendation for the Advertising
and Promotion Commission was Michael Weissbeck, (of Ramada Inn).
Director Johnson, seconded by Ostorne, made a motion to accept the
recommendations of the Board Nominating Committee. With no discussion on
this, the roll was call and the motion passed by a vote of 7-0, and the
appointments were approved.
BID AWARD/RENOVATION OF ASBELL SCHOOL GYMNASIUM
Mayor Noland introduced an award of Bid #541 for the renovation of the
Asbell School Gymnasium. He stated that this gymnasium was built on school
property in agreement with the school and was built by the City and used by
area residents; it had been in need of renovating for some time. - ..
Five bids were received. The low bid was by Hunnicutt Construction
Company, in the amount of $40,756.00.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to Hunnicutt Construction Company. Upon roll call, the motion passed
by a vote of 7-0.
191
191.1
191.2
191.3
191.4
191.5
191.6
ORDINANCE TO RESTRICT LOCATION OF MOBILE HOMES
Mayor Noland introduced the next item of business, which was an 191.7
ordinance amending the City Code by restricting the location of mobile
homes to mobile home parks.
Mayor Noland stated that he had received a request from the Planning 191.8
Commission, stating that they would like to give some input to this item.
Director Osborne, seconded by Orton, made a motion to refer this 191.9
item to the Planning Commission. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a
vote of 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Meetings Scheduled
The following meetings were scheduled:
Water & Sewer Committee
City Hall Committee
Finance Committee
Thursday, 3 p.m. (Oct. 6)
Friday, 4 p.m. (Oct. 7)
• --(Building•_Todr`•firs"tfs':
Friday, 3 p.m. (Oct. 7)
191.10
10-4-83
192
St. Paul's Episcopal Church Commended
192.1 Director Orton brought an informational item to the attention of the
Board. She stated that St. Paul's Episcopal Church had given a payment to the
City of $500.00 for Police and Fire protection, and this is because churches
do not pay property taxes, but yet they receive these services from the City.
She felt they should be complimented on giving this payment for the services
that are provided, noting that it was a voluntary contribution. The Board
concurred, and expressed their appreciation.
LifeStyles Fund Allocation
192.2 Director Osborne made a motion to transfer $2,500 from the 1981
Community Development Parks and Recreation account to fund Lifestyles multi-
purpose vocational rehabilitation activities for the handicapped. The motion
was seconded by Director Orton.
192.3 Mayor Noland said the Board had received a letter from Assistant City
Manager McWethy requesting these funds; they were eligible expenditures,
complied with Community Development guidelines, and were for adequate tools
and janitorial equipment for the LifeStyles/HomeMaid program.
192.4 As there was no questions or opposition to this expenditure, Mayor
Noland called for a vote on the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed
by a vote of 7-0.
Bid Waiver/Fire Department Office
192.5 City Manager Grimes said that in this year's budget for the Fire Department,
funds were set up to relocate their shop area in the main Fire Station. This
work has been completed and the old shop area is being remodeled into an office
area; he requested a supplemental appropriation for this work in the amount of
$3,040 to buy materials to complete the job. He commented that the Department
had added two Inspectors and the additional space was needed due to growth in
the department. He stated that competitive quotations had been taken from all
three of the local lumber companies on the list of needed materials and this was
the amount needed. He added that the Firemen were doing the work themselves.
192.6 City Attorney McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Osborne, seconded by Orton, 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 Bumpass,
seconded by Osborne, 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.
192.7 There being no further discussion, Mayor Noland asked, "Shall the
ordinance pass?" Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE # 2952 APPEARS ON PAGE jps{ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS
BOOK XIV
1
i
10-4-83
Noise Barrier/Drake Field
City Manager Grimes reported that the City's Airport personnel had
gone to the FAA in Oklahoma City last week and had been approved for a
90/10 grant (90% grant funds/10% City funds) to do the taxiway and the
floor area of the noise barrier. '
He requested an amendment to the engineering services contract with
McClelland Engineering to cover this portion of the work on the noise
barrier, stating that McClelland would be subcontracting with ESI of
Springdale, Arkansas for the work. The amount for planning and design
is $4,150; construction observation is $1,400.
Director Osborne, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve
an amendment to the contract with McClelland. Upon roll call, the motion
passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION #117A-83APPEARS ON PG. Lik OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )AM
Razing of Greenhouses
193
193.1
193.2
193.3
Mayor Noland brought up for discussion the structures at 806 Vandeventer 193.4
that the Board had taken action on at the regular.Board•Meeting on August 23,
1983. At that time, the Board passed Ordinance.2936 authorizing abatement
proceedings for dilapidated, unsitely and unsafe buildings located at this
address. The City Attorney had received a letter from the contractor who
had been hired to tear the structures down, giving a timetable for the com-
pletion of the job and the reasons for the delay.
It was the consensus of the Board that City Attorney McCord be 193.5
authorized to take no action, -in order to give the contractor the time.ihe.
had requested.,:.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Osborne, made a motion to authorize the 193.6
City Attorney to take no action. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote
of 7-0.
Director Johnson suggested a weekly progress -report be made to.the Board. 193.7
Quitclaim Deed/Lots 5 & 6, Block 1, Jennings Addition
City Attorney McCord requested Board authorization for the Mayor and
City Clerk to execute a Quitclaim Deed for Lots 5 & 6, Block 1,in the
Jennings Addition. He said that title to these lots at one time was in an
old street improvement district which was dissolved, and a Title Attorney ..
had called him requesting this -be done to clear the title.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to adopt a resolu-'
tion authorizing the Quitclaim Deed. Upon roll call, the motion passed
unanimously.
RESOLUTION # 118-83 APPEARS ON PAGE qi 1 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK XVII
193.8
193.9
154
MINUTES
194.1 The following corrections were made to the minutes of the
September 8, 1983 Special Meeting:
194.2 152.2 The first sentence should read, " to reaerate this
wastewater and assists in further aeration
194.3 152.3 (B) The first sentence should read, " they felt would
be implying to the people immediately
194.4 153.2 First sentence: change "mottling" to modeling
Third sentence: change "mottling" to modeling
194.5 The following correction was made to the minutes of the
September 12, 1983 Special Meeting:
194.6 156.3 Last sentence should read, "If State funding was obtained,
she thought construction on the noise barrier could begin
the first part of October. (Delete remainder of sentence).
194.7 The following correction was made to the minutes of the
September 20, 1983 Regular Meeting:
194.8 168.1 The first sentence should read, " and make arrangements
for Board members as well as interested parties from the Wyman
Community group to go see a successfully operating composting
plant and land application plant."
194.9 With these corrections, the minutes were approved as distributed.
ADJOURNMENT
194.10 With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
10:45 p.m.
1