HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-06-05 Minutes84
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors was held
on Tuesday, June 5, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the City
Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin,
Noland, Orton and Sharp; City Manager Grimes; City Attorney
McCord; City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and audience
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of
respectful silence.
EMPLOYEES OF THE MONTH
84.1 Mayor Noland presented employees of the month for May, 1984 -- Randy
Bolinger, Finance Department; Larry Poage, Fire Department; and William
Pond, Water and Sewer Department — with a certificate and check for
$150 and noted the comments made about the outstanding performance
of the employees by their supervisors. Larry Poage was not present
to accept the award.
PARKS WAIVER/BUTTERFIELD TRAIL VILLAGE
84.2 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the
"Greenspace Ordinance" submitted by Butterfield Trail Retirement Village,
located on the south side of Joyce Street, west of Old Missouri Road.
The Mayor noted the Parks Board has recommended approval of the waiver,
by a vote of 3-1-1 and that the Planning Commission has recommended
approval of the waiver, by a vote of 7-2. Truman Yancey was present
to represent this appeal.
84.3 Truman Yancey presented, on behalf of the Board of Directors of Butterfield
Trail Village, their reasons for requesting the waiver. Yancey noted
the Village is being developed to meet special recreational needs
of elderly persons, which needs he stated probably could not be met
by existing park facilities in Fayetteville. Yancey stated the recrea-
tional facilities planned for the Village would be completed and available
when the facility opens and, by contract with the residents, would
be permanently maintained.
1
t
June 5, 1984
Director Sharp stated the Board has supported the concept of Butterfield
Trail Village, in that it approved a memorandum of intent for $27
million in bonds to be issued to finance the project (over $100,000
per unit). Sharp noted Planning Commissioner David Williams pointed
out, if the waiver were approved, "...private facilities for exclusive
use would be provided for a population which is able to pay for its
services..." and "...if the pattern of subdivisions providing (only
for those people who can pay) exclusive green space, the population
in general could wind up not having the City provide for its citizens'
needs." Sharp noted that, since the Village will be private, other
elderly Fayetteville citizens will not be able to use the Village's
recreational facilities.
085
85.1
Yancey stated that the provision of recreational facilities within 85.2
Butterfield Trail Village will provide some "relief" to the City in
that the City would not have to provide recreational facilities for
some 400 elderly residents who will live at the Village.
Director Sharp pointed out Commissioner Williams also expressed concerns 85.3
that granting the waiver would set a precedent for other developments
providing specialized recreational space. Sharp stated he could not
support a waiver of $85 per unit, for a development costing $27 million.
Director Bumpass raised the question of the intent of the Greenspace 85.4
Ordinance and asked what assurance there would be that the proposed
recreational facilities would be completed at the time of occupancy.
Yancey explained the residents would, by contract, be guaranteed that
certain itemized recreational facilities will be provided when they
move into the Village.
City Attorney McCord explained, if the Board should grant a waiver 85.5
or variance, it can be conditioned upon the recreational facilities
being in place at the time of occupancy. McCord also explained that,
during the drafting of the Greenspace Ordinance, the intent was to
insure that adequate recreational facilities would be provided in
the City of Fayetteville and that developers would bear their proportionate
share of those costs. McCord stated he has received a request from
the Planning Commission for more definite guidelines to follow in
considering requests for waivers or variances. McCord stated also
the ordinance does list five criteria which must be met before a variance
or waiver may be granted and if more specific guidelines are needed,
this is a policy decision which must be made by the Board. McCord
also stated a decision on any one specific request is not precedent -
setting because the law is clear that every request be considered
on its own merits. McCord explained that the ordinance provides that
as an alternative to a complete waiver, some partial relief may be
granted through a variance.
Director Martin stated he thought the intent of the Greenspace Ordinance 85.6
would be met in this case, in that a large group of citizens with
08(3
June 5, 1984
86.1 special needs, all in one location, will be provided recreational
facilities by the developer. Martin pointed out, if a financial contri-
bution were to be made by this developer, there may not even be a
park facility within reasonable walking distance to the development.
86.2 Director Johnson suggested, since other developments such as apartment
complexes with specialized recreational facilities may request similar
waivers, a minimum number of units be required before a waiver request
can be submitted. Johnson stated she preferred a large scale development
of parks, rather than a multitude of small parks serving individual
areas.
86.3 Director Orton noted, in this case, some criteria for a waiver is
being met in that recreational facilities will be provided and maintained.
Director Johnson asked who would determine if the recreational facilities
are being maintained and the City Attorney stated that authority would
rest with the Parks and Recreation Director.
86.4 Director Bumpass asked, if a waiver is not granted, how the $21,000
contribution must legally be spent. The City Attorney explained the
contribution must be spent on recreational facilities that serve the
development which is making the contribution. The City Attorney stated
the city has been divided into park districts which in this case is
the Sweetbriar neighborhood park.
86.5 Director Bumpass asked if transportation would be provided to take
Village residents to the neighborhood park. Yancey stated transportation
would be available but pointed out the city parks presently cannot
supply the kind of specialized recreational needs of the elderly.
Bumpass pointed out citizens at Butterfield Trail Village might wish
to be transported to activities held at the Senior Center, which is
partially city -funded.
86.6 Director Orton, seconded by Martin, made a motion to grant the variance
with the condition that the recreational facilities will be in place
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. After further discussion,
Director Bumpass made a motion to amend Director Orton's motion to
add a requirement for a contribution of $40.00 per unit. There was
no second to that motion.
86.7 Director Johnson asked how much money would be spent to build the
recreational facilities. Yancey estimated $450,000 for the recreational
facilities and $16 million for "total construction value" of the develop-
ment.
86.8 Director Bumpass asked for the percentage of interest payment savings
from receiving the bond issue rather than private financing. Yancey
stated approximately 3 points were saved on the total cost.
1
087
June 5, 1984
Mayor Noland asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition 87.1
to the waiver request. There was no response.
Upon roll call, Director Orton's motion passed, 5-2, with Directors 87.2
Bumpass and Sharp voting against the motion. Director Johnson stated
she voted for the motion because the development serves the special
needs of a large elderly population. Director Lancaster stated he
was voting for the motion only because approval of the waiver was
recommended by the Parks Board.
MOBILE HOMES
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the City Code by clarifying 87.3
the regulations on mobile homes. The Mayor stated the current definition
of a mobile home is "...any house trailer or prefabricated structure
intended for or capable of human dwelling or sleeping purposes and
designed for being moved or transported." Noland explained the following
definition was considered in a public hearing before the Planning
commission on May 14 and was unanimously recommended for approval:
"...a detached structure designed as a complete residential 87.4
dwelling unit and capable of being transported on its own
wheels, or on a trailer, and constructed to be ready for
use upon being placed on a temporary or permanent foundation."
The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against 87.5
the ordinance. There was no response. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Bumpass,
made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second
reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney
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, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time.
Director Lancaster asked if this wording meant that mobile homes would 87.6
only be permitted in trailer parks. The City Attorney explained
the Zoning Ordinance permits, with Planning Commission approval, mobile
homes to be allowed, when there is a minimum of three acres, in an
A-1 zoning district. Director Martin asked what would happen to existing
mobile homes which would now become non -conforming. The City Attorney
explained those mobile homes would have a vested right to remain.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 87.7
ORDINANCE NO. 3011 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK X i X
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
SIGN APPEAL/MARVIN FOSTER
June 5, 1984
88.1 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal requirements of
the Sign Ordinance submitted by Marvin Foster for a sign located at
815 Pump Station Road, in an 1-2, General Industrial, zoning district.
The Mayor explained the petitioner requests permission to leave an
existing 32 -square -foot free-standing sign at a point 2 feet from
street right-of-way; that the ordinance requires a 26 foot setback
unless the Board determines that strict enforcement would be unreasonable.
Marvin Foster was present to represent the appeal.
88.2 Director Orton stated if the sign were, for example, ten square feet,
it could have a 15 foot setback. Orton asked how long the sign had
been in its present location. Mr. Foster stated he installed the
sign about two months ago without a permit, explaining he did not
think he needed a permit because of the dirt road location.
88.3 Director Sharp pointed out the Board must find that there is a hardship
to grant a variance and he asked Foster if the sign could still be
seen at a 26 foot setback. Foster stated he would have to put the
sign on the west side of his building and it could not be seen. Foster
said he is trying to distinguish his business from the salvage yard
across the street.
88.4 Mayor Noland asked if the cars parked in the street belonged to Foster
and Foster stated that he did not own those vehicles.
88.5 Director Orton asked Foster if it would be possible for him to place
a sign on the wall of his building. Foster stated that would not
allow him advertising from the east.
88.6 Sign Inspector Bert Rakes explained that two feet of the sign is presently
in the right-of-way; that the right-of-way is 40 feet wide and the
street is 22 feet wide. Director Johnson noted the Board granted
a variance to Cumberland Presbyterian Church for a sign which was
in the right-of-way, with Noland pointing out that variance included
a condition that the sign be moved if the street were ever widened.
88.7 Foster stated the sign is high enough that it is not a hazard to pedes-
trians or traffic; Rakes agreed the sign does not block visibility.
88.8 Director Lancaster stated he thought Foster's needs could still be
served if he conformed to the setback.
88.9 Director Orton, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to deny the appeal.
Sharp stated "everyone should play by the same rules" and that he
thought Foster could still use the sign if it were moved back.
1
1
1
June 5, 1984
Director Martin pointed out that future improvements to the Industrial
Park should increase traffic in that area, thus increasing Foster's
business.
Foster asked the Board to do something about the dust problem in the
road.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
Director Bumpass asked that the City Manager or the Sign Inspector
take steps to remove the abandoned vehicles in the road. City Manager
Grimes stated he would relay that information to the Police Department.
R -O -W VACATION/YEATER AVENUE
Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of an ordinance vacating
and abandoning the street right-of-way, subject to the retention of
an access and utility easement, of Yeater Avenue, an unopened street
which is platted from Spring to Center Streets, between Fletcher and
Olive Avenues.
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, 7-0. McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director
Bumpass, 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, 7-0. McCord read the ordinance for the third and
final time.
Mary Lee Ravenscroft, property owner on N. Olive Avenue, addressed
the Board, stating she had received a letter from Harry Gray regarding
this request. Mrs. Ravenscroft expressed her concerns, explaining
there is a workshop located on what she thought was her property but
which now apparently is the Yeater Avenue right-of-way. Mrs. Raven-
scroft stated the workshop was built many years before she purchased
the property; that improvements have been made to the workshop since
she purchased it because she had been told that portion of Yeater
Avenue had been abandoned or made into a 20 foot alley. Mrs. Ravenscroft
stated she had tried to find some record of this but city staff are
unable to find any such record.
89.1
89.2
89.3
89.4
89.5
89.6
Mayor Noland stated the Board understands that it is important for 89.7
there to be access to this portion of Yeater Avenue, as well as for
there to be a utility easement, so that it can still be used by the
residents.
City Attorney McCord explained, if the ordinance is adopted, it would 89.8
legalize any structures located in the right-of-way, since the property
089
LJ i7
June 5, 1984
90.1 from the center line reverts to the property owners on either side,
subject to the utility and access easement. Mr. Grimes explained
the easement merely gives utility companies the right to access for
installing lines, when necessary.
90.2 Director Orton pointed out that the access easement gives the adjoining
property owners the right to use the vacated avenue, but does not
give rights of access to the general public.
90.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
90.4 ORDINANCE NO. 3012 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK 'f,'
A-1 SIGNS
3
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
90.5 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Sign Ordinance by
allowing, under certain circumstances, off-site, free-standing signs
in A-1, Agricultural, zoning districts.
90.6 The City Attorney stated he drafted the ordinance at the request of
the Board but questions the need for it. McCord stated it is inconsistent
to impose regulations and then require a variance, as variances are
designed to accommodate unusual situations that require relief from
normal restrictions. McCord suggested the Board should either (1)
prescribe regulations under which off-site, free-standing signs can
be permitted in the A-1 District, or (2) continue to prohibit the
signs subject to relief under variance provisions.
90.7 Directors Sharp and Orton noted the Board's intent was to allow rural
directional signs, such as those used to sell produce, and to be able
to administer this without going through the variance process. City
Manager Grimes pointed out there is a need for such signs in other
districts besides A-1.
90.8 The City Attorney stated presently off-site signs are prohibited in
all districts except C-2, that it has taken several years of litigation
for this restriction to be upheld by the courts. McCord recommended
continuing with the existing ordinance which gives the Board the authority
to grant variances in unusual circumstances.
90.9 It was generally agreed not to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance.
1
1
1
June 5, 1984
WAGE AND SALARY STUDY
091
Director Johnson, reporting for the ad hoc committee on the wage and 91.1
salary study, stated the committee discussed the interviews and checked
references and, in accordance with the professional selection policy,
recommends a proposed wage and salary study be done by Paul A. Reaume
Associates, with Robert Beezat as consultant, at a salary figure not
to exceed $28,000.00. Director Johnson explained Reaume's original
estimate was higher than this amount but she reported they probably
will not have to do a job analysis of all positions, thus lowering
the cost.
Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to adopt the
committee's recommendation. Johnson stated Reaume has indicated the
study can begin in two or three weeks.
91.2
Mayor Noland stated, in light of recommendations from the Finance 91.3
Director and City Manager, the Board may need to develop more specific
instructions regarding those things the Board wants to accomplish
from the study.
Director Johnson stated the study is extremely important, especially
in regards to employee raises, whether employees are being paid fairly
or paid too much and whether benefits are too little or too much.
Johnson stated in addition there should be a "management analysis"
of whether all existing positions are needed and whether the city
government is operating as efficiently as possible.
91.4
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 91.5
EMPLOYEE BUSINESSES
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the City Code to permit 91.6
a city employee to conduct business with the City of Fayetteville,
provided the contract or job for work is submitted as a competitive
bid and is approved by the Board of Directors following disclosure
of the direct or indirect financial interest of the individual employee.
City Manager Grimes commented the staff was unaware it could not accept 91.7
quotes from employees for small "service" type jobs (such as mowing)
done on the employee's off-duty time. Grimes stated he would like
this to be legalized and structured so the public is kept well aware,
and that this apply to services only and not to merchandise.
At Director Sharp's suggestion, the City Attorney stated the ordinance 91.8
could be revised to specify services only.
td
June 5, 1984
92.1 The City Attorney read the revised ordinance for the first time.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the
rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney 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, 7-0. The City
Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time.
92.2 Director Lancaster asked about the intent of the last paragraph of
the ordinance and the City Attorney explained, since the directors
cannot be aware of every city employee, the disclosure requirement
will reveal that the bidder is a city employee. McCord also stated
there is a state statute which prohibits a city employee from contracting
with the city if the employee has a direct or indirect financial interest,
unless the Board of Directors enacts an ordinance authorizing that
contract.
92.3 Director Martin asked if it was known how other Arkansas communities
are handling this situation. McCord stated, because the statute is
a recent amendment to the law, there is no history which can be surveyed.
Director Martin stated "the law is on the books for a purpose" and
when any organization deals with its employees on a basis other than
the employee relationship, there can be questions of favoritism.
Martin stated he could see no problem as long as the policy is limited
to incidental services.
92.4 City Manager Grimes suggested some wording might be included in the
ordinance to make sure the services can only be incidental. Director
Sharp suggested a minimum amount of payment might be specified.
92.5 Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to amend the
ordinance to state that "..the total sum payable under the contract
does not exceed $500.00." Upon roll call, the amendment passed, 7-0.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
92.6 ORDINANCE NO. 3013 APPEARS ON PAGE 5 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK KI X
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
92.7 Director Johnson, speaking for the Nominating Committee, reported
that the committee recommends an appointment to the Fayetteville Housing
Authority of Janet L. Richardson to fill the unexpired term of Judy
Endress, for the term expiring December 28, 1986; and an appointment
of Clarence E. Fries to fill Lloyd Seaton's position, for the term
1
1
1
1
June 5, 1984
expiring December 28, 1988. Johnson reported also the committee recommends
"Rudy" York for a replacement position on the Parks and Recreation
Board.
93.1
Director Johnson made a motion that the recommendations of the Nominating 93.2
Committee be approved. The motion was seconded and, upon roll call,
passed 7-0.
BID AWARD/LYTTON, BLAIR & MASHBURN STREETS
Mayor Noland introduced the award of bid for the construction of Lytton,
Blair and Mashburn streets. The Mayor reported the recommendation
is to award the bid to Jerry D. Sweetser, in the amount of $172,206.75.
Community Development Director Sandra Carlisle explained the grade
is about 22%; that the street will be concrete, including storm drainage,
curb and gutter and sidewalk.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to Jerry D. Sweetser for construction of Lytton, Blair and Mashburn.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
UTILITY RELOCATION/CITY LAKE ROAD
Mayor Noland introduced a request by the City Engineer that the Mayor
be authorized to execute a contract agreement with the Arkansas Highway
& Transportation Department for the relocation of a portion of our
eight -inch water main on City Lake Road.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion the authorization
be granted to the Mayor to execute the contract. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 64-84 APPEARS ON PAGE ta OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK )(1/
AIRPORT COPIER
93.3
93.4
93.5
93.6
93.7
93.8
Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City 93.9
Clerk to execute a lease/purchase agreement with Doss & Price Office
Systems, Inc. for a coin-operated copier for the Airport Terminal
Building. The Mayor explained the Airport Manager, after receiving
quotations from several companies, feels this would be the most satis-
factory unit.
093
n
June 5, 1984
94.1 Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to pass the
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion �passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 65-84 APPEARS ON PAGE // OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK )(fix
AIR SHOW
94.2 Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Airport Manager for approval
of $10,000 to underwrite the Air Show and the tentatively scheduled
date of June 30, 1984. The Mayor explained admissions and concessions
fees to be collected at the air show should cover this amount.
94.3 Director Bumpass asked what changes would be made regarding the concessions
this year. Assistant Airport Manager Dale Frederick stated last year
various restaurants sold concessions at the show and that the City
Fire Department sold concessions with their profits going to the "Burn
Center" in Little Rock. Frederick explained this year the Fire Department
would again sell concessions but will split the profits --50% to the
"Burn Center" and 50% to the Air Show. Frederick stated the other
vendors will be assessed a $500 fee for the right to sell concessions.
Frederick explained the Fire Department employees volunteer their
time.
94.4 Director Bumpass asked if profits from concessions sold at the first
Air Show went to expenses for the Air Show itself. Frederick stated
this was the case, that about $1,800 was generated the first year
but less than $1,000 was generated last year.
94.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion that the City underwrite
the Air Show for $10,000. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
COMBS PARK
94.6 Mayor Noland introduced approval by the Board for Dr. Al Einert to
proceed with the development of a Master Plan for Combs Park, at a
not to -exceed fee of $2,200. The Mayor noted this approval has been
recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. The Mayor
stated also that advertisement was made for bids in the Northwest
Arkansas Times and this was the only bid submitted.
94.7 Director Bumpass, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the
authorization to proceed with the Master Plan for Combs Park, at a
not -to -exceed fee of $2,200.
1
June 5, 1984
After brief discussion, Director Orton stated she would like to establish 95.1
a procedure whereby, after submittal of plans to the Parks and Recreation
Board and to the City Board of Directors, there be input from the
public at some point during the process.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 95.2
RESOLUTION N0. 66-84 APPEARS ON PAGE SO OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK )0X
BID AWARD/HAY REMOVAL RIGHTS
Mayor Noland introduced award of Bid #575 for hay removal rights, 95.3
through November 15, 1984, from the Pollution Control Plant site.
The Mayor stated the high bid was received from Merlin Augustine for
$.305 per bale (for an average 60 lb. bale).
Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to award the bid 95.4
to Merlin Augustine. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION N0. 67-84 APPEARS ON PAGE g y OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK vg
BID #586/WINDOWS
Mayor Noland asked for a motion to
installation of eleven wire -glass,
the east side of the second floor of
table action on Bid #586, for the 95.5
fire -rated storm windows along
the City Administration building.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Noland, made a motion to table action 95.6
on Bid 11586. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
National Institute of Municipal Law Officers
Mayor Noland asked if the Board wished to entertain any action on 95.7
the letter from the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO)
regarding litigation in opposition to the federal government's move
toward taxing municipal bond interest.
095
F4 C -
June 5, 1984
96.1 City Attorney McCord recommended the Board support the litigation
challenging the registration requirement for municipal bonds, stating
it would have far-reaching effects and the city's contribution would
only amount to $250.00.
96.2 Director Martin, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve a trust
fund payment of $250.00. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
Sign Appeal/Fisher Buick
96.3 Mayor Noland introduced a petition for variance from the Sign Ordinance,
submitted by Fisher Buick Company, Inc., located at 2396 North College
Avenue in a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, zoning district. The Mayor
stated the petitioner proposes to remove one, 6' x 6', 36 square foot
sign and desires to have two free-standing signs: one is an existing
sign (Buick) which measures 106.24 square feet but would be removed
to a distance of forty feet from the right-of-way; the other sign
(Mercedes) is to be 49 square feet and would replace an existing used
car sign. (The ordinance prohibits two free-standing signs on one
lot and allows a maximum of 75 square feet in size without a variance.)
Raymond Smith was present to represent the petition.
96.4 The City Attorney stated an application for a variance was submitted
in 1980 and a partial variance was granted, to permit the 106 square
foot sign to remain if it were set back; that Fisher Buick appealed
that decision to the Washington County Circuit Court and the Court
decided in the city's favor; that Fisher Buick has now filed notice
of appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court. McCord noted the petition
before the Board today was precipitated by a recent variance which
the Board granted to Houston -Taylor.
96.5 Ray Smith stated, because of the height of the building, an attempt
to affix the Mercedes sign below the existing Buick sign would cause
the view of the Mercedes sign to be obscured when driving from north
to south. Director Lancaster asked for the height of the Buick sign
and it was estimated to be about 50 feet in height.
96.6 Director Sharp asked that it be clarified that the Board granted a
variance to Houston -Taylor for abutting signs; that this request is
for signs to be separately located.
96.7 Director Lancaster asked for the height of the building and Smith
estimated 25 to 30 feet.
96.8 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to grant a variance
for two free-standing, abutting signs, with the total square footage
of both signs to be 115 square feet, at a forty foot setback from
the street right-of-way and at a maximum height of 30 feet.
1
•
1
June 5, 1984
Director Lancaster stated he would vote in favor of the motion but 97.1
thinks the only condition under which a variance should be granted
is hardship and that, in this case, there is no hardship.
Director Orton stated the total square footage allowed by the motion 97.2
is over -generous.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 97.3
Ray Smith asked if the previous variance granted to Fisher Buick was 97.4
W still in effect. The City Attorney explained the motion just passed
CO supersedes any previous actions of the Board. Smith asked fora definition
of "abutting signs". Mayor Noland explained the intent is for two
Q poles to be placed adjacent to one another with a sign on each pole
and Director Lancaster stated the signs must be somehow "physically
tied together".
Memo from Municipal Judge Williams
City Attorney McCord, referring to a May 24 memo in the agenda from 97.5
Judge Williams, explained the Judge is concerned about "personal exposure"
for failure to pay a monetary obligation; that the Judge wishes to
suspend commitments until he can research the law in light of a recent
Supreme Court decision. City Manager Grimes stated the Judge has
indicated this matter should be resolved very shortly.
Bid Award/Aerator Installation
Mayor Noland introduced an award of bid for the installation of aerators 97.6
at the Pollution Control Plant. Vernon Rowe was present to represent
McClelland Consulting Engineers.
Vernon Rowe reported progress has been made toward issuance of the 97.7
first grant and this is expected to happen in early July.
Rowe noted the Board authorized the purchase of aeration equipment, 97.8
subject to approval of the facility plan. Rowe stated only one bid
has been received on the installation of the equipment from Dennis
Hill Construction Company for $18,200 (the estimate was approximately
$30,000). Rowe recommended the Board accept this bid.
Rowe stated a letter of prior State approval of the facility plan 97.8
is required and when this is submitted a notice to proceed will be
issued to the contractor.
Rowe stated the EPA, in their advance treatment review process, handed 97.9
down eligibility determinations that they will not fund the filter
or the Mud Creek pipeline, something Rowe stated had been known for
about a year. Rowe stated the irrigation pipeline is still being
discussed.
97
98
June 5, 1984
98.1 Rowe stated the A.T. report also indicates, if the City is going to
use chlorination for disinfection of treated effluent, they will have
to de -chlorinate the effluent (because chlorine levels can be toxic
to the fish). Rowe explained there are two other alternatives to
using the chlorination/de-chlorination process: (1) ozonation or
(2) ultra -violet radiation. Rowe stated they have been instructed
to evaluate the three alternatives and provide a cost-effective analysis
and design either additional facilities to de chlorinate or re -design
to install ozonation or ultra -violet radiation. Rowe stated, if there
has to be a re -design, they would come before the Board for additional
compensation. Rowe speculated advertisement for the project could
begin in August, earlier than anticipated.
98.2 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to accept the bid
from Dennis Hill Construction for $18,200. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0,
Skull Creek Bridge
98.3 City Manager Grimes presented a status report on the Skull Creek bridge
on Appleby Road. Grimes stated the project is under construction,
there has been a great deal of blasting and a floor is in the process
of being installed.
City of Fayetteville v. Thad Dilday and David Tippet
98.4 City Attorney McCord, referring to computer litigation against Thad
Dilday and David Tippet (corporate officers of Mid -South Systems Cor-
poration), reported that after taking the deposition of Thad Dilday,
it is his conclusion that the city will be unable to obtain a judgment
against Dilday as evidence indicated Dilday did not intend to deceive
the City of Fayetteville. McCord recommended that the City's complaint
against Thad Dilday be dismissed and the complaint against David Tippet
be pursued.
98.5 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the
recommendation of the City Attorney. Upon roll call, the motion was
passed, 7-0.
Varner Amex Cable Television Franchise
98.6 City Attorney McCord reported that University of Arkansas law professor
John Watkins has volunteered his assistance in rendering services
to the city at no charge (to be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses)
to prepare a petition for special relief from the FCC's must -carry
regulations. McCord stated Watkins has also offered to assist in
negotiations with Warner Cable. McCord stating Watkins was formerly
associated with a Washington D.C. law firm which specialized in communi-
cations law and practiced before the Federal Communications Commission.
McCord recommended Watkins' offer of assistance be accepted and that
1
1
June 5, 1984
he be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket expenses. McCord stated a 99.1
"very high" estimate of those expenses would be $500.00.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the 99.2
City Attorney's recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
7-0.
CO Abatement Proceedings/1155 Maxwell
LO City Attorney McCord stated the Board had raised the question of abating 99.3
an unsightly structure at 1155 South Maxwell. McCord stated it is
id the Property Inspector's opinion that the structure is so damaged
CO that repairing it would be cost -prohibitive. McCord stated the Board
has statutory authority to order the razing and removal of an unsightly,
dilapidated structure, by passage of an ordinance.
1
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director 99.4
Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second
time. Director Bumpass, 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, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the third and final time.
Director Bumpass asked the City Attorney if the property has ever 99.5
been involved in Washington County probate court. McCord stated he
would check the files on that, but is of the opinion the city has
the legal authority, without court order, to raze and remove a building
which is in fact dilapidated and unsafe; that the safest course of
action for the city would be to obtain the court order. McCord stated
owners of the property have been notified by certified mail of the
city's actions regarding the property and would be notified by certified
mail of the passage of an ordinance.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 99.6
ORDINANCE NO. 3014 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK gix
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
Children's House Committee Report
Director Sharp reported on a Children's House committee meeting held 99.7
May 18 to discuss possible sites for the location of Children's House.
Sharp stated two possible sites discussed were Routh Park (two acres)
on Highway 265 and property adjacent to the New School. Director
Sharp asked if the directors wished to pursue the use of either of
those sites and to let him know if they wish to look for other possible
locations. No formal action was taken by the Board on this item.
99
100
MINUTES
June 5, 1984
100.1 With no corrections or additions, the Minutes of the May 15 meeting
were approved as distributed.
ADJOURNMENT
100.2 With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
10:20 P.M.
1
1