HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-07-17 MinutesN
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, July 17, 1984 in the Board Room of the
City Administration Building at 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Lancaster, Martin, Orton, Sharp,
Bumpass and Johnson; City Manager Grimes; Assistant
City Manager McWethy; City Attorney McCord; City Clerk
Kennedy; members of the press and audience
CALL TO ORDER
W Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of
C13 respectful silence.
Q
REZONING APPEAL R84-10/FORT SMITH CHAIR CO.
Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission
regarding the failure to approve rezoning petition R84-10, for 8.54
acres located south of Highway 62 West on both sides of S. Razorback
Road. The Mayor explained the request is to rezone from I-2, General
Industrial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district and that
the Planning Commission failed to approve by a 4-4 vote. The Mayor
stated the Planning Consultant recommended (1) C-2 zoning was more
compatible with the General Land Use Plan, (2) the property has frontage
on both a principal arterial and a minor arterial street and is more
suited for commercial uses, and (3) public facilities and services
are available to the property.
Rick Osborne was present to represent the petitioner (the Fort Smith
Chair Company d/b/a Ayers Furniture Industries, by Howell Trumbo).
Osborne pointed out the city's waste disposal site will be located
just south of the property, making it somewhat less desirable. Osborne
stated he thought C-2 zoning was a better use of the property "for
the city, not for Howell Trumbo" and "...is a far less obnoxious use
than I-2", noting that under 1-2 zoning there could be a rendering
plant or a junkyard. Osborne stated the owner would not object to
restrictions being placed on the use of the property. Osborne also
stated he thought there was a misunderstanding by the Planning Commission
regarding "cluster zoning" because it is 9/10 of a mile from Razorback
Road to the property and it is 2 9 miles to the Highway 62-71 inter-
section. Osborne stated the Highway Department thinks the intersection
will be heavily traveled because they installed a stop light. Osborne
stated Tract A comprises 2.05 acres and Tract B 6.49 acres or about
1/4 of a mile of frontage on the highway. Trumbo estimated there
to be about 1200 feet of frontage.
127
121-.1
127.2
128
July 17, 1984
128.1 Director Orton agreed commercial zoning would be a more satisfactory
use of the property but expressed concerns about "that long strip
of commercial" and about the number of curb cuts which could be made
for multiple businesses. Director Orton proposed there be one curb
cut for each tract on Razorback; one curb cut for Tract A on Highway
62 and two curb cuts for Tract B on Highway 62. Director Orton stated
she did not think the setbacks for industrial zoning could be met
because of the depth of the property.
128.2 City Attorney McCord stated a Bill of Assurance would specify the
number of curb cuts and distance between curb cuts which would be
permitted.
128.3 After further discussion concerning how many curb cuts should be allowed,
Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion that C-2 zoning
be approved, with three curb cats to be permitted on Tract B along
Highway 62, one curb cut to be permitted on Tract A along Highway
62 and one curb cut to be permitted for each tract along Razorback
Road.
128.4 Director Orton stated the distance between curb cuts should be worked
out between the City Attorney and the Planning Consultant. The City
Attorney stated it was his understanding the Board wishes the curb
cuts to be as far from the intersection as is possible.
128.5 The City Attorney read, for the first time, an ordinance to rezone
the property. 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 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 ordinance
was read for the third and final time.
128.6 Mayor Noland asked if there was anyone present who wished to speak
in opposition to the ordinance. There was no response.
128.7 Mayor Noland raised the question of access to the east end of the
property from Garland. Trumbo stated he did not think access would
ever be desired because of the existence of a ditch and creek at that
end of the property. At the request of Rick Osborne, it was agreed
that at such time as someone should wish to have access to Garland,
they may appear before the Board with a request for that access.
128.8 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3017 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK x f x
16
OF ORDINANCE S RESOLUTION
1
1
1
July 17, 1984
STREET IMPROVEMENT BID/BAILEY DRIVE & BUTTERFIELD TRAIL
Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the awarding of a contract
for the improvement of Bailey Drive and Butterfield Trail under the
Community Development Block Grant Program. The Mayor explained two
bids were submitted, the low bid being from McClinton -Anchor Company
for $41,688.50.
CO Sandra Carlisle, Director of the Community Development Program, addressed
the Board. Carlisle stated the streets were taken by prescription
and there is no dedicated right-of-way. Carlisle stated there will
W be no ditches, curb and gutter, or relocation of utilities.
QDirector Lancaster, seconded by Buapass, made a motion to award the
bid to the low bidder, McClinton -Anchor Company. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0.
DEVELOPMENT WAIVERS/WOODLAND HILLS
Mayor Noland introduced a request by the developers of Woodland Hills
for waivers from the literal requirements of the City Code. There
was no one present to represent this request.
129
129.1
129.2
129.3
129.4
REQUIREMENT #1: "Green Space Ordinance" contribution of 1.00 129.5
acres of land—or $8,500 -for park purposes.
Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion that no waiver 129.6
be granted concerning Requirement #1.
Director Martin pointed out the Subdivision Committee of the Planning 129.7
Commission had recommended a partial waiver, which Martin stated has
been considered before by the Board. Martin stated that recommendation
was based on the developer's proposal to build a swimming pool and
community building, facilities which he stated would lessen the demand
on city facilities.
Director Martin made a motion to amend the motion to provide for a 129.8
partial waiver, to require a $6,000 contribution. There was no second
to that motion. I • - .
Director Bumpass.asked if representatives of Woodland Hills were aware
of the recommendations of the Parks Board and Planning Commission.
Assistant City Manager McWethy stated those representatives were present
at the Planning Commission meeting and City Manager Grimes stated
they were notified of this Board meeting.
129.9
130
July 17, 1984
130.1 Director Sharp stated there has been criticism expressed in the past
that the cash payment is not a sufficient amount as it is and he expressed
opposition to reducing that amount.
130.2 Director Lancaster questioned whether there was anything to bind the
developer to build the proposed facilities. Director Bumpass pointed
out that in the past developers have not always built what they have
proposed.
130.3 After further discussion, upon roll call Director Johnson's motion
passed, 6-1, with Director Martin voting in opposition to the motion.
130.4 REQUIREMENT !2: Installation of a 4' sidewalk along the north
side of Wedington Drive, for the length of the property.
130.5 Mayor Noland read the Planning Commission recommendation (passed by
a vote of 8-0) concerning Requirement #2:
1. If a sidewalk is required by the Board to be installed along
the north side of Wedington, then an internal section along
the sides of the entrance be installed;
2. That the Board review the Master Sidewalk Plan to determine
if sidewalks are needed or feasible along both sides of
Wedington;
3. If a sidewalk is required along the north side of Wedington,
the city participate in the cost due to the terrain problems;
4. If the Board determines that sidewalks should be installed
only on the south side of Wedington, the developer be required
to bear part of the expense of installing them; and
5. The Board determine if sidewalks should be installed along
James Street, since it is not on the Master Sidewalk Plan.
Director Sharp stated the recommendation of the Board's Street Committee
was that the developer be required to build a sidewalk on the north
side of Wedington. Director Sharp made a motion that 1) a sidewalk
should be required on the north side of Wedington, 2) the Board Street
Committee should consider the idea of including a sidewalk for James
Street on the Master Sidewalk Plan and consider the need for a sidewalk
on the south side of Wedington; and that 3) the city should participate
on item 2, as the city has built sidewalks in the Garland and North
Street area.
The Board discussed the matter of the best location for the sidewalk.
City Manager Grimes stated he had received a petition from residents
of the Wedington Drive area, directed primarily to the Highway Department,
concerning the need for upgrading that street and its drainage facilities.
1
1
1
July 17, 1984
Grimes stated he thought the Highway Department would be reluctant
to issue the city a permit for a sidewalk adjacent to the street.
Grimes suggested a sidewalk be required on the north side of Wedington
Drive, without stating its location, until such time as permits can
be worked out with the Highway Department.
131
131.1
Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 131.2
7-0.
10 REQUIREMENT #2 (5) The Board determine if sidewalks should
be installed along James Street, since it is not on the
W Master Sidewalk Plan
CO
a Director Orton stated, in light of the location of a bus stop across
Garland Avenue at the end of James Street and because of pedestrians
walking to the Oak Plaza Shopping Center, she thought a sidewalk was
definitely needed along James Street. Director Orton, seconded by
Sharp, made a motion that a sidewalk be required along James Street.
Director Bumpass asked that it be clarified this motion does not infer
that the city participate in the cost of the sidewalk.
1
Mrs. Shaddox, resident of 1216 James Street, addressed the Board.
Mrs. Shaddox asked if the city would issue a building permit to the
developer if he has no access to James Street. Director Orton explained
that a Planning Commission requirement for approval of the development
is for there to be two accesses to the property, one of which is to
be from James Street.
Director Orton asked Mrs. Shaddox on what side of the street she would
prefer to have a sidewalk. Mrs. Shaddox stated the four households
on James Street "would like to be left alone" but that the residents
would probably use a sidewalk on the north side of the street. Mrs. Shad-
dox stated there is an office building on the south side and a sidewalk
on that side might be used more frequently. Director Orton decided
not to stipulate the location in her motion, stating it should be
taken into consideration that it would be less disturbing to the neigh-
borhood to locate the sidewalk on the south side.
Upon roll call, the notion passed, 7-0.
131.3
131.4
131.5
131.6
REQUIREMENT #3: Improvement of 360' of James Street to 131.7
full city standards, including curb, gutters and store drainage.
Mayor Noland noted the Planning Commission recommendation on Requirement
#3 is that the developers bear 40% of the cost of bringing James Street
up to full city standards (including sidewalks, if required).
Director Sharp suggested that, .if the city requires the paving to
be done by the Woodland Hills developer, curbs and gutters could be
required of a future developer when further development takes place.
131.8
131.9
132
July 17, 1984
132.1 Director Lancaster expressed concerns that, if the developer is not
required to build the entrance to James Street at the same time they
build the entrance to Wedington Road, the developer could be issued
a building permit but might only build 40 units.
132.2 City Manager Grimes explained the Plat Review Committee's primary
concern was the additional entrance and exit to the property and concerns
over icy road conditions.
132.3 Director Martin pointed out the Planning Commission recommendation
at its July 9th meeting was that no building permit be issued before
procuring access to James Street and that the question now is when
the access will be built. Director Martin pointed out the Planning
Commission minutes state it would not be required until 40 units are
constructed or within a period of no longer than one year.
132.4 Mayor Noland questioned, if this developer is required to pay 402
of the cost, who would be required to pay the additional 60%.
132.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion that James Street
be built by the present developer and that future developers be required
to install curb and gutter.
132.6 Director Lancaster made a motion to amend the motion to state the
city build 360 feet of James Street to full standards; that the sidewalks
be built by the developer. The City Attorney questioned the city's
legal ability to charge a developer for improvements which are constructed
by the city. There was no second to the motion.
132.7 Director Sharp asked the City Manager if it would create a problem
if the street were built with the proper slope, base and overlay and
curb and gutter were installed years later. City Manager Grimes stated
this can be done but is more expensive.
132.8 Mrs. Shaddox addressed the Board, stating the street has a leak which
was supposedly repaired within the last two weeks but that some of
the neighbors feel it was not repaired properly. Mrs. Shaddox asked
that the street be looked over before any further work is contemplated.
132.9 It was agreed that the intention of the motion was for the width of
the street to be 31 feet, back-to-back.
132.10 The City Attorney explained the requirement would be enforced by a
Bill of Assurance requiring the developer to construct James Street
within a year at which time the city has the right to construct and
have a lien on the property for the cost.
132.11 Dpou roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
1
1
1
July 17, 1984
REQUIREMENT 12 (1) ...then an internal section along the
sides of the entrance be installed
Director Orton noted that a part of the Planning Commission's recommen-
dation concerning the sidewalk along the north side of Wedington was
that "...an internal section along the sides of the entrance be in-
stalled." Director Orton, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion for
that part of the recommendation to be adopted. Upon roll call, the
111 notion passed, 7-0.
r• -
co
m ACT 9 BONDS/INDUSTRIAL PARK/ANDREW ARKANSAS CORP.
a
1
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance authorizing the issuance of $8,000,000
in Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue bonds for financing the costs
of acquiring and developing a 48 -acre parcel in the Industrial Park.
City Attorney McCord stated the law requires the Board to hold a public
hearing to consider comments for or against the issuance of the bonds.
•
Mayor Noland opened the public hearing and asked for comments in opposition
to the issuance of the bonds. There was no response. A representative
of the Andrew Arkansas Corporation addressed the Board, stating about
60 persons could be employed initially and as many as 450 persons
in five years. It was explained that these bonds would be used for
the permanent financing of the existing facility. The Mayor closed
the public hearing. ' •
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Johnson, 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 third and final time.
Mayor Noland stated there would be no liability on the part of the
city or its citizens with respect to this issuance. The Mayor stated
this project meets the criteria under which such bond issues can be
approved, such as:
whether the project will produce additional employment for
residents of the city;
whether the company demonstrates in writing financial and
organizational capability that there is no risk of default
on the bonds;
whether the project will secure and develop "industry" rather
than commercial development;
133
133.1
133.2
133.3
133.4
133.5
133.6
133.7
133.8
134
July 17, 1984
134.1 whether the project will provide economic stimulation for
the economy of the area; and
whether all or a substantial portion of the end product
or service produced locally is either consumed elsewhere
or consumed locally by visitors drawn by the activity, rather
than the end product or service being marketed solely to
retail customers in the area.
134.2 It was explained that the main item to be manufactured will be microwave
towers; that the main customers for this product will be AT&T, the
federal government, major telephone companies, railroads and others.
134.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3018 APPEARS ON PAGE a] OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK y r x
OPERATING FUNDS/N.W. ARKANSAS RESOURCE RECOVERY AUTHORITY
134.4 The Mayor introduced consideration of a request from the Northwest
Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority for interim operating funds,
in the amount of $5,137.50, to help sustain the Authority until bond
proceeds become available later this Fall.
134.5 Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to grant the request.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
SANITATION CONTRACT/N.W. ARKANSAS WASTE MANAGEMENT
134.6 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute a contract with Northwest Arkansas Waste Management.
The Mayor explained this item was discussed at the last meeting and
the Board authorized a temporary contract, contingent upon approval
at this meeting.
134.7 Bill Clark, representing Harold Parsons, addressed the Board. Clark
stated Waste Management wished to begin service on July 16th to American
Air Filters which currently is serviced by Sunray Sanitation. Clark
stated the trash is proposed to be deposited in a sanitary landfill
aproved by the DPC&E. Clark also stated that a contract has been
drafted providing, in the event a resource recovery facility comes
into existence, that the waste must be deposited in that facility.
134.8 Director Bumpass asked if Waste Management's vehicles had been inspected
by the city's sanitation superintendent. Harold Parsons stated they
use a covered Mack truck which meets specifications.
1
1
July 17, 1984
In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, the City Attorney stated
Sunray's contract entered into in April of 1984 did not, in his opinion,
give them any exclusive rights.
Mayor Noland asked if there was anyone present who wished to express
opposition to the approval of a contract. Jack Butt, representing
Sunray of Springdale, addressed the Board. Mr. Butt stated that Sunray
has been under contract with the city to haul American Air Filters'
trash for the past several years, is also under contract with American
Air Filters and that Sunray also operates the "city dump" under contract.
Mr. Butt requested a two-week delay in order to have an opportunity
to discuss any problems with American Air Filters. Butt explained
the plant has been closed for the summer and the manager has been
out of town since the last meeting. Butt stated there is a potential
legal issue as to whether any dump but the "city dump" can be used.
Butt stated American Air Filters was not even aware until last week
that its contract with the city was in danger of termination.
Director Martin asked what provision there is in American Air Filters'
contract with Sunray for termination. Mr. Butt stated that contract
expires in December and he thinks they are paid according to the number
of loads they take so that they could virtually enter into other con-
tracts. Butt stated there has been no discussion as to why the contract
was given to another party.
135
135.1
135.2
135.3
Director Orton stated she thought it was American Air Filters' business 135.4
to decide with whom they should decide to contract business.
Director Bumpass asked that a recommendation be sought from the Sanitation
Superintendent, to the City Manager, to the Board, stating whether
Waste Management's vehicle is proper and has seen inspection.
The City Attorney, speaking to the issue of a city's authority to
regulate private collectors, stated there was a recent decision in
a case involving local sanitation service which held that local governments
can monopolize and control local sanitation services by eliminating
or restraining competition among private garbage collectors, without
violating federal anti-trust laws.
Mr. Butt stated if the competitor's trash service "falls through",
the City Board "is in a supervisory capacity" and Sunray could say
the city is allowing its customer to enter into a bad contract. Butt
also stated that the Fayetteville Code, Section 10-50, provides that
"...any person contracting with a collector to haul garbage or trash
within the limits of the city shall deposit everything collected or
hauled on the city's disposal grounds..." Butt stated Waste Management
proposes to dump in the Beaver Lake dump and he stated they are required
by city ordinance to dump into Sunray's dump, which Butt stated "is
the only city dump". City Attorney McCord explained the ordinance
being referred to was written in 1968 at which time there was "a city
135.5
135.6
135.7
I 21
July 17, 1984
136.1 dump"; that the city does not now have a dump; that the Sunray dump
is a private entity which the city happens to use.
136.2 Director Bumpass asked the City Attorney what the facts were which
allowed the decision to come about concerning allowing a private hauler
to have a monopoly. McCord explained the city in that case awarded
an exclusive franchise to a private collector and a previous collector
challenged that action.
136.3 Director Bnnpast made a motion to defer action until the next meting
(1) so that the City Attorney can review the contract with the Sunray
Sanitation dump; and (2) to direct the city's sanitation superintendent
to inspect the vehicle to be used by Northwest Arkansas Waste Management
and give a recommendation or approval of that vehicle.
136.4 Director Martin stated he did not think it should be the city's role
to keep private business from entering into a bad contract. Martin
stated also he hoped the Board would permit the temporary contract
to continue until the issued can be resolved. Director Bumpass agreed
his motion would include temporary continuance of the contract with
Northwest Arkansas Waste Management. Director Martin seconded the
motion.
136.5 Director Johnson asked if the city's sanitation superintendent had
inspected the Sunray truck. Their representative stated the superintendent
sees the trucks on a regular basis. It was agreed that the sanitation
superintendent would be asked to confirm that he has inspected Sunray's
trucks.
136.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
PURCHASE OPTION/RADIO TOWER
136.7 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the exercising of
a purchase option for 5.63 acres on top of Robinson Mountain, at $1,421
per acre, for a future radio communications tower for the city.
136.8 Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve
the resolution. Upon roll all, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 82-84 APPEARS ON PAGE /4.2., OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK ki X
1
1
137
July 17, 1984
SIGN APPEAL/"CHICKEN COUNTRY"
The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal requirements of the 137.1
Sign Ordinance for a sign located at 1889 North College Avenue in
a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, zoning district. The Mayor explained
the petitioner, "Chicken Country", is requesting permission to add
a 32 -square -foot marquee sign to an existing 23 -square -foot free-standing
CO sign which is located at a 21'6" setback from street right-of-way.
CO There was no one present to represent this appeal.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to deny the appeal. 137.2
U The motion passed, 7-0.
1
SIGN APPEAL/"LANG AGO ANTIQUES"
Mayor Noland introduced an appeal from the literal requirements of 137.3
the Sign Ordinance for a sign located at 1934 East Huntsville Road
in an R-1, Low Density Residential, zoning district. The Mayor explained
the petitioner, "Long Ago Antiques" requests permission to relocate
a nonconforming 20 -square -foot sign, installed without a permit, to
a 16' setback from street right-of-way. Bill Stiles was present to
represent the appeal.
Director Bumpass asked Stiles if he wished to relocate the sign from 137.4
its current location. Stiles stated "what I'd really like is to have
the business zoned right for what it has been for 22 years". He stated
that he wished to turn the sign around and have it project back towards
the building. Stiles stated if he maintains the proper setback the
sign would be in the middle of his parking lot.
Director Orton asked Stiles if he had considered using a wall sign 137.5
on the building but Stiles stated it could not be seen as he is presently
50 feet back from the right-of-way.
Stiles explained his business has only been open for three months 137.6
but that he purchased the building 12 years ago and it had not been
used for anything other than a commercial building. He stated the
city explained to him that when the property was annexed to the city
it was brought in as residential He stated Planning Consultant Larry
Wood stated he would not recommend rezoning because it would be "strip-
ping". Mayor Noland pointed out, until the zoning is changed, the
sign is still not permitted unless practical difficulties would justify
a variance.
In answer to Director Lancaster, Mr. Stiles stated he was not aware 137.7
that he had to have a sign permit to install a sign. Director Lancaster
stated, if Mr. Stiles would straighten the pole and turn the sign
around, and if the sign pertains only to his business, he would make
13S
July 17, 1984
138.1 a motion to grant the variance. Director Johnson seconded the motion.
Director Bumpass pointed out, if the use changes, the sign must be
taken down.
138.2 Director Lancaster asked that it be brought to the attention of the
Planning Commission that this business should be a non -conforming
business.
138.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
STREET SPECIFICATIONS
138.4 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the
City Clerk to execute a two-part contract with W. H. Reynolds, P.E. for
the preparation of updated street construction specifications and
subdivision design and approval procedures.
138.5 City Manager Grimes stated Reynolds has had a contract with the city
of Springdale for quite some time and has a contract with Washington
County. Grimes stated he had attended a public hearing concerning
Springdale's proposed ordinance and was impressed. Grimes stated
he would recommend the city enter into this contract and develop specifi-
cations which would parallel those of Springale's so that eventually
northwest Arkansas can have standard construction specifications.
138.6 Director Johnson asked if this contract would allow for public hearings,
local comment or developer input. Grimes explained when a draft has
been prepared, at that point it would be sent out to developers, engineers,
and contractors in the area, and a public hearing would be held.
138.7 In answer to Director Martin, Grimes explained the city does have
a professional selection policy but stated, in this instance, there
is a limited market and the Board has the authority to waive that
policy. Grimes strongly urged the same consultant be used that is
used by Springdale and Washington County so that specifications can
be similar.
138.8 Director Johnson noted there are two types of agreements and asked
the City Manager for his recommendation. Grimes recommended the use
of the two-part agreement, stating the city's development regulations
should be coordinated with street construction regulations.
138.9 Director Sharp, seconded by Orton, made a motion to enter into a contract
with Reynolds and waive the professional selection policy because
of the unique situation in this particular case.
1
1
(0
u)
N
W
m
a
1
July 17, 1984
City Manager Grimes noted that, although certain specifications will
be standard with Fayetteville and Springdale, there will also be dif-
ferences.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 79-84 APPEARS ON PAGE IZ.9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XIX
EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Mayor Noland stated there has been a request to table this item until
additional information can be obtained.
Director Sharp, seconded by Johnson, made a notion to table.
City Manager Grimes stated Dr. Kay Schriner, representing Organizational
Resources, was present to answer any questions. Grimes explained
he was not aware that Ozark Guidance Center provided a similar service
when this item was placed on the agenda. Grimes stated he spoke with
Dr. David Williams of the Center who stated he would like to submit
'a proposal. Grimes stated a set of specifications should be prepared.
Grimes explained his estimate of $2,000 was based on an average of
ten employees using the service in a year's time.
Dr. Schriner spoke briefly about the program, stating its purpose
is to focus on prevention before personal problems become serious.
Schriner stated she would provide references from people in other
parts of the country regarding specifications, and would provide local
references concerning services she would provide.
City tanager Grimes explained more time would be needed to prepare
specifications and that this item may have to be tabled for as much
as six weeks.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
PENSION PLAN
Director Martin, reporting for the
committee met on July 11 with members
consultant. Martin presented the
regard to the employee Pension Plan:
Finance Committee, stated that
of the staff and Dr. Bob Hall,
committee's recommendation with
1. Employees are not required to participate in the plan but
if they choose to, they must contribute at least 3% but
not more than 10% of their annual salary The city will
139
139.1
139.2
139.3
139.4
139.5
139.6
139.7
139.2
139.9
139.10
140
July 17, 1984
140.1 contribute 6% of each participant's annual salary.
2. Withdrawal from the pension fund will only be allowed upon
retirement, death, total disability or termination of employment.
3. An employee may be permitted to change or discontinue their
contribution on any anniversary date. While the employee
is not contributing, the city will not contribute.
4. An employee who has stopped their deduction may start back
on an anniversary date.
5. Employees who become eligible for the ICMA Plan will be
able to transfer their portion and any employer portion
earned over to the ICMA Plan at any anniversity date.
Director Martin, speaking to Item 2, pointed out the purpose of this
policy is so that employees will not use the pension plan as a savings
account, noting that the costs of withdrawals would jeopardize the
solvency of the pension plan itself.
Director Martin, seconded by Bumpass, made a notion to approve the
Finance Committee's recommendations. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
7-0.
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
Director Martin reported for the Finance Committee regarding adjustments
to the General, Public Works, Water & Sewer and Airport Fund budgets.
Martin noted the Finance Committee inquired of the Finance Director
and his staff, as well as the City Manager, as to the causes and means
of minimizing or eliminating future adjustments. Martin stated the
adjustments were given careful scrutiny.
Director Martin, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the
adjustments.
Director Johnson
a period of three
"totally destroy
Johnson had raised
of the adjustments
were carryover
items.
commented that the adjustments total $270,000 for
months and that if adjustments continue, it will
the budget in process". Director Martin stated
an excellent point but noted that a fair amount
were items which had been approved last year and
items, and were not strictly unforeseen and unapproved
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Johnson voting against
the motion.
1
1
1
July 17, 1984
BID AWARDS 577 & 578/FIRE DEPARTMENT
Mayor Noland introduced consideration of award of Bid #577 and Bid
#578 for equipment for the Fire Department. The Mayor noted the total
for all items is below budget.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to award the bids
to the low bidder. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
I
N
W BID AWARD/FIRE DEPARTMENT
CO Mayor Noland introduced consideration of an award of bid for a cassette
logging/recording device for the Fire Department. The Mayor asked
if this device would be compatible with the proposed new communications
system. Fire Chief Logue stated the device works with the present
radio. Purchasing Agent Mackey stated the device would hook up with
a two-way communication channel and two incoming telephone lines.
Mackey explained the proposal is to purchase one device for the Fire
Department and two channel direct connect couplers; that the proposal
is not to purchase the device for the Police Department.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, wade a motion to award the
bid to the low bidder for one City of Fayetteville Fire Department
multi -channel cassette logging recording system and two channel direct
connect couplers. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
BID AWARD/CITY AUTO INSURANCE
141
141.1
141.2
141.3
141.4
Mayor Noland introduced consideration of an award of bid for city 141.5
vehicle automobile insurance.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the 141.6
bid to the low bidder, McCartney-Fancette, for $22,468.00. Upon roll
call, the motion passed, 7-0.
BID AWARD/LIABILITY INSURANCE
Mayor Noland introduced consideration of an award of bid for public 141.7
official and police liability insurance. Mayor Noland explained one
company had withdrawn their bid and the recommendation is to renew
with Markel and Company.
142
142.1
142.2
142.3
142.4
July 17, 1984
Director Eampass, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the
recommendation of Dr. Hall to award the bid to Markel and Company
for $14,756.00.
City Manager Grimes questioned whether the $500,000 coverage per person
was sufficient. Dr. Hall stated this has been the limit used for
the past three years. City Attorney McCord recommended a quotation
could be sought for an additional premium amount.
Director Orton noted the form on page 16.07 of the agenda should be
corrected to show that two Directors are appointed.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
Outside -City Fire Protection
142.5 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the Code of Ordinances
to reduce the fee charged by the city for providing fire protection
beyond the city's corporate limits. The Mayor explained this ordinance
would eliminate the service charge previously used.
142.6 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Johnson, 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 Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further
suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed,
7-0.
142.7
142.8
ORDINANCE NO. 3019 APPEARS ON PAGE 2L. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK k I X
CH2M Hill/Study of Alternative Disinfectants
Mayor Noland reported that CH2M Hill had completed its study of alternative
disinfectants to eliminate chlorine residual problems. The Mayor
stated the results of the study are that the de -chlorination system
would be more cost-effective than either the use of ozone or ultraviolet
light. The Mayor reported the added cost for the de -chlorination
facility will be approximately $817,000 and additional operating costs
will be $37,000.
The Mayor reported that the July 12, 1984 letter from Cliff Thompson
of CH2M Hill recommends that approximately $1,300,000 in plant facilities
1
1
July 17, 1984
be redesigned at a cost of $85,000. Mayor Noland explained this would
mean amending Task Order Number 1 to state the not -to -exceed cost
is raised from $91,000 to $176,000.
143
143.1
Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, moved to approve a resolution 143.2
authorizing the execution of Amendment Number 3 to Task Order Number
1. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 80-84 APPEARS ON PAGE )33 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
NO. XIX
W City v. Glen W. Will
QCity Attorney McCord asked the Board to consider a settlement proposal
submitted by defendants in reference to City of Fayetteville v. Glen
W. Will since the case is set for trial on July 24th. McCord explained
this offer is substantially different from their original offer (which
proposed many more lot splits). McCord stated if this offer is accepted
by the Board a consent decree incorporating the terms of the proposed
settlement would be filed for record to put future property owners
on notice. McCord stated he recommends the offer be accepted for
the reasons set forth in his memo to the Board dated July 17, 1984.
McCord stated also he had discussed this with the Planning Administrator
who supports his recommendation.
In answer to questions from the Directors, McCord stated there ,are
only three remaining lots on Coach Road ( Lots 7, 8 and 9) for which
building permits can be issued. McCord explained the remaining 138
acres would be split into four parcels, none smaller than twenty acres;
that subdivison regulations would have to be complied with in order
to develop any of those parcels.
143.3
143.4
Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to accept the 143.5
settlement proposal. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
Skull Creek Bridge Construction
Mayor Noland introduced a request by the City Manager to authorize 143.6
the submission of 5% of the cost of the Skull Creek Bridge construction
to the Highway Department, or $6,200, so that construction can proceed.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 143.7
request. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
1985 Report To The People
In reference to the 1985 Report To The People, the Directors discussed
whether to use sketches as an alternative to Directors' photographs.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion authorize the
use of photographs. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
143.8
144
Parking Space Lease for "Bogey's Restaurant"
July 17, 1984
144.1 City Manager Grimes introduced consideration of the request by the
owner of "Bogey's Restaurant" to lease 22 parking meter spaces in
lot #12 at the southwest corner of Church and Center. Grimes recommended
the Board approve the lease because of the light usage of those parking
spaces in the past. City Manager Grimes stated the lease would be
for a period of one year.
144.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, rade a motion to approve the
recommendation of the City Manager. Dixon roll call, the motion passed,
7-0.
144.3 City Attorney McCord stated there would probably have to be a modification
of the city's existing lease with the Parking Improvement District
which owns the lot.
Airport Hangar Lease/Continental Ozark, Inc.
144.4 Director Lancaster introduced a resolution authorizing the execution
of a lease agreement with Continental Ozark, Inc. for the north one-half
of the executive hangar at Drake Field.
144.5 Director Lancaster. seconded by Johnson, made a motion to authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the lease agreement. Upon roll
call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 81-84 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK ALK
x
!35
OF ORDINANCE b RESOLUTION
Land for SCAN/Children's House
144.6 Director Sharp reported that the severe flood problems preclude the
use of previously proposed sites for the location of the SCAN/Children's
House facility. Sharp announced another meeting would be scheduled
for July 20 at 3:30 P.M. to discuss alternative locations.
City -Wide Communications System
144.7 Purchasing Officer Sturman Mackey reported the staff has evaluated
the only bid received for an 800 trunking system, submitted by Motorola.
Mackey stated their bid narrative included other optional features
which could raise the cost of that system above what is shown in the
bid tabulation. Mackey stated the difference in base bid could be
approximately $216,000 to $218,000 more than the base bid for the
450 UHF system. Mackey stated Motorola does not feel the advanced
public safety radio is necessary for non -public -safety personnel.
Mackey stated the staff, in its evaluation, has detected some slight
errors in the Motorola bid which are being corrected.
1
1
July 17, 1984
Director Sharp asked Mackey what percentage of other police and fire
departments in Arkansas use a system such as Fayetteville's present
system. Mackey stated the majority of all of them have low band frequency
systems. Sharp stated he was concerned about the cost and asked if
the city might be better off spending the money on materials or vehicles
for the fire and police departments.
CO Petition From Residents of Wedington Drive
145
145.2
LO City Manager Grimes asked that it be acknowledged that petitions were 145.3
received from residents of Wedington Drive regarding traffic and drainage
W problems in that area. Grimes stated copies will be submitted to
Do the Mayor.
a
MINUTES
With no corrections or additions to the Minutes of the July 3rd meeting, 145.4
they were approved as circulated.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 145.5
10:40 P.M.
•