Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984-10-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, October 16, 1984 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Assistant Mayor Lancaster; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Martin, Orton and Sharp; City Manager Grimes; Assistant City Manager McWethy; City Attorney McCord; City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and others ABSENT: Mayor Noland CALL TO ORDER Assistant Mayor Lancaster called the meeting to order, with six directors present, and asked for a moment of respectful silence. REZONING APPEAL/SAM MATHIAS 238.1 Lancaster introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission, regarding the failure to approve rezoning petition R84-13, for 10.14 acres on the east side of Old Wire Road, 300 feet south of Elmwood Drive, submitted by Sam Mathias. Lancaster explained the request to change from R-1, Low Density Residential, to A-1, Agricultural, failed to pass by a Planning Commission vote of 4-3. 238.2 Marshall. Carlisle, representing Sam Mathias and the purchasers of Fairview Memorial Gardens, addressed the Board. Carlisle requested the appeal be tabled because of internal matters and because the purchasers wish to work out some problems with adjacent landowners. Carlisle stated when these matters can be worked out, they will ask for the appeal to be placed on the agenda again. 238.3 Director Sharp, seconded by Orton, made a motion to table. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Mayor Noland absent. 238.4 Director Bumpass requested a list be made of everyone who wishes to speak in opposition to the appeal and that these persons be notified by mail when the appeal will be on the agenda. 1 1 October 16, 1984 HANDICAPPED ACCESS 239 Lancaster introduced a presentation regarding steps to be taken to 239.1 make all City programs and facilities accessible to the handicapped. City Manager Grimes explained no Board action would be necessary at this time but the intent of the presentation is to make the Board aware of what progress had been made. CD Patrick McKeehan, Administrative Intern, addressed the Board. McKeehan stated he had been working with Truman Smith, Jr. and the Regional Planning Commission on a NWA Handicapped Advisory Committee to conduct W a self-evaluation of the City's programs, activities, policies and practices to determine areas of non-compliance with the handicapped Q discrimination regulations. McKeehan asked that the Board consider approval of the concept of phasing -in of changes which are recommended. Truman Smith, Jr. addressed the Board. Smith noted the Board had been' furnished a copy of all those changes being recommended which can be made over a three-year period. Smith explained that non-structural changes can be made within one year from today's date. Director Martin noted that the information provided to the Board includes a statement that "a plan must be on file for public inspection by October 17, 1984". Truman Smith explained the City had one year from October 17, 1983 to come up with a plan for removing any barriers to the handicapped; that a self-evaluation must be performed by October 17, 1984; and that the City has one year from that date in which to provide the necessary non-structural changes to all City structures. In answer to a question from Director Martin, McKeehan explained that although the City used handicapped standards set forth by the American National Standards Institute (which are over twenty years old), it is permitted to use standards which are "equal or better"; that nationwide standards are in the process of being developed which will have some areas which are more restrictive and other areas which are less restric- tive; that the committee hopes to alter its plan over the next two or three years to coincide with those standards. Director Martin asked if the present City Code incorporates these standards so that a new building would qualify at the time it is com- pleted. Smith responded "technically, yes" but that there has been an ongoing problem because, although the regulations are 20 years old, it has only been since about 1977 that they have been applied. In answer to a question from Director Orton, McKeehan explained cost figures would be arrived at during the upcoming budgetary process. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass about setting priorities for the changes to be made, Smith pointed out that some areas which are listed to be addressed in 1985 could well be addressed in 1986, 239.2 239.3 239.4 239.5 239.6 239.7 239.8 240 October 16, 1984 240.1 especially restroom facilities in the gymns, parks and library. Smith stated one major correction which could be accomplished would be the areas of accessibility from the outside, such as parking spaces. McKeehan noted that it is hoped at some later date that the Board will make a decision as to setting priorities. 240.2 Smith noted that sometimes people can be shortsighted as to what consti- tutes a disability - and he stressed that the regulations do include persons who "walk with their wheels in a wheelchair, see with their cane, and talk with their hands" and involves both mental or physical disabilities. Smith stated the concentration should be focused on those areas which are most used by, and need to be accessible to, disabled persons; that in looking at the entire City operation we should not try to zero in on any one area. 240.3 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the handicapped access plan, in concept, of the three categories of structural changes, with specific funding approval to cone later as part of the budgeting process. 240.4 Lancaster asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this issue. There was no response. 240.5 Lancaster asked the City Attorney if the architect had any liability in this matter. McCord responded that, in reviewing the request for proposals and the contract documents, he found that the contract document did not contain an explicit requirement that the building be designed in accordance with the federal handicapped access standards presecribed pursuant to Sec. 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act; that the Request for Proposals did indicate a desire of the City to be furnished with a design of a building in conformance with those standards. McCord stated he did not think the City had a breach of contract cause of action and there may or may not be a possibility of a negligent cause of action depending on whether an architect can reasonably be put on notice that the building should be designed according to the federal requirements as opposed to State requirements. 240.6 City Manager Grimes stated that, in conversation with one of the archi- tects, he was told they had consulted with the Arkansas State Building Services about their guidelines. 240.7 Upon roll call, the notion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 119-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 378 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIX 1 1 October 16, 1984 REZONING PETITION R84-15/FAYETTEVILLE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION Lancaster introduced an ordinance rezoning three parcels totaling 2.7 acres, located on the east side of S. Morningside Drive (petitioner Fayetteville Industrial Development Foundation), from A-1, Agricultural, to I-1, Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial, and to I-2, General Industrial, (for Tracts A & B) and to I-1 (for Tract C). 241 241.1 CO City Attorney McCord (noting this petition was approved, 8-0, by the 241.2 Planning Commission) read the ordinance for the first time. Director N Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and W place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion CO passed, 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director CI Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the final time. Lancaster asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment regarding 241.3 the ordinance. There was no response. City Manager Grimes explained that, according to Dale Christy, this rezoning will bring these tracts into conformance with adjacent Industrial Development Foundation property (on the other side of the road) which has been rezoned. 241.4 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. 241.5 ORDINANCE NO. 3039 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK \(()l OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION REZONING PETITION R84-16/MORRISS M. HENRY Lancaster introduced an ordinance rezoning 13.5 acres at the northwest corner of Zion Road and Old Zion Road (petitioner Morriss M. Henry) from A-1, Agricultural, to R-0, Residential Office. City Attorney McCord (noting that this petition was approved, 6-2, by the Planning Commission) read the 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, 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the final time. Lancaster asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment regarding the ordinance. William Giese, resident on Zion Road, addressed the Board. Giese stated that, although he did not speak for the neighborhood, 241.6 241.7 241.8 242 242.1 October 16, 1984 no one he had spoken to in the neighborhood "had any qualms" about the rezoning. 242.2 Director Martin commented that he supported the Planning Commission action and noted it seemed as though the Commission started out to adjust the zoning of the property surrounding but, for some reason, did not do so. Martin stated he would encourage the Planning Commission, in the future, to keep to that task, noting the surrounding zoning is now left somewhat "anomalous". Director Sharp, remarking that he had been present at the Planning Commission meeting, stated there seemed to be division among the commissioners as to whether the R-1 district should be next to an R-0 or a multi -family district; that it would have been interesting to have the Commission's decision on that issue. 242.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3040 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK X I/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION REZONING PETITION R84-17/FIRST SERVICE CORPORATION 242.4 Lancaster introduced an ordinance rezoning 0.15 acres on the west side of N. East Avenue, 146' north of Spring Street (petitioner First Service Corporation) from R-0, Residential Office, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. 242.5 City Attorney McCord noted the Planning Commission recommended approval of this rezoning by a vote of 6-2, in response to the offer of the petitioner to execute a Bill of Assurance promising to restrict the use to the proposed dress shop on the lower floor of the structure. 242.6 McCord read the 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, 6-0. McCord 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, 6-0. 242.7 Lancaster asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the ordinance. There was no response. 242.8 Director Orton noted that R-0 zoning would also allow the bank to expand. 242.9 Lynn Wade, attorney representing the petitioner, addressed the Board. Wade explained the proposed use of the ground floor of the building 1 October 16, 1984 would be "transitional" as the bank plans to expand in the future, at which time the building will be gone; that for now, the upper floor would remain as an apartment. Director Sharp noted that, although C-2 zoning makes no sense as "blanket 243.2 zoning" on East Avenue, other properties in that area (such as a bridal shop and a china shop) had been rezoned with bills of assurance to CO restrict their uses. Sharp stated he thought this was a wise way 10 for the Planning Commission to handle such uses. Director Lancaster quoted from a memo the Planning Administrator wrote 243.3 W concerning this petition: "...rezoning this property to C-2 would m make the existing apartments in the upstairs of the building a non- Q conforming use. Also shouldn't a Bill of Assurance also include as permitted uses for this site the offices permitted as a use by right in both the C-2 and R-0 zones?" The City Attorney explained that the Planning Administrator's point is that, in the event 'of new con- struction, the property could not be used for apartments and could only be used consistent with the new zoning; that the owner recognizes that aspect. 243 243.1 1 1 Director Bumpass (quoting from the agenda) commented that Consultant 243.4 Larry Wood's report stated: ..that C-2 zoning was not recommended, as the goal of the General Land Use Plan for the area was to "encourage the development and redevelopment of the area on the periphery of the Square as offices, apartments, light service commercial and public facili- ties". If, however, this goal is no longer valid... then rezoning to C-2 "would be appropriate"... Bumpass stated the only way he would be in favor of C-2 zoning would 243.5 be with a Bill of Assurance restricting the use. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. 243.6 ORDINANCE NO. 3041 APPEARS ON PAGE 55 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(!X ZION ROAD/OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS Lancaster introduced consideration of the granting of a Bill of Assurance to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -Day Saints, for improvements to Zion Road. 243.7 The City Attorney noted the Planning Commission approved this Large 243.8 Scale Development with the condition that the Bill of Assurance to 244 244.1 October 16, 1984 guarantee off-site improvements be executed (which must be approved by the Board). 244.2 Neal Albright, speaking for the Church, addressed the Board, summarizing the background of the Large Scale Development process gone through by the Church. Albright explained it was the Subdivision Committee which recommended there not be intermittent development of Zion Road and that the Street Department should consider adding Zion Road to the priority list for street improvements. Albright stated that the Planning Commission, in approving the Large Scale Development, asked for a Bill of Assurance that the Church participate (at today's cost) an equal amount --at some later time --towards widening the pavement and installing curb, gutter and sidewalk where the church property abuts Zion Road. 244.3 Albright presented, in order of priority, three requests by the owner: 1. Request for a waiver of participation, since the City, as a whole, will benefit by the street improvements because of the strategic location to the Mall; and because the street will probably become a collector street at some time. 2. Request to confine the B111 of Assurance to today's cost (engineer's estimate of $5,500); and a time limit of five years, so as not to commit a future generation to the liability. 3. Request to build the street improvements, as approved by the Street Department. 244.4 In answer to Director Sharp, Albright responded that Street Superintendent Powell has not provided him with a cost estimate for the improvements. 244.5 City Attorney McCord quoted pertinent portions of the Large Scale Development ordinance: The developer may be required to install off-site improvements if the need for such improvements is created in whole or in part by the proposed Large Scale Development. Any required off-site improvements shall be installed according to City standards. The developer shall be required to bear that portion of the cost of off-site improvements which bears a rational nexus to the needs created by the Large Scale Development. 244.6 McCord stated it was his understanding that the requirement for the Bill of Assurance was based on the fact that any future street improvements would require the tearing out of any improvements the Church would make now. McCord stated, although it was not included in the three requests, an alternative would be to obtain the Church's contribution now and deposit it in an interest-bearing account to be used for the improvements to be made in the future (the amount of contribution 1 1 1 1 October 16, 1984 to be based on the Street Superintendent's evaluation of the owner's cost estimate). Director Orton stated she thought this alternative would be the fairest thing to do and that she would be in favor of obtaining a cost estimate based on today's costs but would not be in favor of the five-year time limit. W Director Martin questioned whether the City should impose a monetary requirement on the Church with no time limitation as to when the street would be improved and questioned whether the existence of the Church W caused an increase in traffic. McCord stated the Planning Commission CO apparently made a determination that the development was creating Q at least a partial need for the off-site improvement; that the owner's request for a waiverlis, in effect, an appeal from that determination and, if the Board determines there is no need for. the improvement, the requirement should not'be imposed. 1 Albright stated he understood that, after a cash deposit has been held for five years, there must be a review to determine whether the deposit will be used, and if it has not been used in five years, the deposit will be returned. The City Attorney explained that provision is contained in the Parks ordinance, not in the Large Scale Development ordinance. City Manager Grimes pointed out that improvements to Zion Road are scheduled for some time in the future but are not included in the City's immediate five-year plan; and that the plans to four -lane Joyce Street from Old Missouri to Highway 265 are intended to relieve traffic on Zion Road. Grimes recommended that the developer be required to deposit in an escrow account with the City, the estimated cost of improvements, to draw interest until such time as the improvements can be made. In answer to Albright, Grimes explained any interest would remain in the escrow account to be applied towards the cost of the street improvements. 245 245.1 245.2 245.3 245.4 245.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the 245.6 recommendation of the City Manager, that the developer deposit a monetary contribution into an escrow account with the City, the amount to be decided between the Street Superintendent and the Church's engineer, to be used for improvements to Zion Road some time within the next ten years. Director Orton stated this would start a fund which would be added 245.7 to by future developers on Zion Road. Director Bumpass asked the City Manager to have the Traffic Superintendent review whether the Church's building the street improvements now would, in fact, be a traffic hazard. 245.8 246 246.1 246.2 October 16, 1984 Director Martin noted that the motion did not grant any of the three requests of the developer nor the recommendation of the Planning Commis- sion. Director Martin asked if the Church could choose either to make the monetary contribution or to build the improvements. Director Johnson stated the intent of her motion is to ask the Church not to build the street but instead to make a monetary contribution, for reasons of safety and for reasons of long-term planning. After further discussion concerning the right of the Church to build the street improvements now, the City Attorney stated that, although the Ordinance allows the Church to construct the improvements, the Planning Commission minutes show that the Commission prefers the improve- ments not be constructed at this time. 246.3 Director Johnson amended her motion to state that the City will accept either Proposal No. 2 (without the 5 -year limit and without a $5500 maximum), that the developer execute a Bill of Assurance promising to construct, at the call of the City, the Church's part of the road; or that the developer deposit, in an interest-bearing escrow account with the City, an amount agreed upon between the Church's engineer and the City's Street Superintendent. Director Martin seconded the amended motion. 246.4 Albright asked if the Church still had the option to construct the improvements. McCord explained that, under a verbatim interpretation of the Ordinance, the Church may construct the improvements; but the Board should consider whether it was the intent of the Ordinance that the developer may construct a portion of a street as opposed to bearing the costs of construction of the street in its entirety. Director Johnson stated she thought the Church did not still have that option in light of the fact that they had asked the Board to grant only one of their three requests. The City Attorney pointed out that, if the Board's decision is not acceptable to the Church, the Church may come back before the Board and discuss the issue of installing the improvements at this time. 246.5 In answer to Director Bumpass, Johnson stated it was her intent that there be a review at the end of the ten-year period. 246.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 246.7 The City Attorney asked Mr. Albright to bring him a legal description should the Church decide to accept the option of executing a Bill of Assurance. 1 1 1 October 16, 1984 BILL OF ASSURANCE RELEASE/JOHN BOX 247 Lancaster introduced a request by John Box for the release of a Bill 247.1 of Assurance. There was no one present to represent Mr. Box. Director Sharp pointed out that the Planning Commission voted, 8-0, 247.2 that all neighbors be notified by posting a sign. It was clarified that a sign had been posted. Director Orton, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to not release the 247.3 1 Bill of Assurance. Director Orton stated she thought Bills of Assurance W should be taken very seriously, that to request a release any sooner than ten years after is presumptuous. Q Director Bumpass expressed reluctance to grant a release without the 247.4 petitioner present to make a case that there has been a substantial change in circumstances. The City Attorney noted that, if the Board were in favor of a release, the action to be taken should be for a modification of the Bill of Assurance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. TAX LEVY • • Lancaster introduced an ordinance levying the real and personal property taxes within the City for the year 1984. The City Attorney explained this did not reflect an increase in the tax levy, but is an annual renewal of the current tax levy. 247.5 247.6 247.7 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director 247.8 Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. McCord 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, 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the final time. In answer to Director Bumpass, City Manager Grimes explained the current revenue per mill is about $70,000 to $75,000. Director Bumpass noted that the current levy of 9 mills is broken down as follows: General government operations: Police pension fund: Fire.pension fund: "Amendment 13" capital 247.9 248 248.1 248.2 248.3 248.4 248.5 248.6 248.7 248.8 improvements (City Library and Youth Center expansion, approved by voters on 11/29/77): 2 mills October 16, 1984 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3042 APPEARS ON PAGE (g/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ,I1)( AFFIRMATIVE ACTION Lancaster introduced a resolution establishing an affirmative action plan relating to contractors and subcontractors performing work funded by the Community Development Block Grant Program. Community Development Director Sandra Carlisle addressed the Board Carlisle explained this plan would clear up one finding from the HUD Equal Opportunity Monitoring which was done in July of 1984. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a notion to approve the resolution. Carlisle explained further that the Section 3 Affirmative Action Plan concerns the hiring of contractors within the Fayetteville city limits. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 120-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 3/41 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XIX FIXED -BASE OPERATOR LEASE Lancaster introduced a resolution authorizing the extension of a Fixed - Base Operator lease with Fayetteville Flying Service, until February 1, 1985. Lancaster explained this lease was reviewed by the staff and recommended for approval by the Airport Committee. Director Johnson, reporting for the Airport Committee, stated that presently there is a month -by -month lease; that the Airport Committee wishes to do a survey of area pilots and FBO users to obtain answers to some questions the committee has concerning the operation of the FBO. Johnson explained further that approval of this lease would give Skyways a 120 -day extension. 1 1 10 N W m a October 16, 1984 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to, approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 121-84 APPEARS ON PAGE I/02. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X I X T -HANGAR RENT Lancaster introduced a resolution temporarily lowering the rent for single-engine aircraft renting spaces in the T -hangars designed for twin -engine aircraft, from $135 per month to $110, until the new single- engine T -hangar is built. Airport Manager Dale Frederick explained there are four vacancies in the twin -engine hangars which they wish to fill with single-engine aircraft until such time as the new single-engine T -hangar is built; that, rather than letting the twin -engine hangars remain vacant, they would prefer to temporarily lower the rent. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 122-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 1/03 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK (X • GREENSPACE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Lancaster introduced an ordinance amending the City's "Greenspace" Ordinance by providing that a monetary contribution, made by a developer in lieu of land dedication, may be used for the acquisition and/or development of park land. The City Attorney explained this ordinance was recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. McCord read the 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, 6-0. McCord 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, 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the final time. Director Johnson pointed out the ordinance is amending the current ordinance (which provides only for acquisition of land) to read "...for the acquisition and/or development" of park land. 249 249.1 249.2 249.3 249.4 249.5 249.6 249.7 250 October 16, 1984 250.1 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. / ORDINANCE NO. 3043 APPEARS ON PAGE to� OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Xlk. HUNTSVILLE ROAD EASEMENT 250.2 Lancaster introduced an ordinance dedicating a portion of a lot owned by the City, on the north side of East Huntsville Road, as a public road and utility easement. 250.3 City Manager Grimes explained this action would simply allow City -owned property to be filed for record at the Courthouse as a public road and utility easement. 250.4 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 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, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the final time. Lancaster asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on the ordinance. There was no response. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3044 APPEARS ON PAGE L 3. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x (,Y TRAFFIC SIGNALS/HIGHWAYS 265 & 45 250.5 Lancaster introduced a resolution by which the City would agree to pay 25% of the projected $200,000 cost of improving and signalizing the intersection of Highways 265 North and 45 East, tentatively scheduled for construction in March of 1985. 250.6 Because of the severe traffic hazards at the intersection of Highways 265 and 45, Director Martin suggested the Highway Department should be urged to complete this project as quickly as possible. 250.7 City Manager Grimes explained the Highway Department proposes to do some alignment work on the north -south lanes of Highways 265 and 45, as well as an additional turn lane; and some widening on the north and south -bound lanes. In answer to Director Bumpass, Grimes explained this is an anticipated budget item for next year and the funding should includes Highway 16 as well. 1 October 16, 1984 Director Martin, seconded by Bumpass, made a notion that the City authorize the payment of 25Z of the estimated expenditure for the Highway 265 signalisation and intersection improvements and further, that the projects at the intersections of Highway 45 and Highway 16 be expedited as soon as possible in the interest of public safety. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. r^ RESOLUTION NO, 123-84 APPEARS ON PAGE golf OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 10 BOOK X X N 251 251.1 CO RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION Lancaster introduced a resolution expressing appreciation to Senators 251.2 Dale Bumpers and David Pryor, Congressman John Paul Hammerschmidt, and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control & Ecology for assistance in securing federal funding for the City's proposed sewer treatment plant improvements. Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 251.3 resolution. Upon roll call, the motion tpassed,,6-0. / RESOLUTION NO. 124-84 APPEARS ON PAGE OS OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X( X PROPERTY CONDEMNATION Lancaster introduced a resolution authorizing the initiation of con- demnation proceedings, for the acquisition of three parcels in connection with the City's proposed sewer treatment plant improvements. City Manager Grimes explained that the purpose of the resolution is to allow the City to initiate condemnation proceedings only if a settlement with the property owners cannot be reached by October 30th (EPA deadline). Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the resolution. Director Lancaster asked if anyone in the audience wished to comment on this resolution. There was no response. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 125-84 APPEARS ON PAGE 1.106, OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK .)(1 ){ 251.4 251.5 251.6 252 October 16, 1984 BID AWARDS #558&#559/VEHICLES 252.1 Lancaster introduced consideration of Bids #558 and #559 for a variety of vehicles. City Manager Grimes noted these bids were reviewed by the Shop Superintendent and the Purchasing Officer. Lancaster stated the staff recommends the award of bids to Nelms Chevrolet and Lewis Ford. 252.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to award Bids #558 and 1559 to Nelms Chevrolet and Lewis Ford. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. BID AWARD #561/TRACTOR BACKHOE 252.3 Lancaster introduced consideration of Bid #561 for a tractor backhoe for the Street Department. Purchasing Officer Mackey stated the recom- mendation is to award Bid #561 to the low bidder. 252.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award Bid #561 to the low bidder, B. A. Martin Machinery Company. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. BID AWARD #596/RADIO TOWER 252.5 Lancaster introduced consideration of Bid #596 for a 400' guyed radio communications tower. 252.6 Director Johnson made a motion to award Bid 1596 for the guyed tower to PI -ROD, Inc. and the installation to Motorola. 252.7 Purchasing Officer Mackey noted that Motorola Corporation and PI -ROD corporate officials have met at his request and have agreed in writing that they will install the tower according to PI -ROD specifications at no additional cost, as long as the City clears the land and assists in staking. Mackey stated the amount is approximately $20,000 greater than the original estimate made by the consultant. Mackey explained the extra costs were related to the fact that the specifications were revised to provide enought tower strength to accommodate seven other agencies in Northwest Arkansas. 252.8 Director Bumpass seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 1 October 16, 1984 BID AWARD #597/TRACTOR Lancaster introduced consideration of Bid /1597 for an industrial tractor with highway mower for the Street Department. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award Bid #597 to the low bidder, Williams Ford. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. u) re - W FOX HUNTER ROAD RELIEF SEWER Q Lancaster introduced consideration of award of bid for the construction of the Fox Hunter Road relief sewer line. 1 Engineer Vernon Rowe who was involved in the design and detail of the project, addressed the Board. Rowe explained the original estimate was for $17,480 but the lowest bid came in at $26,633. Rowe stated he thought the price was reasonable since all bids submitted were close in amount. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to award the bid to the low bidder, Don Mitchell, Inc. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS American College/Large Scale Development Lancaster noted the receipt of memo from Planning Administrator Bobbie Jones regarding the American College Large Scale Development. No action was taken by the Board. Millsap Area Master Street Plan Change Lancaster noted receipt of memo from Planning Administrator Jones regarding Millsap area Master Street Plan change. Director Sharp stated the Street Committee would be glad to place this item on their agenda. • Extension of Rockwood Trail In line with this item and other street business, Director Sharp asked that a Street Committe meeting be scheduled and it was tentatively decided that committee would meet on October 25 following the Wage and Salary Committee meeting. 253 253.1 253.2 253.3 253.4 253.5 253.6 253.7 253.8 254 254.1 October 16, 1984 Sherwood v. City City Attorney McCord called attention to the copy of the Washington County Chancery Court's Judgment regarding Sherwood v. City in which the Court ruled that the decision of the City's Planning Commission denying plaintiff's request for change of non -conforming use was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and that their request for change of non- conforming use is granted. McCord explained that, if the Board wishes to appeal, Notice must be filed within thirty days from the date that the decree was filed. 254.2 Director Lancaster made a motion to instruct the City Attorney to appeal the decision. Lancaster stated he thought the Board should back up the decisions of the Planning Commission. There was no second to the motion. 254.3 The City Attorney stated he thought the Board's policy decision in this matter should be based on whether the decree has "far-reaching ramifications". McCord estimated the cost of the appeal should not exceed $1,000. 254.4 Director Lancaster asked what bearing it would have on future Planning Commission decisions if the City were not to appeal the Court's decision. McCord explained this case would not be a precedent as far as establishing a law which would have to be applied in future cases. 254.5 Directors Orton, Martin and Sharp each spoke in favor of abiding by the decision of the Court. It vas generally agreed by the Board not to appeal the Court's Judgment. Uniform Allowance 254.6 City Manager Grimes asked the Board to approve a Uniform Allowance Policy for firefighters and police officers. Grimes explained that, in the past, the uniform allowance has been paid in a lump sum at the beginning of the year and there have been problems of reimbursement when an employee leaves before half of the year is over. Grimes explained the policy would allow an employee the choice of signing an Agreement to receive their uniform allowance in a lump sum or in twelve equal monthly installments. 254.7 Director Orton, seconded by Buapass, made a motion that the Uniform Allowance Policy as recommended by the City Manager be adopted for firefighters and police officers. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Cable Television Information Center vs. FCC 254.8 Director Orton commented that she would be in favor of the Board's contributing towards the court costs in Cable Television Information 1 255 October 16, 1984 Center v. FCC (a case which will challenge the FCC's actions regarding 255.1 rate regulation and invalidation of existing contracts). Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion that the City contribute 255.2 $200. In answer to a question from Director Martin, City Attorney McCord 255.3 10 responded that he visited with the University law professor who has in been involved in cable issues on a volunteer basis, and McCord stated he thought the professor would agree with the analysis set forth from the CTIC and the legal aspects reflected in their memorandum. In W a related matter, McCord reported that the professor would be filing a petition in the near future concerning the "must carry" issue. Q Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 255.4 Gregg Avenue Improvements City Manager Grimes explained that the majority, but not all of the 255.5 funds needed for the Gregg Avenue project, are in the Public Works budget. Grimes stated that the North Street construction from Gregg to Skull Creek will not be done at this time so that funds in the budget for that project will not be used this year. Grimes asked the Board to commit those funds ($36,275.00) to the City's share of funding for the Gregg Avenue project, for a total of $279,025. Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the 255.6 City Manager's recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Pump Station Road Project City Manager Grimes recommended Public Works funds budgeted for North Street construction (totalling $14,550) be used for the City's share of the Pump Station Road project, since the North Street construction will not take place this year. 255.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion to approve the 255.8 City Manager's recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Demand for Payment from Kan -Ark Director Lancaster asked Assistant City Manager McWethy to report to the Board regarding the demand -for -payment letter from Kan -Ark. Manager McWethy reported that the floor tiles in Data Processing have still not been fixed. McWethy noted the problem has been in existence for months and was caused by a leak in the air conditioning condensate pan at the time of installation. McWethy reported that a panel in 255.9 255.10 256 256.1 October 16, 1984 the skylight, which was cracked at the time of installation, has not yet been replaced. McWethy recommended no payment be made until the work has been finished. 256.2 Director Bumpass suggested making payment to the contractor but retaining the amount needed for the repairs; that if the repairs are not made in the near future, the contractor could be put on notice that there is a breach, if this would not void the City's warranties on other items. 256.3 Director Sharp suggested estimates be obtained from the sub -contrac- tors for the cost of the repairs. 256.4 Director Orton stated that, in light of the fact that these items have been pending for a long time, she did not think the contractor should be paid until the work has been done. Orton stated she did not think any more time should have to be spent by McWethy in writing letters and obtaining estimates. 256.5 Director Johnson suggested calling the contractors tomorrow and notifying them that, if the repairs are not completed by November 15, the City will pursue litigation, or that the City could make the repairs and send the contractor the remainder of the money. 256.6 Director Lancaster suggested tabling this item until the next meeting. Aero -Tech Services, Inc. 256.7 Lancaster introduced a request from Aero -Tech Services, Inc. of Springdale (who wish to relocate to Fayetteville) for a hangar to be built at Drake Field, which they wish to lease, in order to provide a maintenance facility. Lancaster asked for the general feeling of the Board regarding this request and he stated that the City Attorney would provide contract documents Lancaster introduced Mark Courdin and Barry Sinex, President and Vice -President of Aero -Tech. 256.8 Airport Manager Dale Frederick commented on the importance of having a good maintenance facility with mechanics who are qualified in all aspects of repair. 256.9 Lancaster explained the Airport proposed, in its 20 -year Master Plan, to build a large corporate hangar similar to the one just built on the west side, but a little longer and a little higher. Lancaster stated the proposal is for Aero -Tech to do business in that building until there are plans to further develop the east side of the Airport, at which time Aero -Tech would attempt to obtain bond financing for a larger facility. 256.10 Director Bumpass asked what the financial arrangements would be and asked, if the City were to build the facility, what protections the 1 October 16, 1984 City would have, in light of the temporary aspect. Director Lancaster stated, if Aero -Tech were to discontinue leasing the hangar, the City would have a building it could utilize on the same basis as the hangar on the west side. The City Attorney explained that the Board has approved Airport Revenue Bonds up to $1 million for phased construction of hangars at the Airport. McCord stated that two aspects of that phasing have been completed (the existing hangars on the east side). The City Attorney stated the financial advisors have advised that it would not be prudent to attempt to market bonds at this time because there are no long-term 1.1.1 leases to secure the bonds and because the interest rates are not CO favorable. The City Attorney noted that the Board had been advised at the outset that prospective tenants would not be willing to execute long-term leases for the hangars. The City Attorney stated that, at such time as Aero -Tech were to relocate, the hanger would then be available to the City to lease for corporate aircraft. 1 City Manager Grimes stated that the recommendation is to authorize the staff to advertise for bids for the construction of the hangar and to authorize the City Attorney and Finance Director to bring a financing package back before the Board at the next meeting. 257 257.1 257.2 257.3 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the 257.4 recommendation of the City Manager. City Board candidate, Jeremy Hess, asked for clarification as to who would own the corporate hangar which is proposed to be built and who would own the ensuing hangar which might later be built. The City Attorney explained that the leasing is interim financing; that during the interim financing, the hangars are actually owned by a leasing corporation with the City of Fayetteville as a lessee and Aero -Tech as a sub -lessee. McCord explained the plan is to re -finance the interim financing with Airport Revenue Bonds at such tine as the bond market is more advantageous and as the available hangars are filled. McCord stated at that time the City would exercise a purchase option under the existing lease. 257.5 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 257.6 Dickson Street Historic District Director Bumpass reported on Bruce Cully's report of the work done 257.7 to complete the Preliminary Survey on the Shuler Town Proposed Historic District. Bumpass noted all those persons who donated time and materials towards the project and reported that "Pride in Dickson Street" (local merchant association) had donated $5,000 in cash to the project. Bumpass reported that 244 structures and sites were surveyed; that those structures over 40 years old can qualify towards an historic district which the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program states would 258 258.1 October 16, 1984 district which the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program states would be the largest one in the State. 258.2 Bumpass reported that grant moneys are now available through the Certified Local Government program, and that $5500 would still be needed to complete the funding match, in order to work towards receiving a Schuler Town Historic District Nomination to the National Register. 258.3 Director Johnson noted that Cully's report states that "...the City of Fayetteville will probably supply 22.5% of the total ($5,659.00) in in-kind services for administering the grant." Bumpass stated that is a standard rate charged by the City Administration for admin- istering a grant. Bumpass explained the Finance Department would provide the administration. 258.4 In answer to Director Johnson, Bumpass explained the $1500 mentioned in the report refers to time donated by local experts. 258.5 Director Johnson stated she would be mildly in favor because she did not feel the people in the district "have put anything into it at all" and she would like to see some of them put money into it instead of the City. Director Bumpass pointed out that for the earlier grant the cash donation came totally from "Pride in Dickson Street" which represents 55 different property owners on Dickson Street. 258.6 Director Johnson, seconded by Sharp, made a motion that the City Manager be authorized to spend up to $2500 for the Shuler Town Historic Nomi- nation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Fine Arts Center Meeting 258.7 Director Sharp reported that a meeting would be held in the Board Room on Tuesday, October 30th at 7:30 P.M. regarding a proposed Fine Arts Center. MINUTES 258.8 The following corrections and additions were made to the Minutes of the October 2, 1984 meeting: 228.6 Add to the last sentence: "...at the expense of the subdivider." 232.2 In the second sentence, change "proposals" to "bids" 234.4 Delete "Orton commented that she thought the resolution should not refer to any one particular route." 1 1 1 1 October 16, 1984 With those corrections, the minutes were approved as circulated. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at about 11:00 P.M. • 259