Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-01-22 Minutes11 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, January 22, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of City Hall at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Hess, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin, and Orton; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and audience ABSENT: Director Bumpass CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Mayor Noland with five directors 11.1 present. The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. AIRPORT LIMOUSINE LEASE The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a lease agreement with Charles Cole for airport limousine service in 1985. The Mayor noted that this lease reflects a 9% increase over 1984 rentals. 11.2 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass the '11.3 resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0, with Directors Bumpass and Martin absent. RESOLUTION NO. 3-85 APPEARS ON PAGE ]4, (9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X x i HOLIDAY INN LEASE/AIRPORT Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a lease agreement with the Holiday Inn for advertising space in the airport terminal building for 1985. 11.4 12 January 22, 1985 12.1 Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to pass the reso- lution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 4-85 APPEARS ON PAGE KA OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX) LEASE MODIFICATION/AIRPORT RESTAURANT 12.2 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a modification of a lease agreement with Lorene O'Donnell for the airport The Mayor explained that this modification would reflect in rentals of 4.2% over the previous 12 month period. 12.3 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, RESOLUTION NO. 5-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 5-85- OF BOOK XA AIRPORT COMMITTEE ITEMS restaurant. an increase a motion to pass the 5-0. ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION FIXED BASE OPERATOR STANDARDS 12.4 Airport Committee Chairman Lancaster reported that the Airport Committee met on January 21 and recommended the passage of a resolution setting forth standards and requirements for the Fixed Base Operator at Drake Field. Lancaster made a motion to pass the resolution. 12.5 City Manager Grimes explained that the resolution would minimum standards for commercial aeronautical activities prescribe minimum service requirements for Fixed as performing the following services: amend the and would Base Operators, such 12.6 1. Fuel and oil sales; 2. Aircraft charter and taxi service; 3. Aircraft engine, airframe and accessory sales and maintenance; 4. Aircraft rental and sales; and 5. Flight training 12.7 Grimes noted that individuals may arrange to provide any one services without fuel sales but that Fixed Base Operators required to provide all of them. of these will be 1 1 et. • . 13 January 22, 1985 • Director Johnson seconded the motion and, upon roll call, it passed, 13.1 6-0, with Director Bumpass absent. RESOLUTION NO. 6-85 APPEARS ON PAGE J']9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX1 • FIXED BASE OPERATOR CONTRACT Mayor Noland introduced consideration of awarding a contract to Aero Tech Services, Inc. for the Fixed Base Operator at Drake•Field, effective March 1, 1985. • Director Lancaster explained that the city proposes to maintain juris- diction over the interior of the old white hangar and a public use area south of the old white hangar. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to award the contract. Mayor Noland asked if anyone wished to comment regarding this item. Carl Covey, physician residing in Fayetteville, addressed the Board. Covey..commented 'that Aero Tech provides excellent service and the only „reason he moved...his airplane from Springdale to Fayetteville was because Aero Tech moved to -Fayetteville.,, ?;, Jim Bob Wheeler, pilot and owner of aircraft'at Drake Field, addressed the Board, stated he moved his aircraft to Springdaleafter14 years at Drake Field because he could receive service in Springdale. .Wheeler commented that he has moved back to Drake now that Aero„Techhas moved to Fayetteville'. • Barry Sinex and Mark Courdin, representing Aero Tech, spoke .about the services they propose to provide as Fixed Base Operator. Courdin commented that Aero Tech_ intends to bring approximately 26 aircraft back to Drake Field which have not been there due to lack of•service. He listed some of those services they would provide: Warranty., Work Baggage Handling Quick Turnaround Service Catering Cabin and Engine Preheating Aircraft De-icing Cessna Dealership Aircraft Appraisal Aircraft Leasing Cessna Financing Aircraft Sales Engine Overhauls Annual Inspections Major and Minor Repairs 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 13.6 13.7 14 January 22, 1985 14.1 Line Maintenance Painting, Detailing Aircraft Restoration Courtesy Service Aircraft Charter Rental Flight Instruction 14.2 Barry Sinex commented that he thought these additional services would bring additional funding to Fayetteville for the airport and would triple revenue within two years 14.3 Upon roll call, the notion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 7-85 APPEARS ON PAGE ISO OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX NOTICE TO VACATE/FAYETTEVILLE FLYING SERVICE 14.4 Director Lancaster introduced a request for approval to issue a 30 -day notice to Fayetteville Flying Service (a subsidiary of Scheduled Skyways) to vacate the old terminal building and the aircraft storage portions of the white hangar by February 28, 1985. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the request. 14.5 Mike Freeman, Chief Operating Officer fur Scheduled Skyways, reported that the merger is complete between Air Midwest and Scheduled Skyways. Freeman stated that Skyways has no problem with vacating the old terminal building but wishes to retain portions of the white hanger and wishes to continue their F.B.O. operations. Freeman commented that, because of severe cash flow problems, they need the income from the F.B.O. and the aircraft rental. 14.6 Director Martin stated he would be in favor of trying to accommodate the request for space from Air Midwest/Skyways in light of the fact that they have been long-time tenants. 14.7 Director Johnson pointed out that the lease with Fayetteville Flying Service, as the F.B.O., expired in September and was extended for 120 days, and that the lease just approved with Aero Tech includes the provision that they will operate out of the old terminal building. Johnson explained it is the feeling of the Airport Committee that, since the lease with Fayetteville Flying Service is expiring, the city should take over the operating of the old white hangar and the revenues from aircraft storage. Johnson noted this would not preclude the city from negotiating arrangements with Fayetteville Flying Service or others to conduct their operations. Director Johnson stated it was her understanding that the office space would continue for Air Midwest/Skyways. 1 n January 22, 1985 Director Lancaster stated that the city doesn't deal directly with Skyways but with Fayetteville Flying Service which in turn deals with Skyways. Lancaster noted that Fayetteville Flying Service's lease expires on February 29. Mike Freeman commented that it was a misconception that Air Midwest/Skyways, the airline, was a different entity from Air.Midwest/Skyways, the F.B.O. Mayor Noland stated that it seemed to be the consensus of several Directors that there should be -discussions between Air Midwest/Skyways and the airport management concerning office space. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. BIDS FOR MAINTENANCE HANGAR Director Lancaster introduced a request for authorization to take bids for additional work for. the Aero Tech aircraft maintenance hangar consisting of: (1) 185 feet of reinforced storm drain; (2) construction of a 20 foot wide by 260 foot long service road; and (3) construction of a concrete ramp, approximately 11,200 square feet, to connect the maintenance facility to the taxiway. Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the request. Director Johnson explained that the approximate cost of this work would be $38,009, 50% to be included in the 1985 budget and 50% reimbursed by the State. 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 15.5 NORTHWEST AIR LEASE Director Lancaster introduced a request for approval of a lease for advertising space in the terminal building for Northwes.t,Air.: Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the request. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION N0. 8-85 APPEARS ON PAGE I93 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX BIDS TO CONSTRUCT FUEL FARM Director Lancaster introduced a recommendation from the staff to seek competitive bids for the construction of Phase I of the fuel farm at the location north of the Airport Fire Station, in accordance with the long range plan for the Airport. Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 15.6 15.7 lf� January 22, 1985 \JANITORIAL CONTRACT 16.1 The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution which would authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a one-year contract with Harmony Building Maintenance Contractors for janitorial services for City Hall. The Mayor commented that the proposed contract reflects a 15% decrease over the rates charges in 1984. 16.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to pass the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 9-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 201 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX GREGG AVENUE FUNDING SHARE 16.3 Mayor Noland introduced a request by the City Manager that the Board approve additional funds for the 25% local share of the cost of four-laning two segments of Gregg Avenue (Elm to Ash and Spruce to North). The Mayor explained the 25% local share amounts to $50,025 for the project. 16.4 Director Orton asked why the job had'to be re -bid. City Manager Grimes explained that bids were submitted well above the estimate at that time, that revisions were made to the specifications and, after re - advertising, the bids came in somewhat cheaper. Orton noted that the telephone company's excessive delays in moving the poles contributed to increased costs. 16.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Noland, made a motion to approve additional funds for the local share of four-laning two segments of Gregg Avenue. 16.6 Bob Brandon, resident of Wilson Park area, addressed the Board. Brandon claimed that public hearings had never been held regarding the development of this project. Brandon stated there were procedures specified in Arkansas Statutes 19-2825 through -2830 which describe the responsi- bilities of the Planning Commission to review all plans proposed by the City as attachments or amendments to the Master Street Plan. B randon claimed there was no review and acceptance of the project by the Planning Commission on file in the City Clerk's office. Brandon also stated the City adopted ordinances regarding the Master Street Plan in 1973 which specify procedures regarding the posting of public notice and the holding of public hearings. 16.7 B randon requested that funding not be approved until public notice is given and the project is presented to the Planning Commission. B randon asked that the Planning Commission determine whether or not 1 January 22, 1985 the project complies with the Master Street Plan and that State and Federal agencies be notified of "violations" and that all records and all meetings be made public. Director Lancaster pointed out that, according to the City Attorney, all legal requirements have been met by the city. In answer to a question from Director Martin, City Manager Grimes stated that Gregg Avenue, from Prospect to North, is designated as a collector street on the Master Street Plan, which does permit the proposed construction. Director Martin pointed out that the development of the Master Street Plan was subject to public hearings. Grimes added that plans are available for public inspection. Director Martin commented that the city's intent is not to funnel large amounts of traffic through Wilson Park but purpose simply is to widen a street near the park. Director Johnson asked that the Board vote on the motion, commenting that this issue has been before the Board many times and that the last time Brandon addressed the Board, petitions were submitted expressing opposition to the project. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution authorizing the Finance Director to sign documents (in the absence of the City Manager) that are necessary to expedite the completion of the Pollution Control Facilities project. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to pass the resolu- tion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 10-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 20111 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK yx1 BID AWARD/EMPLOYEE FIDELITY BONDS Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the award of Bid !1605 for employee fidelity bonds. The Mayor reported that the low bidder was McCartney-Faucette for $4,100 for a three-year period. Director Johnson asked whether, in light of state legislation being considered regarding blanket surety bonds, a cancellation clause would 17,1 17.2 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.7 17.8 17.9 17.10 18 January 22, 1985 18.1 be included. Purchasing Officer Sturman Mackey clarified that there is a 30 -day cancellation clause. 18.2 Director Hess, seconded by Martin, made a motion to award the bid. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. LANDFILL CONTRACT EXTENSION 18.3 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution officially notifying Sunray Sanitation of the city's intent to extend its landfill contract for one year. 18.4 Director Hess, seconded by Orton, made a motion to pass the resolution. 18.5 Director Martin asked for the reason behind the City Manager's recommen- dation to extend the contract. City Manager Grimes presented the following reasons: (1) that the city has had good experience with Sunray; (2) that Sunray has been hauling the city's waste to the landfill for a number of years; (3) that the road to the Sunray landfill is paved; (4) that rate increases have been based on the "cost of living" index; (5) that now might not be a practical time to change in light of the fact that the incinerator facility is to be constructed in the near future; and (6) that he has heard comments from citizens who are concerned about the proximity of the other landfill to Beaver Lake. 18.6 Director Martin asked if operational changes would be necessary which could increase or decrease the cost of hauling, should the city decide to change to another landfill. Grimes commented that it could take longer to travel to the other landfill, that the dirt road to the other landfill might be a disadvantage in rainy weather, and that certain re-routing would be necessary although it would not be a major consideration. 18.7 Director Martin asked if the city had considered the requirement for competitive bids. Grimes explained this had not been considered because the existing contract includes an option to extend. 18.8 Bill Clark, representing Northwest Arkansas Waste Management, addressed the Board. Clark explained that Waste Management's landfill has been permitted by the DPCSE and is in operation. Clark noted that the city's contract with Sunray terminates on April 15 and commented that the city has no duty to extend that contract. Clark stated that he believed the Arkansas law vests the authority in the City Manager to make a contract and if that contract is fur an amount above $2000 (or $2500, according to the Fayetteville Code), then competitive bidding is required. Clark contended that the extension of the existing contract with a price increase is, in effect, a new contract. Clark commented January 22, 1985 that' the city 'can 'protect .itself ,by•opening bids sbefore.-•Apri.1 15.. Clark^claimed•• that't round trip from' the city shop•.to Sunray is 31 miles but that the round trip from the city.shop to Parsons landfill is 25.6.. Clark'• stated that, since.the city' makes' an' average s of 30 trips per day to the landfill, there would be a savings of about $23,000. in actual usage of equipment per year. Clark asked that the city not extend the Sunray contract now but that it seek competitive bids before April 15. Clark added that Parsons would offer a flat rate to the city for a number of years. " - Harold Parsons, owner of the N. W. Arkansas•Waste Management landfill, addressed the Board, stating that; 'if awarded a contract with the city; -the road•to'•his'•iandfillowilii•be resurfaced. . 1 +. 19 19.1 19.2 Mayor Noland,',addressing Clark's calculations regarding round trip ' 19.3 mileage, noted that most of the solid waste is not transported from the city shop. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Parsons explained the 19.4 waste le -deposited in a trench-and•.covered with clay material. Johnson.. pointed out she had not observed much equipment at the site but•+Parsons noted that, with a larger volume of waste, there would be more equipment at the site. Jackson Butt, representing Sunray Sanitation, addressed the Board. :Butt commented' thatthe idea behind including' the' option to extend the contract is to allow a system to continue if it has'been acceptable. Butt stated that there would be a loss of time and efficiency in changing over"'tb •as'nete.system." He noted there were no significant:complaints about Sunray's service. Butt'conclnded- Shat 'it would' be 'mox'e,'efficient ' and 'cost-effective<to'leave the contract in place. City Manager Grimes pointed out that when a contract was entered into with'Sunray•two-years ago, competitive bids were never sought.because' there'was only one landfill at that'tihe. : .• !, . . Director Hess asked, should the•Board vote now'to not extend the contract, could the'matter 'be brbught .up again or would competitive bids be sought. Mayor Noland explained that -, -should the motion fail to pass, competitive bids would then be sought. Director Martin commented that; if.the current operation i's•working well,'it would be'foolish to•change. • - Director Orton pointed out that, should -the motion -pass and the contract be extended for another year, at the end of that year competitive bids would be sought and, at`some• time 'duririg-,then±ollow•ingnyear, the incinerator facility may begin operation. 19.5 19.6 19.7 19.8 19.9 20.1 January 22, 1985 Upon roll call, the notion passed, 4-1-1, with Hess voting against the motion and Lancaster abstaining due to a close family connection. RESOLUTION NO. 11-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 4:2,05- OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xx REZONING PETITION R84-20/ZED & G.R. JOHNSON 20.2 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning 5.34 acres located south of Highway 45 East and about 500 feet west of Highway 265 North. The Mayor explained the petitioners, Zed and G. R. Johnson, are requesting a change from R-1, Low Density Residential, to C-1, Neighborhood Commer- cial; that the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 8-0. 20.3 The City Clerk read the ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, 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 ordinance was read for the third time. 20.4 The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak against the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed. 20.5 Director Orton noted that the original request was to rezone a larger tract of land to C-2. Mayor Noland pointed out that only the north 450 feet of the tract is now under petition to be zoned C-1. Orton commented that some concern has been expressed that the egress from the remainder of that large tract (when it is rezoned) might end up being from the parking area of the proposed C-1 property. Engineer Ervan Wimberly responded that adjoining property owner Oscar Harris has no problem with egress being from the C-1 property. Orton asked if the 450 foot tract ur the larger tract would go through the large scale development process. Wimberly explained there presently are no definite plans for the entire tract. 20.6 Director Orton expressed some concern about the amount of commercial development happening at the intersection of Highway 45 and Highway 265 and she suggested the Planning Commissiun review the comprehensive land use plan for this area because of the great amount of commercial development at that intersection. 20.7 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3063 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK 4\ I, 0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 1 January 22, 1985 Director Orton asked for the Board's feeling regarding her suggestion that the Planning Commission review the land use plan for the inter- section. Director Martin commented that review of land use should not be done area -by -area but rather that all the commercial development be reviewed. Director: :Orton. :pointed out that, when a lot of development is going on in a specific area, there•;needs2to+be>a re-examLnation:more often. Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to ask the Planning Commission to look at the Comprehensive land Use Plan at the intersection of Highway 265 and Highway 45. Director Martin commented that developers and residents in that area purchase property with full knowledge of its zoning and he did not think it should be up to the Board to suggest changes to the current zoning. Orton pointed out that the land use map is used only as a guide and differs from the actual zoning map. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-1, with Martin voting against the motion. Martin commented that he thought this issue should be considered within the context of an update of the Master Plan for the entire city. REZONING PETITION R85-1/HOUSTON Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning 5.86 acres located east of Porter Road and south of Deane Street. The Mayor explained the petitioner, Gordon Houston, requests a change from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-2, Medium Density Residential. Noland reported the Planning Commission voted, 7-1, to recommend approval and the Planning Consultant recommended the change would be compatible to the area. The City Clerk read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, 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. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, 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 ordinance was read for the final time. 21. 21.1 21.2 21.3 21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 The Mayor noted that the issues of access and drainage had been raised 21.8 regarding this property. Noland asked if anyone wished to speak against the ordinance. George Faucette, Jr: addressed the Board, stating that he owned property 21.9 to the east (but not adjacent). Faucette commented that he was not 22.1 January 22, 1985 opposed to the rezoning but was opposed to development without looking at the drainage situation. Faucette explained that the watershed area between Sang and Lewis and south of Deane is funneled through Washington Plaza to a single culvert under Sang Avenue which empties onto his property. Faucette commented that his lot and three or four other lots are flooded during heavy rains, that this flooding continues onto Houston's and other adjacent property. Faucette noted that the city's drainage study of that area in 1982, under storm drainage problems, stated that "...frequent flooding occurs in the area south of Deane Street between Sang and Lewis Avenue. This area is fairly flat and is occupied by various private homes and apartments. More intense field work is required to determine the immediate cause of flooding here before a solution to this problem can be reached." Faucette asked the city to "commission that addendum to the study" for that small area plus the area in question west of Sang Avenue to Porter Road, encompassing Houston's property before the Large Scale Development is approved. 22.2 Director Orton expressed concern about the density of development and the effect of more asphalt during the heavy rains. In answer to a question from Orton as to the location of the second access, Houston explained there will be two accesses off Porter Road. Houston commented that he had done some engineering and assured the Board the drainage would be taken care of in the Large Scale Development process. 22.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-1, with Orton voting in the minority. 22.4 ORDINANCE NO. 3064 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK k x 1 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION Director Hess stated that the Planning Commission will ask that the drainage be addressed. 22.5 Faucette asked that the Board consider the addendum to the drainage plan for the area he described. City Manager Grimes stated he would make a note of the request. 22.6 Director Orton stated she voted against the rezoning because she did not feel there should be any development before the drainage problem has been solved. 1 rfl OTHER BUSINESS NEW BOARD COMMITTEES January 22, 1985 Mayor Noland asked if any Directors wished to express objections to the new Board committee membership. With no objections being expressed, Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to adopt the new Board committee list. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. ABCs City Manager Grimes explained it has been the policy of the Board for the past several years to oppose any applications fur retail beer on premises, in zones other than C-2 or C-3. Grimes asked the Board if they wished to have the staff oppose the application for "Dog & Suds" in a C-1 zone. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to instruct the City Manager to oppose the application. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, WARNER CABLE RATES Mayor Noland reported the Board had received a letter signed by a concerned group for cable reform in Fayetteville. Noland commented that his response is that the Board and the City of Fayetteville has no jurisdiction over Warner Cable's rates; that the city has a franchise with Warner Cable to provide service in the city. • Director Orton stated the letter also referred to the quality of the reception and she commented that Warner Cable should not wait until the time to renew the franchise to start upgrading the system. 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 Director Johnson made the following points: 23.6 ;That the cable office operation is the sole responsibility 23.7 of Warner Cable; . 2. A cable snapped in the Leverett Street area over the past weekend and workers repaired it on Sunday morning; 3. That the city has filed a Petition For Relief from all the "must carry" channels outside the State of Arkansas, they in turn have filed special petitions, and the city has filed a counter brief; 23.8 23.9 January 22, 1985 24.1 4. According to federal legislation which has passed, the city has no control over items in the "second tier" (e.g., HBO, Movie Channel, Showtime) and those are programmed at the discretion of Warner Cable; 24.2 5. Cable companies are limited to a 5% increase in the next two years after which there is no limit and that negotiations are presently in process to clarify this. MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 24.3 Director Johnson reported on some legislation which involves changes in the method of establishing a municipal improvement district. Johnson explained that presently the district can be formed by 51% of the assessed land value holders in the area signing a petition. Johnson stated the change being proposed would require (1) the majority of property owners, (2) the majority of real estate, and (3) the majority of assessed value. Johnson commented that this could completely eliminate improvement districts and she asked if the city would consider opposing at least some part of this proposed change. 24.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the Mayor prepare a letter and a resolution of opposition. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. / RESOLUTION NO. 12-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 2 of OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX 1 MINUTES 24.5 The following corrections were made to the Minutes of the meeting of January 8, 1985: 24.6 365.8 In line 1, "made a motion" should be changed to read "moved" 24.7 In line 2, "by adding, with the deletion of" should read "by deleting" 24.8 The minutes of the January 8 meeting were approved as corrected. ADJOURNMENT 24.9 With no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at about 10:00 P.M. 1