Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-02-19 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday,. February 19, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin and Orton; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience CALL TO ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order and asked for a moment of respectful silence. .. .................... ARTS.'TOUR TOUR Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Arts Center Board for an opportunity to discuss with the Directors a proposed tour of performing arts centers in other communities. Frank Sharp, Chairman of the Arts Center Board, explained that the tour originally scheduled for February 12 had been cancelled. Sharp invited any interested Directors to accompany the Arts Center Board members on tours to arts centers in Jonesboro, Blytheville and Bartlesville. It was decided that the most convenient date for the tour to Jonesboro and Blytheville would be March 1st and that the trip to Bartlesville might be scheduled for March 22nd. C.D STREETS Mayor Noland introduced a request by the Community Development Director for authorization to advertise for proposals for engineering services, in connection with improvements to streets under the Community Development Block Grant Program. Community Development Director Sandra Carlisle explained that funds would cover asphalting to less -than -full -city -standards and would cover engineering costs for three street improvement projects. Oak Road (Highway 62 West to Rutledge Lane), Rutledge Lane (one end to the other) and Velda Court (One Mile Road to dead end). 37 37.1 37.2 37.3 38 February 19, 1985 38.1 Birch Avenue (Poplar to dead end), Pear Street (Shady Lane to Easy Avenue), and Easy Avenue (Poplar to Elm). 38.2 Venus Street (Eastern to Lewis), Neptune Street (Eastern to Lewis), Maine Styreet (Lewis to Sang), Gabbard Drive (Mitchell to dead end), and Kaywood Street (Gabbard to dead end). 38.3 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to authorise the Community Development Director to advertise for proposals for engineering services for streets to be 24 feet in width. 38.4 Director Hess asked that information be obtained concerning the cost difference between 24 feet of asphalt and 24 feet of concrete. It was noted that this information would be obtained when the city advertises for proposals. 38.5 Upon roll call, the notion passed, 7-0. UTILITY RELOCATION FOR C.D. PROJECTS 38.6 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution expressing the policy of the city for paying the cost of relocating public utility lines in connection with Community Development Block Grant projects. 38.7 The City Attorney explained that, under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, the Board has the discretion to use Community Development grant funds to pay all or a portion of utility relocation expenses (only for C.D. projects), but must adopt a written policy. In answer to a question, McCord noted that the issue of whether the city should pay for utility relocation costs for public works projects is a policy decision for the Board to make at some future time. 38.8 The City Manager stated it was his opinion that, when utility companies make a conscious effort to bury their facilities at the proper depth and the city needs to dig up the area, the city should pay for the relocation costs; but that, if no conscious effort has been made by the utility company, then the company should pay the relocation costs. 38.9 The Mayor explained that the proposed resolution would authorize C.D. funds to be used to pay "100% of the verified, actual costs incurred by all public utilities in relocating their facilities" provided that the utility lines or facilities meet the following criteria: (1) the facility is not located more than 7 feet inside the right-of-way line; (2) the line, if it is a cross -line, is buried a minimum of 2 1/2 feet below the low points of the roadway cross section --or 3 1/2 feet below the bottom of surfacing, whichever is greater; or in the case of longitudinal lines, if the facility is buried at least 1 February 19, 1985 2 feet deep; and (3) the facility, if it is a pedestal or other above ground utility appurtenance, has been located at or near the right-of-way line, well outside of the street maintenance operation area. Carlisle clarified that, if a utility company does not meet the criteria, the company would then pay 100% of relocation costs. Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the resolution. In answer to a question from Director Orton, McCord explained that, in 1981, the city was involved in litigation and the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled in that case that municipalities were required to bear the cost of relocation when it is necessitated by street improvement projects. McCord stated that in a 1983 case, the U. S. Supreme Court held that, under the Federal Relocation Act, a utility is not a displaced person. McCord stated he pointed out in a September 18, 1984 memo that the reasoning of the Arkansas Supreme Court decision is questionable and the court now might reach a different conclusion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0-1, with Director Martin abstaining because he is an officer of a utility company. RESOLUTION NO. 17-85 APPEARS ON PAGE ;DS OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX L GREENSPACE DISCUSSION • Mayor Noland introduced a request by Director Hess for an opportunity to discuss the way in which the "greenspace" ordinance is administered. Director. Hess proposed that an ordinance a developer who appears before the PRAB in a case where there is a disagreement and/or fees, to appear before the Board. right was not clearly shown in the present be passed which would allow or the Planning Commission, as to dispensation of land Hess stated he thought that ordinance. At the Mayor's request, the City Attorney read the proposed ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading: The City Attorney, in answer to a question from Director Orton, explained that although there is a provision in the ordinance for a variance from the requirements, it does not address the situation where a developer offers to dedicate land and the Planning Commission disapproves. the offer. 39 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 39.5 39.6 39.7 39.8 39.9 40 February 19, 1985 40.1 Upon roll call, the motion to place the ordinance on second reading passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, 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, 6-1, with Orton voting against the motion. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. 40.2 Director Orton stated she would prefer to have the Planning Commission be the first to consider amendments to the Greenspace Ordinance rather than the Board. Director Johnson stated she thought it was the Board's purpose to establish the rules and the Planning Commission to implement them. Director Orton suggested the ordinance be left on third reading to give the Planning Commission a chance to make a recommendation. Director Martin commented that he thought the primary decision should be made by the Planning Commission (after consultation with the PRAB) but that, if there is a misapplication of the rules, the developer should have the right of appeal. 40.3 It was agreed to leave the ordinance on third reading for the Planning Commission to address. 40.4 Director Hess expressed concerns regarding cases of large scale develop- ments (more than 50 acres) where the developer wishes to dedicate five or more acres for a private park within that development, and the dedication often is not allowed but cash in lieu of land is required. Hess stated that these developers usually set up "homeowner associations" which are responsible for the maintenance of private parks, which Hess stated would save the city maintenance costs. Director Martin pointed out that the city granted a waiver of the ordinance to Butterfield Trail Village because of the extensive recreational facilities being installed in that development and because the population at Butterfield Trail would not be using the city's park facilities. 40.5 Planning Commissioner Ernest Jacks addressed the Board, stressing the fact that the Planning Commission did not approve the waiver for Butterfield Trail Village based on the fact that the development was providing its own park but because the population of that development would essentially not be using the city parks. Hess stated he did not think the question of whether or not the residents of a development will use city parks should be an overriding consideration. 40.6 City Attorney McCord explained there is a provision in the ordinance under which the Planning Commission, with the approval of the Board of Directors, may waive or vary the requirements based on certain criteria -- but that the issue of whether or not the residents of a development would be likely to use the city parks is not included in that criteria. 40.7 Director Martin stated he would be in favor of having the Planning Commission consider this matter and give a recommendation to the Board. 1 February 19, 1985 Jacks pointed out that, when the committee drafted the original ordinance, it was addressing public parks; but that the issue of private parks was also considered at length by the committee. Jacks quoted from a letter written by the City Attorney in 1977 which, in citing a case, stated "...if a legislative body were required to give credit to private and recreational areas furnished by a subdivider in a proposed subdivision, the viability of the Master Plan would be destroyed..." McCord stressed that the city's ordinance authorizes, but does not require, the giving of that credit based upon certain criteria. Hess stated the existing ordinance does provide that, upon recommendation of the Planning Commission, a developer can designate land for a private park under certain guidelines, such as that the proposed dedication is consistent with the Fayetteville Parks Plan. Hess stated he thought those guidelines were unclear, were very general, and gave the Planning Commisson large latitude to reject a private park. Hess asked that the Board clarify the private park situation, and stated that private parks could he of great benefit to the city. Director Johnson stated she thought the guidelines should remain somewhat general because of different needs in different areas of the city. Commissioner Jacks donated in lieu of the public parks. expressed concern that, if more private parks are cash, there never will be enough money to develop Hess stated he was concerned that the city, in trying to get money for public parks, has a "greenback" ordinance instead of a "greenspace" ordinance. Jacks pointed out that, when the ordinance was drafted, the committee was aware that cash, in lieu of land, would be required more often because otherwise there would be small bits of park land scattered throughout the city. Director Johnson also spoke in opposition to what she termed "the swiss cheese effect" of having many small parks throughout the city. Director Bumpass pointed out that cash -in -lieu -of -land donations would eventually mean that more large public parks could be built in areas of the city where they are needed. Bumpass noted specifically that there was no large public park for the citizens of northeast Fayetteville. The City Attorney suggested that Director Hess submit to the Board any proposed suggestions for additional criteria or modifications of existing criteria for approving a waiver or variance. Hess indicated his main purpose was to point out to the Planning Commission that many of the existing parks do not come anywhere near meeting the guide- lines set out in the Parks Plan, which Hess stated was unfair to the developers. Jacks commented that some direction to the Planning Commission from the Board would be welcome. In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, the City Attorney clarified that the cash contributions are set aside in an escrow account and, by statute, must be be used for improvements that would serve the subdivision or development. 41 41.1 41.2 41.3 41.4 41.5 41.6 42 February 19, 1985 42.1 Mayor Noland pointed out that, if each subdivision has its own park, in the future many citizens who do not live in a subdivision may not have a park in walking distance. 42.2 Frank Sharp addressed the Board, noting that he had served on the committee which drafted the original ordinance and which he stated was made up of Board members, Planning Commissioners, developers and members of the Parks and Recreation Board. Sharp expressed his concerns that land dedication in lieu of cash would create a situation of a few good parks and other substandard or "swiss cheese" parks. Sharp also expressed concern that even large private parks could only be used by the residents of the development. 42.3 Director Martin commented that, if there needs to be a major park in the community, the Board ought to appropriate the money and the PRAB should recommend that the park be built. Martin stated that requiring cash from the developers to be placed in escrow was admirable in certain respects but he thought the practical matter was that the city will never build another major park. Martin stated the cash requirement is adding to development costs and he was not sure the greenspace ordinance was the best way to support city parks. 42.4 Director Hess suggested the Planning Commission be provided a copy of the proposed ordinance for their consideration. ACT 9 BONDS Environmental Impact 42.5 The Mayor introduced a request by Director Orton for an opportunity to discuss various matters relating to the issuance of Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds by the city. 42.6 42.7 42.8 Director Orton commented that it seemed appropriate to her that the city seriously consider the environmental impact of an industry requesting Act 9 bonds and she suggested the addition to the present criteria used by the Board in considering Act 9 bond requests. Director Orton read the proposed addition drafted by the City Attorney: "Whether the end product or the operation of the proposed project would be detrimental to the environment or the public health." Director Orton made a notion to pass a resolution to add the criteria as proposed. There vas no second to the notion. Director Hess commented that there were not very many industries which are not somewhat detrimental to the environment and he asked how the Board would determine the extent of the detriment. 1 1 February 19, 1985 Director Bumpass noted that he always considers this issue when Act 9 bond requests come before the Board and stated he was pleased that the Board has been able to minimize the impact of industries on the environment. Bumpass also expressed concern over how any Board would determine the extent of the detriment. Director Orton noted that any of the other criteria is subject to interpretation by the Board and she expressed surprise that the issue should have any argument. Director Martin commented that the benefits of municipal revenue financing should be related primarily to the effects of the economic development. Martin stated that, for a clean environment, laws should be passed which apply to everyone. Martin stated he thought it would be difficult to enforce the proposed criteria because it would raise individual opinions about products and because he thought it not in keeping with the intent of industrial revenue financing. Director Hess noted there are some EPA guidelines which set at least minimum regulatory standards for industries. Mayor Noland commented that, although the environmental impact is not included in the criteria, he thought each of the Directors take that issue into consideration, citing as an example the recent request from a bottling industry which was denied by the Board. A citizen in the audience addressed the Board, stating there was some community support for Director Orton's proposal. He stated many people have moved to Fayetteville because of the green space and concluded by remarking "Who knows that Love Canal wasn't built with Act 9 bonds?" Director Johnson stated that, before praising Board efforts in relation to the Wastewater Treatment and Solid Waste Plant, she thought the Board was simply doing what was regulated by the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. Johnson stated she would hate to be put on the spot of deciding what is most detrimental to the city and commented that should be left in the hands of the DPCE and EPA. Director Hess stated that if an industry which he thought was environ- mentally hazardous requested Act 9 bonds, he would probably not approve the request but he didn't think it should be a mandated issue. Director Orton responded that she thought it was "a lot of double talk" for directors to say they are in favor of a clean industry and yet not be in favor of adding that as a criterion. Costs To Taxpayers Director Orton noted that another consideration should be the direct and indirect costs a new or expanded plant would place on the taxpayers and, if there are expenses to the public, are they "one time" or "ongo- 43 43.1 43.2 43.3 43.4 43.5 43.6 43.7 43.8 43.9 44 February 19, 1985 44.1 ing". Orton suggested these are questions which should be answered by the applicants for Act 9 bonds. Orton cited as an example a new industry who had so much trash that the city had to buy extra trucks to service them. Orton commented that problems such as this need to be anticipated in advance. Bumpass cited an example such as a new industry causing the city to need a new fire station. 44.2 Director Martin commented that if the costs to the city of providing extra services were so great, he thought that the new jobs created and taxes forthcoming to the city would offset the costs. 44.3 Orton stated she thought the purpose of the critiria was for them to be a list of questions to be answered by the applicants and that getting answers to the question of cost would help the city in its planning. Acquisition 44.4 Director Orton questioned whether the Board wished to exclude acquisition, except in unusual circumstances, from the use of Act 9 bonds. Orton noted that this question was a big issue when the Board considered the last Act 9 bond request. Public Opposition 44.5 Director Orton asked why so many citizens often phone directors expressing their opposition yet do not come to the hearing to speak in opposition. Orton suggested those persons who hesitate to speak out at a hearing should phone in their reactions to the City Administration, who will notify all the Directors about opposition or support. City Attorney as Bond Attorney 44.6 Director Orton stated that, although the City Attorney should be able to answer questions at bond hearings, she thought he should abstain from advocating an issue in which he has a financial interest. Orton stated that did not happen at the last hearing on a bond request and suggested further discussion on this matter take place at a Finance Committee meeting. Information Submitted Two Weeks Before Hearing 44.7 Director Orton stated she thought the industries requesting Act 9 bonds should be required to have all information to the city at least two weeks before the hearing so that Directors and the public will have time to review it. Orton commented that, for the last request, the Directors received information just hours before the meeting. Mayur Noland stated he thought there were extenuating circumstances in that instance because the industry was attempting to meet a deadline. 1 1 February 19, 1985 Director Hess asked if Board members could be notified once an industry has made contact with the City Attorney so that any correspondence from Board members expressing their concerns could be included with the City Attorney's correspondence. The City Attorney suggested that, once an industry applies for a Memorandum of Intent, correspondence could be sent out at that time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion the Board add to its criteria for Act 9 bond requests, "Whether the proposed bond issue would be for acquisition of existing industry or for the development and construction of new industry". Bumpass stated he felt it would have to be an unusual circumstance before the use of Act 9 bond money is appropriate for the acquisition of existing industry. Director Martin spoke in opposition to the motion, stating that he thought the primary intent of the criteria was to foster economic development and jobs in the community, and that he was not in favor of such a limitation being imposed in the criteria. Director Bumpass pointed out that the wording of the original resolution which sets out the Act 9 bond criteria states that the Board would "consider", not require, the criteria. Director Johnson stated she thought the Board has already said it is not in favor of the use of Act 9 bond money for acquisition of industry, although the Board has supported failing industries in cases where jobs could be saved. Director Bumpass, noting that additions to the criteria could make the list of criteria rather long, decided to withdraw his motion. Director Orton withdrew her second to that motion. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Director Martin, speaking on behalf of the Finance Committee, reported that the committee at its last meeting made tentative decisions concerning the implementation of the Pay Plan and acted on the Street Department budget. Martin noted, however, that the committee will not have a recommendation until the entire budget has been reviewed. SLUDGE DISPOSAL Mayor Noland introduced further consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an :amendment to a contract for engineering services with CH2M Hill, for the interim disposal of sewage treatment plant sludge (tabled at the February 5 meeting). The Mayor 45 45.1 45.2 45.3 45.4 45.5 45.6 45.7 45.8 46 February 19, 1985 46.1 noted that the Water and Sewer committee had met with the engineers and recommends that the Board authorize the engineers to proceed with the design of a belt filter press installation and to proceed with negotiations to obtain a temporary belt filter press during the time that the new belt -press is being installed. The Mayor reported the committee discussed negotiating with the contractor concerning a lump sum deduction if the sewage sludge pond is eliminated. 46.2 Dr. Cliff Thompson, representing CH2M Hill, addressed the Board. Thompson stated the city has the option of using either existing land or a landfill to dispose of sludge. Thompson noted the cost analysis shows that, for the interim sludge period, the belt press will pay for itself under almost any circumstances and appears to be most cost- effective. 46.3 Thompson, reporting on the progress of the Pilot Plant Study, commented that thus far the process has performed very well and under permit limits. Thompson reported that the EPA and ADPCE are extremely pleased with the performance and that the study will continue through April and will begin again for two months during warm weather. 46.4 Reporting on overall program status, Thompson presented the Board with a cost comparison chart which showed Facility Plan estimate vs. cur- rent estimate for the wastewater system improvements. Thompson pointed out that in 1983, the project was estimated at $28 million and $11 million of grant money was expected -- that currently $15 million in grant money has been obtained. Thompson reported the current program cost estimate to be $36 million. Thompson elaborated on those items shown on the chart which have added to the original cost estimate, noting that most of the cost increases 'were due to added work items and inflation. 46.5 Director Martin asked why the interim sludge problem exists. Thompson explained that on January 1, 1984, ADPCE required the city to have an extra thirty days of sludge storage. Thompson stated that shortly after that time, it was discovered that some of the available land for sludge burial had to be reserved for burial of grit and screenings from the new plant, and it was found there was not enough land to operate until the new facility was on-line. Thompson stated the engineers then recommended the city purchase an additional 25 acres. Thompson explained the engineers analyzed an alternative for treating the sludge on the existing site but it was not accepted by the regulatory agencies. Thompson stated they then developed an alternative which suggested the city either use the 25 acres or use a landfill. Thompson noted that the problem of the interim sludge didn't come up until the engineers were well into the design of the plant and really wasn't in the engineers' work scope. Thompson pointed out that the belt press idea was not included earlier because it is not needed for the long term solution to the sludge problem but it does solve a temporary problem. 1 1 February 19, 1985 Director Hess asked if the sludge pond would be done away with. Thompson explained that the sludge pond was mandated by a regulatory agency but the engineers are proposing now that the belt press will serve the same purpose but that neither will really be needed (data shows that over a 35 year period only one occasion was shown where more than twenty days of storage would be needed). Thompson stated there is a possibility they may recommend the city negotiate a change order with the contractor which would delete the pond, have the contractor install the belt press, or have a second contractor install the belt press. Mayor Noland explained the resolution would authorize the expenditure of $48,000 to design a belt press and make the necessary modifiations to the structure of the building to accomodate the new installation. 47 47.1 47.2 Diiectoi Hess, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass the resolution. 47.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 18-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 2/7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X9' BID AWARD/WATER LINE EXTENSION Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the award of Bid 11616 for the Van Asche Drive/Gregg Avenue 8" water line extension. The Mayor explained the city would pay the cost of oversizing the line. The Mayor reported six bids were received on the project (with the procedure being that the developer would pay the City the amount of the low bid for the 4 -inch line). The Mayor explained the cost to the city would be $7,865.00. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion that the contract be awarded to the low bidder, Baldwin Construction Company, for the base bid in the amount of $18,535. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 19-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 22/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX OTHER BUSINESS INFORMATION PROGRAM FOR ELECTION Mayor Noland introduced the question of an information program to acquaint the voters with the issues involved in the upcoming special 47.4 47.5 47.6 48 February 19, 1985 48.1 sales tax election. The Mayor asked the Board to instruct the staff as to whether publicity should be in the form of a newspaper advertisement, a flyer, or both. 48.2 Director Orton suggested a flyer be designed, commenting that not everyone subscribes to a newspaper. Director Johnson spoke in favor of a flyer but only for residential customers. Johnson suggested advertising be reduced by half, with the exception of the first ad. In response to some suggestions by Directors for changes to the proposed text, City Manager Grimes asked the Directors to submit their recommen- dations to the Assistant City Manager. Director Johnson suggested that volunteers be used to stuff envelopes, commenting that the proposed wages for stuffers were too high. AIRPORT LEASE/OLD WHITE HANGAR 48.3 Director Lancaster, speaking for the Airport Committee, reported that the new Fixed Base Operator (Aero Tech Services) will be in operation at Drake Field as of March 1 Lancaster introduced a resolution author- izing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a lease with Aero -Tech Services for the Old White Hangar Building at the Airport. The City Attorney explained that the resolution would authorize the lease of the Old White Hanger in its entirety to Aero Tech Services, for a three-year term, for $1,000 per month. 48.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass the resolution. 48.5 Mike Freeman addressed the Board, speaking for Air Midwest -Skyways. Freeman urged the Board not to pass the resolution, stating that it was important to Skyways to be able to operate as an F.B.O out of the Old White Hangar. Freeman stated he thought Fayetteville could handle two F.B.O.'s at Drake Field and that Skyways' Fayetteville Flying Service would be "a good corporate citizen" if given the oppor- tunity. 48.6 Director Johnson noted that the long range plan for the Airport indicates that, if there is to be another F.B.O at Drake Field, it should be on the east side. Johnson stated she thought the Airport would welcome another F.B.O. on the east side of Drake Field. 48.7 Bill McKinzie, pilot for Tyson, concerns about getting fuel from farm", after Skyways ceases to begins operation. addressed the Board, expressing his what he considers "not a real fuel be the F.B.O. and before Aero -Tech 48.8 A representative of Aero Tech described the temporary fuel farm situation which would be in operation pending the installation of the permanent fuel farm. He explained that fuel (instead of being pumped from a 1 • February 19,1985 tanker into underground tanks, through a filter, into fuel tanks, and then filtered into aircraft) would be pumped directly from a tanker, through a filter, and into the fuel tanks, bypassing the operation which pumps the fuel into and out of underground tanks. He explained that much research had been undertaken to be sure the temporary operation would meet FAA standards and that testing which has been done has been approved. Director Bumpass stated he thought McKinzie might have reason for serious concern about the interim fuel, and noted that McKinzie has been a long-time tenant at the Airport. Airport Manager Dale Frederick commented that McKinzie's concerns were brought to his attention and he assured him that the proposed filtering system was proper and met FAA criteria. Frederick stressed that it is part of his daily routine to check on the fuel system at the Airport to be sure that FAA requirements have been met and that the Airport management does not anticipate any problems with the temporary fuel farm. McKinzie asked that he be permitted to buy fuel from "an established fuel farm" until such time as the new fuel farm is installed. He stated he "just has a bad feeling" about the temporary fuel farm. Director Lancaster noted that, depending on weather conditions, it may be a few weeks before the permanent fuel farm is installed. Director Hess suggested an exception be made for McKinzie to purchase fuel from Skyways. In answer to a question from the audience, Director Lancaster stated the exception would not be made for others. Upon roll call, the motion to approve the resolution passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 20-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 273 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(X/ Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to permit Air Midwest -Skyways to furnish fuel to Tyson, Inc. for their jet aircraft for two or three weeks until such time as the new fuel farm is installed and approved by the proper authorities. Director Bumpass commented that permission to others. Director stating he didn't think the city before they get started". he saw no problem extending the same Lancaster expressed his opposition, should "put Aero -Tech out of business Airport staff Ede Hogue expressed concern that an assumption was being made that the above -ground fuel tank was not safe for one or two people. Hogue explained that the emphasis, as far as the FAA is concerned, is on the filtration system, not on whether the tanks are above or below the ground. Hogue pointed out that the city simply chooses to place the tanks below the ground for reasons of permanence. Hogue 49 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 49.5 49.6 49.7 49.8 50 February 19, 1985 50.1 expressed concern that it could be implied that there is room for doubt under one system and a guarantee under another system. 50.2 A member of the audience asked if others would be allowed to use the same arrangement. To that, Director Martin commented that he didn't think it was fair to extend the privilege to one pilot and not to others. Director Lancaster commented that he would probably vote against his own motion because he didn't think the pilot has a problem. Mayor Noland stated he was in favor of the motion because he'd like to keep McKinzie's business. 50.3 Upon roll call, the notion failed, 3-4, with Directors Noland, Bumpass and Lancaster voting in favor and Directors Johnson, Martin, Orton and Hess voting against the motion. CITY ATTORNEY'S COMPENSATION 50.4 Mayor Noland, referring to correspondence regarding the matter of the City Attorney's compensation, requested that this matter be referred to the Finance Committee. WARRANTY ITEMS IN CITY HALL 50.5 Director Hess, referring to recent correspondence between the Assistant City Manager and Kan -Ark Industries, asked McWethy whether certain warranty items had received attention from the contractor. McWethy stated the contractor has assured him he would contact the various subcontractors involved and that the work would be done. Director Hess asked McWethy to keep the Board informed. McWethy confirmed that the warranty expires on February 24. CONCRETE CONTRACT EXTENSION 50.6 City Manager Grimes reported that the city's concrete contract is due to expire this month and he requested the expiration date be extended until the March 19th meeting at which time bids can be sought for a new contract. 50.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Noland, rade a notion to extend the expiration date of the concrete contract to Mareh 19. Upon roll call, the notion passed, 7-0. T -HANGAR FIRE WALLS 50.8 City Manager Grimes noted that, when the Board approved $4200 for materials for T -Hangar fire walls, labor was not included because 1 • February 19, 1985 It was anticipated that work would be done in-house. Grimes recommended that, to get the job done more rapidly, the city contract with Brown Drywall to install the fire walls at a cost of $3438, and an ordinance be passed to waive competitive bids. The City Attorney read an 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 ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3068 APPEARS ON PAGE lb- OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK W. SUPPORT FOR REVENUE SHARING Director Johnson brought up the issue of the President's proposal to eliminate revenue sharing and she noted that revenue sharing comprises about 13% of the city's budget. Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion that a letter be sent to the President and Congress supporting revenue sharing and the extension of funding for construction grants programs. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. MINUTES 51 51.1 51.2 51.3 The following corrections were made to the Minutes of the February 51.4 5, 1985 meeting: 389.3 "court order" should be changed to "EPA administrative order" 389.4 Delete "the same date as the county election" • 393.2 "something underneath the ground" should be changed to "the jack cylinder casing" With those corrections, the Minutes were approved. 51.5 ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at about 10:30 P.M. 51.6