HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-05 MinutesJc
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, March 5, 1985 in the Board Room of City Hall, 113
W. Mountain Street, 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, with seven Directors present,
and asked for a moment of respectful silence.
PARKS TAX
52.1 The Mayor introduced a recommendation, from the Planning Commission's
meeting of February 25, that the City Board call for a referendum
on the question of supplying revenue for parks through an increase
in the property or sales tax, or by means of another tax.
52.2 Mayor Noland noted that the proposed 1985 budget includes several
items on the "priority list" which have been tentatively funded for
parks use.
52.3 City Manager Grimes informed the Board that $20,914.75 in fees has
currently been collected under the Greenspace Ordinance. Grimes explained
that, because some development took place during the time the greenspace
issue was under litigation, the question of a "cut-off" date is still
under discussion by the Planning Commission.
52.4 Mayor Noland reported that a meeting is scheduled to be held following
a Finance Committee meeting (at about 4:30 P.M.) on Tuesday, March
12, for the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board to update the Board
on its activities.
52.5 Director Orton commented that this was not a good time to be voting
on another tax, in light of upcoming elections concerning property
taxes for the schools, the county jail and the sewage treatment plant
sales tax. Orton noted that the existing one -cent sales tax may be
in effect for as long as five to eight years.
52.6 Director Johnson stated that there is no state legislation which would
allow the city to legally pass another sales tax. Johnson commented
1
March 5, 1985
that the• Parks Department has been given a percentage of the sales
tax which was promised them and that this amount has not been lowered.
Johnson stated she would not be in favor of a new sales tax now or
anytime in the near future. Johnson commented that, if parks need
more money, the Parks Department should request funds through the
regular budgeting process.
53
53.1
Director Lancaster commented that, in light of pending sewer and school 53.2
taxes, it would be "a sad mistake" to call another election, now or
later.
r
Director Hess stated that although he was in favor of the idea, he
agreed with the other directors that it was an inappropriate time
to call another election. Hess stated he thought the Planning Commission's
general intent was to express concern over whether there is enough
revenue to continue maintaining the parks system and to continue acquiring
and building new facilities.
Director Martin pointed out that there is between $800,000 and $900,000
in the proposed 1985 budget for parks activities, including improvements.
Martin commented that, although he vehemently opposed an additional
tax, he thought the figures show the Greenspace Ordinance is not a
very effective means of funding.
David Lashley commented on the Parks Board's position towards the
actions of the Planning Commission. Lashley quoted from the minutes
of the last PRAB meeting, as follows:
"The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board supports the Greenspace
Ordinance as the most equitable way to finance public parks
and the PRAB appreciates the Planning Commission's efforts
to resolve the conflict."
Lashley stated that the motion passed unanimously and the comment
was made that the PRAB's intent for the Greenspace Ordinance was to
provide a means for funding of public parks, that PRAB supports the
Greenspace Ordinance and believes that it is more appropriate than
a tax millage. Lashley commented that, should the Board decide to
pass a millage, "we'll take that too". Lashley stated the PRAB believes
it has factual information and historic documentation that justifies
the Greenspace Ordinance and the DRAB believes that the fee exacts
moneys from those who add usage to the public parks, to be passed
on to the users.
.Lashley reported the following: that in 1981 (the year the ordinance
passed and development was at a low ebb) about $12,000 in fees was
collected; that because of litigation, fees were not collected froth
November of 1983 until April of 1984; that during that period of time
a developer, instead of asking for a return of the fee, elected to
donate a $7700 fee; that from May through December of 1984, the PRAR
53.4
53.5
53.6
53.7
53.8
53.9
•
54
March 5, 1985
54.1 approved fees of $71,000, the Planning Office "booked" $43,850 of
that amount, collected $6200 and approved $22,000 to be collected;
and that $15,000 in fees are "on hold" pending a decision concerning
three old plats. Lashley explained that the difference between the
$71,000 and the $43,850 reflects plats "on hold" in the Planning Office.
Lashley commented that the bottom line is that there is $28,000 which
should be guaranteed to be collected either now or within a three-year
period.
54.2 The City Attorney clarified that, under the ordinance, the fee for
a Large Scale Development can be paid over a three-year period but,
for a subdivision plat, the fee per lot is payable as each lot 1s
sold or no later than five years from the date of final plat approval.
54.3 Director Bumpass agreed that the time was inappropriate to call for
an election, but noted that the city had not given the ordinance enough
time to work. Bumpass cited an example of a city which had such an
ordinance in effect for forty years and which he said has "one of
the most effective parks systems in the southwest". Bumpass asked
that action on the tax be deferred.
54.4 Stan Green, Planning Commissioner, addressed the Board. Green commented
that, if you asked the seven Planning Commissioners (who were present)
why they voted in favor of the motion, you would probably get seven
different opinions. Green read, from the Planning Commission minutes,
the motion of the Commission:
54.5 "...that the City Board give serious consideration to placing,
on a city-wide ballot, some (either through property tax
millage or sales tax or some other means) method of raising
moneys on a city-wide basis for financing the development
and operation of the public parks system on a continuing
basis..."
54.6 Green noted that, in discussion, one of the Commissioners said she
would vote for the motion if the words "placing on a city-wide ballot"
were eliminated; that the Commissioner who made the motion said the
issue didn't necessarily have to be on the ballot as long as there
was some way to provide assurance that the funds were going to be
obligated on a continuing basis.
54.7 Green stated that he did not think he voted on a recommendation that
the city increase taxes to fund the public parks system and he would
not vote for such a tax until he knew how the money would be spent.
Green commented that he thought the Planning Commission was really
asking the Board to look at "some other means" as opposed to another
tax. Green stated some Planning Commissioners think the ordinance
works equitably and could not be improved upon and others think there
1
March 5, 1985
ought to be a better way to provide the funding. Green added that
it was his intent that the Board consider the greenspace ordinance
on a longer-term basis.
55
55.1
Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to table the 55.2
issue indefinitely. Upon loll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
EASEMENT REDUCTION/GREGORY HOUSE
The Mayor introduced a request from Gregory House for ari ordinance
reducing an easement across Lot 11, Sunset Woods. PUD, from 15 feet
to 10 feet.
Gregory House explained that he did not deliberately place the house
in its present location [encroaching on the easement]. House explained
he had intended to locate the house on the edge of . the easement and
only became aware of the encroachment after Planning Administrator
Bobbie Jones noticed it on a survey. House noted letters were on
file from all involved utilities which indicate no objection to reducing
the width of the easement. The Mayor pointed out that two of the
utilities involved have indicated they are not in favor of reducing
the size of the easement. House added that those two utility companies
have stated that they do not object to the location of the structure.
The City Attorney pointed out that this case represents a recurring
problem in the city and that. the Planning Administrator has advised
him that she routinely informs building permit applicants that structures
cannot be located over easements. McCord stated that in researching
the matter, he was surprised to find no specific prohibition in the
Zoning Ordinance, the Subdivision Regulations or the Building Code.
McCord.noted however that the common law rule provides that an easement
cannot be utilized in a manner which is detrimental to or impedes
the purpose of the easement. McCord added that, if the structure
precluded use of the easement by any utility company, the company
would have the right to seek recourse. McCord pointed out that the
applicant is not in violation of any city ordinance and does not need
relief from the Board of Directors to secure a Certificate of Occupancy.
McCord stressed that this case points out the need to amend the ordinance
to contain an express prohibition against erecting a structure which
encroaches within an easement, so that the city can have recourse
against -a repeat offender. McCord added that he was not implying
that Gregory House was a repeat offender.
Director Orton asked the City Attorney if the city imposes a penalty
when a building is not located where it was originally shown to be
on the plat. McCord explained that, if the structure encroaches on
required setbacks, there would be a zoning violation (which is a criminal
offense) and the city could prosecute for that violation.
•
•
55.3
55.4
55.5
55.6
56
56.1
March 5, 1985
Director Hess, seconded by Orton, made a motion to deny the request
for the easement reduction, in light of the fact that two utility
companies objected to the reduction. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
7-0.
56.2 Director Lancaster asked that the City Attorney draft an ordinance
to cover the prohibition as discussed.
SIGN APPEAL/NELMS CHEVROLET
56.3 The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the
sign ordinance submitted by Nelms Chevrolet at 2403 North College
Avenue. Noland explained the request is to erect a 28 -foot -tall,
81 -square -foot free-standing sign at a 40 -foot setback from street
right-of-way. The Mayor pointed out that the maximum size for free-
standing signs of this type is 75 square feet, unless the Board determines
that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties.
56.4 Robert Parker, representing Don Nelms, explained that the main reason
they make the request is because they must rent a sign from G.M. which
uses standard -sized signs.
56.5 Director Orton pointed out that there are usually many sizes of standard
signs and she suggested a size be used which would comply with the
sign ordinance. Parker responded that G.M. conducted a survey and
recommended an 81 -square -foot sign. Parker added that Nelms had volun-
tarily removed their old sign and presently has no sign.
56.7 Director Johnson pointed out that the Board had granted variances
to Jones -Olds, Lewis Ford and Houston -Taylor, for 100 -square -foot
signs at 40 -foot setbacks. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin,
made a motion to grant the variance for a 28 -foot -tall, 81 -square -foot
free-standing sign at a 40 -foot setback.
56.8 Director Orton asked what reason the Board had for granting variances
for larger signs to the other dealerships. Orton stated she recalled
one variance was granted because there were two dealerships on one
lot. Orton commented that it was not fair to grant variances for
larger signs to only one type of business. Johnson responded that
Nelms should not be penalized since variances were granted to other
car dealers. Director Bumpass stated he recalled variances being
granted for existing signs or in cases where the setback was increased
to allow a free-standing sign. Director Orton asked that some background
information be provided on the other variances which were granted
before jumping to the conclusion that the situations were equal.
Orton commented that granting a variance for someone who simply wants
a largerrsign would be unfair to many other businesses who have removed
old, non -conforming signs and installed conforming signs.
•
1
L
March 5, 1985
Jack Clayborn, representing Nelms, explained that 40 feet back from
the curb would be an ideal location for the sign because there is
an existing underground wire box at that -point which can be used for
the new sign. Clayborn explained that the next standard size down
from 81 square feet would be about 63 square feet. Clayborn pointed
out the proposed sign would be smaller than two existing non -conforming
signs At the intersection of College and Township.
Orton commented that a variance should only be requested when it is
not possible to install a conforming sign. Clayborn explained that
the G.M. survey which was done to determine the size of the sign was
based on -the size of the dealership and the amount of traffic in the
area.
Director Hess commented that he shared Director Orton's concern but
never considered the sign ordinance to be totally rigid. Hess stated
he,thought•Nelms was trying to be very reasonable and he didn't think
the proposed sign would be unsightly.
At Director Orton's request, the City Attorney read an excerpt from
the ordinance which states that the Board of Sign Appeals [the Board
of Directors] has jurisdiction
" .'.to hear requests for variances from the literal provisions
of this chapter for the erection of a new sign in instances
where strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical
difficulties due to circumstances unique to the individual
_sign under consideration, and grant such variance only when
it is demonstrated that such action will be in keeping with
the spirit and intent of this chapter."
Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-1, with Director Orton voting
against the motion. Director Lancaster commented that he voted in
favor of the motion because Nelms removed their existing sign.
SIGN APPEAL/BRYCE DAVIS
The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of, the
Sign Ordinance submitted by Bryce Davis for a sign at 3307 Wedington
Drive. Noland explained the petitioner requests a 32 -square -foot
roof sign. Noland pointed out that roof signs are not allowed unless
the Board determines that there are practical difficulties in utilizing
a wall sign. and the applicant demonstrates that the variance would
be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance.
57
57.1
57.2
57.3•
57.4
57.5
57.6
57.7
Bryce Davis stated he wished to change his request for a roof sign 57.8
to a request for a free-standing sign, to be 4 feet by 8 feet in size,
•
58
March 5, 1985
58.1 nu more than 16 feet high and set back 70 feet from Highway 16. Davis
displayed a site plan and a sketch of the proposed sign which he explained
would be located in front of the laundry.
58.2
58.3
Davis explained there is a canopy on the property with signs on it
but that he has no sign to advertise the laundry. Davis noted there
would be at least four businesses in the shopping center.
Mayor Noland pointed out to Davis that only one free-standing sign
is permitted for the entire property (even though it comprises three
lots) and he suggested to Davis that he may not want to take up all
the space on the free-standing sign to advertise just one business.
58.4 It was pointed out that there is another free-standing sign on the
property which advertises an oil company and it was suggested that
Davis share a free-standing sign with the oil company. Davis expressed
a preference for having a smaller sign which he said would be more
in keeping with the neighborhood.
58.5
Director Hess suggested the possibility of a lot line adjustment and
it was clarified that, for a shopping center, regardless of the number
of lots, only one free-standing sign is permitted.
58.6 Davis noted the oil company's free-standing sign is not presently
on the lot.
58.7 Director- Bumpass suggested Davis give further consideration to his
plans for a sign.
58.8 Director Orton, seconded by Hess, made a motion to table the request
until the next Board meeting. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
7-O.
FLOWAGE FEE
58.9 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance which would impose a 5 -cent -per -
gallon flowage fee on scheduled aircraft carriers that provide their
own aviation fuel at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport.
58.10
Ede Hogue, speaking for the staff at the Airport, explained that in
the past a flowage fee has been charged to Fayetteville Flying Service
through their lease agreement with the City to operate as the F.B.O.
(which lease expired February 28th). Hogue explained this ordinance
would allow the continuance of the same flowage fee. In answer to
a question from Director Hess, Hogue explained the fee may be raised
by the city. Hogue added that, besides the one cent paid by the airline,
the city receives an additional one -cent fee from the gasoline distrib-
utor.
1
March 5, 1985
The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney. Director
Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second
time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further
suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the third and final time.
Dick Seddon, speaking for Air Midwest Skyways, explained that they
have more capacity for fuel than what is needed by the airline and
he requested the use of that capacity for storage of fuel which he
stated would be transported to other cities when needed. Seddon pointed
out that if the amount of their fuel purchases go down, the price
of the fuel will go up. Seddon added that the airline wishes to pay
a flowage fee only for fuel which goes into their aircraft (noting
that they presently are taxed for all the fuel that goes into the
fuel farm). Ede Hogue stated that the airport staff would be willing
to discuss this proposal with Air Midwest Skyways and that, should
they agree to make a change, the ordinance could be amended at a later
date.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 77-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3069 APPEARS ON PAGE o(cQ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK x>0
FUEL FARM LAND LEASE
The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a one-year lease agreement with Air Midwest Skyways for
the land upon which their fuel farm is located, at $440 per month.
Ede Hogue explained that $440 per month has been assessed in the past
for Fayetteville Flying Service's right to sell fuel at Drake Field
but did not specifically cover the rental of the land on which the
airline's fuel farm is located. Hogue added that the proposed agreement
would allow for billing on a month-to-month basis, and would terminate
the old agreement.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass the
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 21-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 2812 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XX
59
59.1
59.2
59.3
59.4
59.5
59.6
60
60.1
60.2
60.3
60.4
60.5
60.6
60.7
60.8
March:5, 1985
AIRLINE LEASE MODIFICATIONS
The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute modifications to lease agreements with Air Midwest Skyways
and Metro Airlines. Director Lancaster, speaking for the Airport
Committee, explained that the rental rates and landing fees would
remain the same as those in 1984.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass the
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-85 APPEARS ON PAGE -257 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXI
DRAINAGE ENGINEERING
The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a contract for engineering services with Northwest Engineers,
Inc. for a detailed drainage study of three areas located west of
Garland Avenue, east of Porter Road and north of Wedington Drive.
City Manager Grimes recommended that all three areas be studied at
one time because they cannot be logically separated due to the drainage
flow through all three areas.
Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to pass the resolution.
In answer to a question from Director Martin, the City Attorney explained
that the competitive bidding statute does not apply to professional
services. City Manager Grimes added that Northwest Engineers had
done the original drainage study for the surrounding area. Director
Bumpass noted that, in essence, this is a waiver of the professional
selection procedure because of the previous work done by the firm.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 23-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 291:L OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK X X
EASEMENT VACATION
The Mayor introduced an ordinance vacating and abandoning a portion
of a 20 -foot easement running south from Sycamore Street, between
Gregg and Leverett Avenues. Director Hess stated he would abstain
from discussion and voting because of his involvement in the construction
of apartments on property where the easement is located.
March 5, 1985
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance,on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 6-0-1, with Hess abstaining. The City Attorney read the ordinance
for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made
a motion to further suspend. the rules and place the ordinance on third
and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0-1, with
Hess abstaining. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third
and final time.
In answer to Director Bumpass, Hess clarified that utility representatives,
during Plat Review Committee meeting, had stated there were no utilities
located within the easement and none of them objected to vacating
the easement.
The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to
the ordinance. With no public opposition expressed, the roll was
called and the ordinance passed, 6-0-1, with Hess abstaining.
ORDINANCE NO. 3070 APPEARS ON PAGE (712,r OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION
BOOK )()(
BID WAIVER/LIQUID OXYGEN
The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving competitive bidding requirements
for the one-year purchase of liquid oxygen for the Pollution Control
Plant.
The City Attorney 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, .7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second
time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further
suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the third and final time.
The Mayor noted that a letter from the Purchasing Officer explains
there is approximately a 10% increase in cost over previous prices
which have been in effect for over two years.
In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Purchasing Officer
Sturman Mackey explained that there is another supplier, Air Products
of Fort Smith, who could supply the oxygen. Mackey added that, due
to the fact that the facilities placed by Linde Division at the Pollution
Control Plant will have to be moved sometime during the construction
phase of the Pollution Control Plant expansion, the staff feels it
would be wise for the city to retain Union Carbide -Linde Division
61
61.1
61.2
61.3
61.4
61.5
61.6
61.7
62
62.1
March 5, 1985
as the supplier for liquid oxygen. Upon roll call, the ordinance
passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3071 APPEARS ON PAGE 04. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK Xx i
62.2 Mackey recommended that, after the Pollution Control Plant expansion
is completed, it would be wise to go out for competitive bids for
this product.
BID AWARDS #613 & 613A/POLICE VEHICLES
62.3 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of award of Bids #613 and #613A
for police vehicles.
62.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid
for one Police Chief's vehicle to Nelms Chevrolet in the amount of
$10,814; and to award the bid for five police pursuit vehicles to
Lewis Ford in the amount of $11,443.32 per vehicle.
62.5 Mayor Noland pointed out that three bids were submitted for each item
and that Nelms and Lewis Ford were the low bidders.
62.6 Director Hess commended the Purchasing Officer, noting that the total
amount for the vehicles is below the preliminary budget.
62.7 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
BID AWARD:CRASH/FIRE/RESCUE VEHICLE
62.8 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of award of bid for the purchase
of a crash/fire/rescue vehicle for the Airport Fire Station. The
Mayor explained that the city would be eligible for federal funding
for 90% of the cost of this vehicle.
62.9 Director Johnson made a motion to award the bid to Oshkosh Truck Company,
subject to the alternate bid, with a 1,000 -gallon water tank and a
single roof turret. Mackey noted the alternate bid would be a reduction
of $2,150 from the $211,106 bid. Mackey also reported that Oshkosh
has agreed to pay for expenses for two persons to make an inspection
trip to Oshkosh, Wisconsin.
62.10 Director Johnson amended the motion by adding that the purchase be
contingent upon acceptance by the FAA, the Fire Chief and the Purchasing
Officer. The motion was seconded by Director Hess.
1
March 5, 1985
In answer to a question from the Mayor, Mackey estimated arrival time
to be anywhere from 300 calendar days to 2 1/2 years, due to a long
waiting list.
Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
ACT 9 BONDS/FAYETTEVILLE ASSOCIATES #1, LTD.
In regards to the proposed ordinance authorizing the issuance of $6,850,000
in Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue bonds for financing the•costs
of expanding, constructing and equipping the Fayetteville Coca-Cola/7-Up
Bottling Plant, the Mayor reported that one Director has recommended
this item be referred to the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of
Commerce. The City Attorney advised that the public hearing be opened
in light of the fact that notice had been published, and that the
hearing be continued to the first meeting in April, at the request
of the applicant.
The Mayor opened the public hearing. City Manager Grimes reported
that Dale Christy, Chamber of Commerce President, has also recommended
the referral of this request to the Industrial Committee and Grimes
suggested that committee submit a recommendation to the Board of Directors.
Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the request
be referred to the Industrial Committee of the Chamber of Commerce.
The Mayor noted that the public hearing is continued until the first
meeting in April.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
MINUTES
The following additions, corrections and changes were made to the
minutes of the February 19th meeting:
43.3
43.7
43.7
43.8, 44.3
44.3
At the end of line 1, delete ","
Change the first sentence to read: "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."
Change "hazardous" to "detrimental"
Correct "criteria" to read "criterion"
In line 1, change "it" to "them"
63.1
63.2
63.3
63.4
63.5
63.6
63.7
63.8
63.9
63.10
63.11
63.12
63.13
64
March 5, 1985
64.1 44.5 Add at the end of the paragraph: ", who will notify
all the Directors about opposition or support."
64.2 48.2 Change "everyone does not subscribe" to "not everyone
subscribes"
64.3 48.2 Change "a half -page ad be used" to "that advertising
be reduced by half"
64,4 50.2 Preface this paragraph with "A member of the audience
asked if others would be allowed to use the same
arrangement. To that,"
64.5 50.4 Correct "reffered" to read "referred"
64.6 With those changes, the minutes were approved as distributed.
OTHER BUSINESS
LETTER FROM ROBERT HAY/COLLEGE OF BUSINESS
64.7 Director Bumpass explained that a letter he received from Robert Hay
of the University of Arkansas College of Business (regarding audit
research services), came about as a result of casual conversation
with some professors. Bumpass commented that the University has a
vast pool of resources and the city, in the past, has worked with
students on projects which provide practical experience to students
and are of benefit to the city and the taxpayers.
64.8 Director Orton commented that Hay's proposal suggests the University
would charge the city to have students evaluate expert performance
auditors. Orton stated she realized the students would receive a
learning experience but she wondered of what value this would be to
the city.
64.9 Director Johnson stated she thought the proposal should have gone
before the Finance Committee when the performance audit was first
established. Johnson commented that, since the city has committed
$22,000 for a performance audit to be conducted, she thought the proposal
was out of place.
WARRANTY ITEMS IN CITY HALL
64.10 Director Hess asked Assistant City Manager McWethy for a progress
report on the outstanding warranty items in City Hall. McWethy reported
that the City Attorney sent a letter to Kan -Ark Industries on February
27th and that, as of now, every outstanding item (with the exception
of carpeting) has been repaired. McWethy stated he had been assured
that carpeting repairs would be completed this week. Director Hess
expressed appreciation to McWethy for his follow-up work on the warranty
items.
ai
March 5, 1985
NEW CABINETS IN BOARD ROOM
Assistant City Manager McWethy called the Board's attention to recent
cabinet work (for video cassette recorder, slide projector and overhead
projector) done by employee Ken Smith for the Board Room.
BOAT DOCK INCIDENT
Mayor Noland reported that the matter of medical bills (in relation
to the shooting incident at the Lake Fayetteville boat dock) has been
handled privately. Director Orton pointed out that there is a city
ordinance which prohibits guns at city parks and she expressed hopes
that in the future there would be no more guns in the city parks.
BRONZE PLAQUE FOR CITY HALL
Director Johnson reported that on August 22nd she met with the architects
to plan for a bronze plaque for the entryway of City Hall and had
been assured it would be ready in six months. Johnson explained that
a bronze rubbing which was sentto the city in September was apparently
never received and that another rubbing will be sent by the architects.
HOUSE BILL 706
Director Johnson reported on House Bill 706, which would prohibit
municipalities from extending or providing any utility service to
an annexed area if that service is already being provided by another
public utility, without that public utility's permission. Johnson
commented that this is not conducive to orderly expansion and growth.
Johnson asked that the Board go on record as being in opposition to
House Bill 706 and she suggested the Mayor send a letter to the legislators
expressing that opposition.
Director Johnson, seconded by
in opposition to House Bill
7-0.
Noland, made a motion to pass a resolution
706. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
RESOLUTION NO. 24-85 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK xx
2,q(e OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION
Director Johnson reported that she has written to State Representative
Charles Stewart regarding one of six joint resolutions under consideration
which indicates that three constitutional amendments will be chosen
to be presented to voters in November of 1986. Johnson explained
this would involve the state fully funding all operational costs for
public schools. Johnson reported that one sponsor of the Bill has
indicated that this funding would require another one -cent state sales
tax and the elimination of all city and county turnbacks. Johnson
65.1
65.2
65.3
65.4
65.6
65.7
66
March 5, 1985
66.1 commented that this would have a detrimental effect on the City of
Fayetteville and she suggested that opposition be expressed by writing
to Representative Stewart.
SCHOOL ELECTION
66.2 Director Orton reminded citizens to vote in the school election on
March 12 and in the county and city election on March 19. Orton also
pointed out that absentee ballots are now available at the County
Clerk's office.
CITIZEN COMMENT
66.3 Marilyn Youngs addressed the Board, asking if it were true that the
school board receives 75% - 77% of property tax dollars. Director
Johnson replied that the school board receives 69 mills and the city
receives 9 mills of property tax dollars.
66.4 The City Attorney explained that, by law, municipalities and counties
are limited to the extent which they can levy millage and that there
is no similar constitutional limit on school districts. McCord added
that the school districts can ask the electorate to periodically increase
the millage. Youngs commented that the school board is making its
third request to increase their millage.
66.5 Mayor Noland pointed out that the City Board has no control over this
issue, since it is up to the voters to decide whether millage will
be increased for the schools.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at
about 9:47 P.M.
1