Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, June 4, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of City Hall at -113 West -Mountain Street in Fayetteville, -Arkansas., PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin -and Orton; City Manager Grime, City Attorney , McCord, City Clerk Kennedy; members of the :press and audience CALL. TQ ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to, order with seven 'Directors present and asked for a moment of respectful silence. SESQUICENTENNIAL FLAG 60.1 A presentation was made to,the city by David Fulton and Ann Sugg (repre sentatives of the Fayetteville Board of Realtors) of an Arkansas Sesqui- centenni'al Flag. Mayor Noland expressed appreciation on..behalf of the Board of Directors and suggested a flag -raising ceremony to be held on Flag Day. BOND UNDERWRITER .60.2 Mayor Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract with A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. for profes- sional services to be provided as Managing: Underwriter for the city's proposed $19,000,000 .'sewer bond issue. By way of background, the Mayor explained that the city had formed a "Local Bank Committee", consisting of representatives of three local banks and the city's Finance Director; that the committee solicited proposals from a list of interested underwriting firms; that the committee reviewed the proposals and retommended A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. .60.3 Scott Linebaugh, Finance Director, explained that the Local Bank Committee was formed to operate as consultants for the marketing of the revenue bonds. Linebaugh noted that the committee initially recommended a public sale but later changed its recommendation to that of a negotiated • in 0 Q June 4, 1985 underwriting sale. Linebaugh listed the members of the committee. Dennis Smith, from Firet National Bank; Bill Gould of Mcllroy Bank; and Virginia Morris of Northwest National Bank. Linebaugh explained that Requests for Proposals were sent out on May 15 and all .firms on the"mailing list, with the exception of Edward D. Jones and Salomon Brothers, submitted proposals. Linebaugh stated that the committee, after reviewing the proposals, used the Professional Selection Policy and chose A. G. Edwards and Sons because they felt the firm possessed the best qualifications to bring the city the best placement for the lowest interest rate for the estimated fees. Linebaugh added that it was important to note the selection was not based on the underwriter's fees or the interest rate that the bonde would achieve because those will be determined by market conditions. Linebaugh noted that all firms proposed estimates on their fees. Linebaugh .explained that the decision was based on such things as national distribution capa- bilities, the firm's capabilities, 'and the personnel assigned to the job. Linebaugh stressed that the fees and the interest'rate would be taken into consideration before the bond purchase agreement is actually executed and if the city should decide it is not getting a good deal, the interest rate is not satisfactory, or the underwriter's fee is too high, it can refuse to accept the interest rate and fees. Director. Martin asked Linebaugh to elaborate on the selection criteria used by the committee. Linebaugh noted the four criteria which were used and the number of points each criterion was worth: (1) qualifications in relation'to the specific project to be performed -- worth 25 points; (2) experience, competence and capacity for performance -- worth 20 points; (3). proposed method of doing the work -- worth 20 points; (4) past performance -- worth 10 points; and cost carrying a weight of 25 points. Linebaugh pointed out that the letter of invitation specifically stated that oral presentations would be at the discretion of the committee, to be decided upon at a later date. Linebaugh added that the committee, after reviewing the proposals, felt that oral presentations were not necessary. Martin'aeked Liiihbaughif other'firms besides A. G. Edwards were larger and how the size of a'firm related to its' ability to market the bonds. Linebaugh responded that several firms submitted proposals as a group, such as Merrill -Lynch with Powell & Satterfield, and T. J. Raney with E. F. Hutton. Bill Gould stated the committee felt that the size of the bond issue did not demand the largest firm in the United States and that each firm had sufficient marketing ability. Mayor Noland explained that representatives from some underwriting companies were present and that he had been asked for the Board's sentiments regarding allowing any of these representatives to makee' presentations at this time. 161 161.1 161.2 161.3 161.4 161.5 162 June 4, 1985 62.1 Director Martin expressed concern that the Board.not.replace the selection committee but also stated he would .be very interested to know whether the other firms feel the city has overlooked some important factor. The City Attorney pointed out that the Requests For Proposals, asked for. five items ofspecific information and also stated ..provide such other information you consider relevant to the city's review of your proposal...". L62.2 Director, Johnson, seconded .by Martin, made a motion to give,each firm. present five minutes. L62.3 Directoi Hess commented that, to a certain extent, the motion would give some of the firms a second chance ;whereas those firms notpresent would not receive the same. advantage. [62.4 Director. Bumpass commented that he did not object to. five minute. presen- tations but did not wish to completely reopen the selection process. L62.5 Director Orton suggested an amendment to the motion to .allow_ three minutes. There was no second to the amendment. L62.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-3, with Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Martin and Hess voting in favor. and Directors Lancaster, Orton and. Noland voting against the motion.. • L62.7 Tom Jacoway, Bobby Allison and Dan Broyles. of E. F. Hutton, and Paul Young of T. J. Raney and Son were present. Paul Young made a presentation pinpointing reasons why .thecity should select Raney .and Hutton as underwriters. Young spoke briefly about variable financing and summed up by recommending that the City of Fayetteville focus on obtaining the lowest possible out-of-pocket costs. In answer to questions from Director Hess, Young responded that floating rate structures were not unique to his .firm. Young also stated that certain points of his presentation were included in the firm's written proposal, with the exception of the total dollar .savings that would.. potentially be available. 162.8 Director Hess, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the contract with A. G. Edwards & Sons, Inc. as recommended by the Local Bank Committee. 162.9 Director. Bumpass commented that when the committee was given, the authority to make a recommendation, the Hoard intended to review their decision. Bumpass stated he saw no reason to go around their recommendation, since the fees are not particularly locked in and the city has the right to refuse to accept the underwriting once the interest rate and fees are. proposed.. • 163 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 52-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 82 BOOK XXII 13 -UNIT T -HANGAR LEASE June 4, 1985 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 163.1 OD Mayor Noland introduced a resolution approving the leasing of spaces 163.2 in the new 13 -unit T -hangar at Drake Field, at $110 per month. N 0 Director Johnson, seconded by Ianeaster, made a motion to approve 163.3 the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. <c RESOLUTION NO. 53-85 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK XXII AIRPORT ADVERTISING/MOUNTAIN INN 122 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION A resolution was introduced authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to 163.4 execute the renewal of a lease agreement with The Mountain Inn, for advertising display space in. the Drake Field Terminal Building. Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the 163.5 resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 54-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 128 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXII BID AWARD/STREET IMPROVEMENTS The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid for improvement to Cross, Lewis, Phillip and Gabbard Avenues and Kaywood, Maine) Venus and Neptune Streets, under the Community Development Block Grant Program. The Mayor reported that the low bid was submitted by Tomlinson Asphalt Company, Inc., in the amount of $86,790. Director Hess, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to award the bid to Tomlinson Asphalt Company, Inc., in the amount of $86,790. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, C. D. Director Carlisle explained that $1,790 (above the engineer's original estimate of $85,000) would be covered by a budget adjustment which was made one year ago. r 163.6 163.7 163.8 164 June 4, 1985 164.1 Carlisle also reported that a pre -construction conference would be held for this project next week, the project was scheduled to begin on July 1 and to be completed in 45 days. 164.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RFjZONING PETITION R85-15/WADE BISHOP 164.3 The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 36.88 acres south of Appleby Road and approximately 1000 feet east of North Gregg Avenue from A-1; Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Residential District. The Mayor reported that the Planning Commission recommended the change by .a vote of 6-1. 164.4 The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney. 164.5 Director Hess, seconded by Orton, made a motion to leave the ordinance on first reading because of a dispute over the boundary lines of the property; and to request the Planning Commission to look into a situation of excessive cul de sacs. 164.6 Hess commented that there was a great likelihood in the -near future of development on one or both sides of this property and that now was the time to address the question of an east/west access through the development. 164.7 Director Bumpass expressed support for the motion, stating that when the streets in the development are dedicated to the city there should be a consideration for the free flow of traffic and emergency vehicles. 164.8 Director Orton expressed concern that there be some east/west flow of traffic through the development; and she noted that during the Planning Commission meeting, some question had been raised regarding the steep grade. Orton commented that it was a good idea to send this back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of some -of the points that were raised. 164.9 Director Johnson suggested an amendment "to the motion to ask that the Planning Commission reconsider the variances which were granted. 164.10 Director Martin commented that excellent questions had been raised but he pointed out that the Planning Commission voted, 6-'1'; 'to approve the rezoning and he remarked that it seemed as though the Board was assuming the Planning Commission didn't ask these same questions. 164.11 Hess, with Johnson concurring, noted that one commissioner seemed to feel there was a directive from the Board regarding cul de sacs, but that others did not feel that way. Fred Hanna, Planning Commissioner, stated he thought it was not feasible • iH 0 cZ c Pi • June 4, 1985 that there would ever be any development of the strip of land across. Skull Creek and he remarked the the Planning Commission had:"discussed the thing thoroughly". Director Lancaster asked the City Attorney if it would be the end. of the Board's participation in this development should the rezoning be approved. McCord responded that the zoning and subdivision issues are separate and that final plat approval ends with the Planning Com- mission. McCord explained that several years ago the Board decided to amend the ordinance to assign that task to the Planning Commission. Director Orton pointed out that, if the Board decided it was not possible to get enough ingress and egress for R-2 zoning, it could decide the property should be zoned R-1 to cut down on density. McCord agreed that traffic safety would be a valid consideration. Director Lancaster pointed out that'the-Planning Commission's approval of the preliminary plat was made subject to meeting ;five specific criteria. Director Hess suggested three .lots and some cul de sacs could be eliminated which would allow a road in the development to connect with Bishop Drive. Hess commented this would be a small price to pay for future ingress and egress. Wade Bishop stated he thought that "cul de sacs have become a dirty word" and pointed out that the west boundary of the property goes down to the middle of Skull Creek and runs south to the Nettleship property. Bishop commented that, to build a bridge over. Skull Creek would cost approximately $150,000. Bishop added that all the west cul de sacsopen onto a flood plain. The Mayor noted that the Board's main concern is that there be some east/west access through the development. Bishop commented that the Planning Commission discussed at some length having ingress and egress from the east but to do so would mean coming across the airstrip. Bishop stated he thought the property- did not adapt itself to more than one street going east and west; that he considered another street at the south end, but:it would have been a very dangerous intersection. Bishop commented that he thought every case should be decided on its own merits and that there were some areas where cul de sacs are advisable. 165 165.1 165.2 165.3 165.4 165.5 165.6 165.7 In answer to Director Orton, Bishopstated that Street Superintendent 165.8 Powell was complimentary of the -layout. and.didn't feel the .drives were too steep... Director Hess commented that he just wanted to be sure, as the property 165.9 developed, that a road could continue from Bishop Drive through the airstrip and could hook up to a street in the new development. Bishop 166 June 4, 1985 166,1 explained that Younkin had just completed pouring's. concrete driveway on the. area where the proposed extension of Bishop Drive would be. 166.2 With Directors Hess and Orton agreeing to the amendment, the roll was called and the motion, as amended, passed, 6-1, with Martin voting against the motion. - RESOLUTION NO. 55-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 136 OF ORDINANCE, & RESOLUTION BOOK XXII REZONING PETITION R85-16/LBE, INC. 166.3 The Mayor introduced an ordinance .rezoning 3.6 acres at rhe northwest. corner of Chestnut Avenue and West Sycamore Street from R-3, High Density. Residential,. to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial or I-1, Heavy .i Commercial and Light Industrial District. The. Mayor explained that the Planning Commission recommended approval of I-1 by a vote of 6-1. 166.4 Director Hess explained he would abstain from discussion and voting due to a family involvement. 166.5 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, 6-0-1, .with Hess abstaining. The ordinance was read for the second. time: Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules- and place the ordinanceon third' and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0-1. The ordinance was read for the third time. 166.6 With Director Lancaster raising the question of off-site improvements, City Manager Grimes suggested the staff could contact the Planning Commission and express the Board's desire that Chestnut be connected from Ash to Sycamore when development occurs. .166.7 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0-1. ORDINANCE NO. 3093 APPEARS ON PAGE /0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ;all 166.8 Director Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to request the City Manager to advise the Planning Commission that the City Board would like to see the development of Chestnut Street from Sycamore to Ash as part of the development plans of the parcel. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0-1, with Hess abstaining. • June 4, 1985 ACT 9 BONDS/COCA-COLA/7 UP BOTTLING PLANT Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance authorizing the issuance of $6,850,000 in Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for financing the costs of expanding and equipping the Fayetteville Coca-Cola/7-Up Bottling Plant. The Mayor pointed out that it has been determined that this project meets the Board's criteria for approving Act 9 bond issues and that 98 new jobs are proposed to be created. The City Attorney explained that this bond ordinance would follow the Memorandum of Intent already approved by the Board at its last meeting. He added that federal law requires a public hearing be held on the project. The Mayor opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak against the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed and 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 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 ordinance was read for the third time. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, the City Attorney confirmed that there have been no changes in the project since the last meeting. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.- 5 ORDINANCE NO. 3092 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXL SIDEWALK BILL OF ASSURANCE/INDUSTRIAL PARK Mayor Noland introduced a request Foundation, Inc-. for authorization installation of sidewalks along of the Industrial Park. from the Fayetteville Development of a Bill of Assurance for the proposed new streets in a portion Dale Christy, President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industrial Committee member, explained that since the agenda was published, additional cost analyses had been made and recommendations have been made which would alter some plans. Christy noted that 450 feet rather than 90 feet of Pump Station Road will be paved with curb and gutter; that replatting will be done of one portion of the park. Christy explained the sidewalk Bill of Assurance would apply to Pump Station Road, part of Industrial Drive South and Leeper Drive. 167 167.1 167.2 167.3 167.4 167.5 168 June 4, 1985 168.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made:a motion to approve the.' Bill of Assurance for Pump Station Road, Industrial Drive South and Leeper Drive.. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. BID AWARD/WATER & SEWER LINES 168.2 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of award of bid for the construction of water and sewer lines in the portion of the Fayetteville Industrial Park owned by the City of FayetteSille. The Mayor noted the low'bidder is Tafida, Inc. of Fort Smith. 168.3 City Manager Grimes explained that the cost of the water and sewer line construction would amount to $71,857.70. Director Johnson referred to the request for a budget adjustment of $6,857.70 and inquired as to where in the budget this amount.would be. taken. Grimes explained that the: Water. and Sewer Fund would absorb the cost, as a loan, and be reimbursed as property is sold. Director Martin asked if these projects were considered in the -preparation of .the 1985 budget. Grimes responded that the projects Were considered but were underestimated. Grimes added that a budget adjustment in the amount of $23,833.60 - will be requested for street construction in relation to this project. 168.4 Martin asked if the projects were absolutely necessary -and Grimes explained that the Industrial Committee needs additional small tracts of land in the Industrial Park and feels there is a market for selling such lots. Dale Christy added that, at the time the budget was adopted; the original engineering estimates were not available. 168.5 In answer to Director Hess, Grimes explained that the budget adjustment for the lines would come from the Water and Sewer Fund and the budget adjustment for the streets would come from the "General Fund, both as loans to be paid back from the sales of land. Finance Director Linebaugh added that it was his understanding the' adjustments would be made internally within the same accounts.- 168.6 ccounts. 168.6 Director Martin, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid subject to an offsetting adjustment to the Water and Sewer Fund. 168.7 City Engineer Don Bunn explained that the Water and Sewer budget contains $25,000 of uncommitted funds in a miscellaneous construction fund which could be used for this project. 168.8 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. " • June 4, 1985 BID AWARD/LEEPER DRIVE Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the award of bid for the construction of Leeper Drive in the portion of the Fayetteville Industrial Park owned by the City of Fayetteville. The Mayor noted that the low bidder is Jerry D. Sweetser, Inc. and that a budget adjustment of $23,833.60 is requested. 10 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the bid, subject to finding money for the budget adjustment of $23,833.60. O In answer to a question from Bumpass, City Manager. Grimes explained cx that interest would not be accrued on this budget adjustment "loan". Q Director Martin remarked that no one was questioning the appropriateness of the budget adjustments but that it is the Board's desire to know where money is coming from when too much is spent in one area. Director Martin suggested an amendment to the motion to indicate that the adjustment be subject to the Board's ratification. The amendment was accepted by Directors Johnson and Bumpass. The City Attorney pointed out that a Notice To Proceed cannot be issued 169.5 until the budget adjustment has been approved. Director Martin clarified that the intent of the motion was not that the bid award be contingent on the adjustment, but that the specific adjustment be contingent on the Board's ratification and that, if the adjustment is not satis- factory, a different adjustment would be made. In answer toa question from Director Johnson, Grimes explained that 169.6 two bids were submitted and the low bid proposed the use of concrete. Upon roll call, the motion, as amended, was passed, 7-0. 169.7 City Manager Grimes explained that the idea for the name, "Leeper 169.8 Drive" came from a small cemetery immediately west of Leeper Drive which dates back to the Revolutionary War and that all the names on the headstones are "Leeper". Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the 169.9 naming of Ieeper Drive. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 169 169.1 169.2 169.3 169.4 MULTI -FAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS Mayor Noland explained that he had received a letter dated May 24, 1985 from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority concerning proposed Multi -Family Housing Revenue Bonds to he used to construct apartments at Melmar. and North Leverett in Fayetteville. • 169.10 170 June 4, 1985 170.1 The City Attorney explained that the letter serves as a notice, advising, the city that $2,701,400 in bonds are proposed to be issued 'for the 80 -unit apartment complex. McCord quoted a portion of -,the .letter which states that "The Act .[the enabling act) allows- the governing body of your. City to insure that the Authority does not finance -local projects which may be objectionable. If your city enacts an ordinance or resolution stating express disapproval of the proposedfinancing and the reasons therefore within fifteen days of the date of this notice,' antra certified copy thereof shall be delivered to the -undersigned within five •'days thereafter, the Authority -will,. not- -issue. bonds to finance the Project." 170.2 Builder Jerry' Sweetser addressed the Board, expressing objections to the proposed project. Sweetser submitted a petition containing signatures- from citizens opposed to the project because of high vacancy rates at current - apartment ., complexes ' in- recent years and'because- of the decrease -'of enrollment at the University. Sweetser pointed •out that he -owns -an apartment' compiex-which•is presently .66°% -vacant.-- - 170.3 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to -pass a resolution: expressing opposition to the issuance of $2,701,400 in. Multi Family Housing -Revenue Bonds by the Arkansas Development Finance Authority to construct' an'-80—unit apartment complex by the English Ivy Limited Partnership at the intersection of Meimar and North Leverett. Director Johnson read: the proposed resolut_ionr The City Attorney.stated that a certified copy of the resolution -would be'sent to Wooten-Epes, President of the Authority. McCord pointed out that, according to • the notice from the Authority, if such certified copy is -received within five days from the'datevof adoption of +the resolution, the bonds.will-not be issued: --Director Bumpass suggested' the .Board.also express their - opposition to the fact that the Authority scheduled a public hearing for a Fayetteville project to be held in Little Rock. Dale Christy told the Board he had learhed that requests for multi -family housing bonds through the Arkansas Development Finance Authority are now being pooled from all over the state into one bond issue; and that users of the bonds will work through the Authority for those issuances in the future. 170.4 Director Johnson commented that it was unjust for the Board to be asked to make'a decision on the limited amount of information provided in the letter from the Arkansas Development Finance Authority. Director Hess asked that more information be provided regarding the possibility that the authority to disapprove these bonds on a local level could be taken away. 170.5 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 56 -85 -APPEARS ON •PAGE 137 BOOK XXII OF ORDINANCE ,&.RESOLUTION June 4, 1985 BID AWARD/TEMPORARY BELT PRESS The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid for the furnishing of a temporary belt press for. the Pollution Control Plant. The Mayor reported that the City Engineer recommends the belt press be leased from Interim Dewatering Services of Monroe, Connecticut, at a five-month cost of approximately $70,000. The Mayor asked if this item was included in the budget and City Engineer Bunn responded that the overall Pollution Control Plant budget would be adjusted downward, rather than upward. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to bid to Interim Dewatering Services. Bunn explained by . June 10 but week. award the that specifications call for installation to take place it may not be completed until the latter part of that Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 57-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 138 BOOK XXII SEWER LINE OVERSIZING OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION The Mayor introduced a request by the City Engineer for authorization to participate in the costs of oversizing a sewer line to serve the proposed Walnut Grove Addition on the north side of Highway 16 West. The Mayor reported that the cost of the oversizing is estimated to be $10,000 and that the 1985 Water and Sewer budget contains $25,000 in miscellaneous projects funds which can be used to finance this. project. Director Johnson, request. Upon -roll against the motion seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the call, the motion .passed, 6-1, with Bumpass voting PART-TIME BENEFITS Mayor Noland introduced a recommendation regarding the provision of fringe benefits to part-time employees. City Manager Grimes noted that the benefits would be structured as presented in the recommendation, should the Board decide to grant approval. Grimes commented that he didn't know of another city where such benefits have been provided part-time employees and he explained that, originally, this request came from a Library Board member. 171 171.1 171.2 171.3 171.4 171.5 171.6 171.7 171.8 172 June 4, 1985 172.1 Grimes noted that there are seven part-time employees at•.the• Library and five other part-time employees city-wide. Grimes pointed out that the recommendation is •intended. to..apply..to..permanent part-time employees,_ not temporary part-time; employees: .Grimes stated the total annual:.cost for 12 part-time employees would. amount to about :$10;780; with the eosts..to be borne.by.the departments involved.,.‘ 172.2 Director:Johnson expressedr.opposition.to the recommendation,:.stating. that the -city should consider the .expenditure during the budget process rather than at mid -year. Director Hess suggested that benefits could be approved.for the employees to •be effective January -1.,• 1986.:. 172.3 Director Bumpass suggested the employees be eligible to join the Blue - Cross /Blue Shield program after six .months- or one year of.. employment but that they not.be:given other benefits. • 172.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table the recommendation indefinitely. • 172.5 Director Martin commented that he would be- more responsive to the. proposal if more information were available regarding the scope of the recommendation and ifa presentation were made as to the reasons for the recommendation and what group of employees is involved. Director Hess asked for a list of names of the permanent part-time employees. Mayor Noland asked that information be provided regarding the length of their employment. Hess commented that he would be in favor of granting. the• benefits to the part-time employees if they are.meritorious. 172.6 Upon .roll. call*: the.: motion. passed, 6-1,,.with. -Noland .voting .against the motion. : 172.7 The City Manager asked that rhe Board notify him should they, wish. the matter to be brought up again. Mayor Noland explained that ,h& voted in opposition to the motion because he thought the issue should have been. -.tabled until_ a•:definite time-, such as two to. four weeks. from now. Director. Hess asked the .City Manager to provide the information fairly quickly. Director Johnson asked that information be. provided-. regarding how much benefits are being requested by the Library Board. OTHER BUSINESS CREEKWOOD DRIVE 172.8 The Mayor introduced re -consideration of the opening of; Creekwood Drive:onto the extension of Township Road. 172.9 Director Orton,.:seconded by: Martin,:made..a motion that Creekwood Drive be removed.'from. the ,list of streets-whichwill be connected.to the 10 0 c June 4, 1985 Township extension. Director Orton stated the reasons for her motion: (1) that Creekwood is the only one of the streets (recommended by the Board to intersect with Township extension) that had been designed as a cul de sac, with land between the cul de sac and the right-of- way of Township extension; and (2) that Creekwood is the fourth street along a strip of streets very close together and she feared a traffic problem could be created having that many intersecting streets close together. Director. Lancaster remarked that the reasons for the Board's actions at the last meeting have not changed. Director Bumpass expressed agreement, commenting that part of the Board's decision had been predicated upon "the big picture". Bumpass stated that, after more information is available regarding additional development of Susan Drive and the economics to acquire right=of-way and build Township, he thought the Board could change its decision on that basis. Bumpass stated he thought this was just the first request from every group of residents wishing to keep their road closed and that granting the request would create "a wedge in the door of indecision". Director. Hess stated that, after reviewing the decision, he believed he erred in his vote to allow Creekwood to intersect Township, because it was platted with a cul de sac. Director. Martin stated that, although he was not present at the last meeting, he concurred in the unanimous decision to open up more roads rather than fewer roads. Martin remarked however that he felt the addition of Creekwood was a mistake because the Master Street Plan shows that it does not connect to Township. Director Johnson asked, if Susan Drive is developed in the future, would the motion allow for the possibility that Creekwood at a later date could be connected to Township. Director Orton stated she thought that was a possibility but needn't be part of the motion. Director. Bumpass asked that the motion be amended to state that, at the time Susan Drive is developed, the extension of Creekwood to Township could take place. 173 173.1 173.2 173.3 . 173.4 173.5 Director Martin stated he thought there should be a procedure, before 173.6 the city arbitrarily decides to change the Master Street Plan, whereby residents would be entitled to some hearing on the matter. In answer to a question from Martin, the City Attorney clarified that the legend for the Master Street Plan does not designate local streets. With there being no second to the amendment, the roll was called and 173.7 the original motion passed, 5-2, with Bumpass and Lancaster voting in the minority. 174 EASEMENTS FOR TOWNSHIP ROAD EXTENSION June 4, 1985 174.1 City Manager .Grimes, reported.. that the city received. two proposals for the appraisal of easements required by. the. Township Road Extension, with the low proposal being submitted. by Associated Appraisers, Inc. Grimes asked for Board authorization to accept the low proposal. 174.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to authorize acceptance of the proposal from Associated Appraisers. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. ,NWARRA MEETING. 174.3 City Manager Grimes reminded .the. Board that the June 6 meeting of the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority. was scheduled for 7:00 P.M. in the Board..Room of City Hall.: . MAINTENANCE T -HANGAR 174.4 City Attorney McCord reported that the Finance Director, requests the Board's approval o£. the:Bill of .Sale and. Receipt and Acceptance .on the Maintenance T -Hanger (documents which McCord stated he had not yet had an opportunity to review). McCord explained that the Board had previously approved the Resolution and Lease -Purchase Agreement with Falco for $155,000.. Finance Director Linebaugh .asked if the Board would recommend, approval, subject to McCord's review, so that funding can proceed. 174.5 Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the request: 174.6 Linebaugh promised to provide Director Bumpass with information regarding pay -out.. 174.7 Upon roll call, the motion, passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 58-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 141 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION ROOK XXII ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPERS 174.8 Director Hess asked if a. formula is used to determine the number of accesses required of..developers. City Manager Grimes explained that a minimum of two accesses is required on any development. Hess commented that perhaps the city should set some standard based on traffic predic- tions. Grimes. noted that he would discuss the issue with the. professional planners. June 4, 1985 FINAL PLAT APPROVAL Director Lancaster asked that the Board consider changing the ordinance so that final plat approval would come before the Board of Directors. Director Martin commented that the Board needs to be careful about the amount of detail they get into and he remarked that there is a difference between general land use and approval of subdivision plats. Martin added that it would be appropriate for the Board to raise issues such as the number of ingress and egress points but then ask the Planning Commission to provide the guidance. Director Johnson commented that there is a "giant communication gap" between the Planning Commission and the City Board; and that the Board needs to work very hard to resolve that problem. In response to Director Lancaster, City Attorney McCord explained that subdivision plat approval is a policy issue, not a legislative issue. McCord explained that the Planning Commission should carry out the Board's policy decisions. McCord noted that any Director can appeal the approval of a large scale development. It was agreed by several of. the 'Directors that the City Attorney should prepare an ordinance as suggested by Director Lancaster. ARKANSAS -OKLAHOMA ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN COMPACT COMMISSION McCord reported that the Arkansas -Oklahoma Arkansas River Basin Compact Commission just completed two days of hearings on the application of the State of Oklahoma and Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission for an Order to protect the Illinois River from pollution resulting from the discharge of the City of Fayetteville's treated effluent into the Illinois River Basin. McCord explained that hearing examiners from Arkansas and Oklahoma have requested the respective parties to submit proposed findings of facts and recommended precedents to them within two weeks after the transcript is received, which is expected to be by July 18th. McCord explained that the examiners would then make a recommendation to the full Commission - whose next meeting will be on the fourth Thursday of September. McCord stated that he and the Arkansas Attorney General felt optimistic about the outcome of the hearing, as far as the City of Fayetteville is concerned. MINUTES The Minutes correction: ADJOURNMENT of the May 21, 1985 meeting were approved, with the following 146.2: In the last sentence, "their" should read "there" With no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 11:05 P.M. 75 r- 175.1 175.2 175.3 175.4 175.5