Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-06-18 Minutes176 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, June 18, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Hess, Lancaster, Martin, and Orton; Assistant City Manager MCWethy, City Attorney McCord, City. Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and audience CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order, with six directors present, and asked for a moment of respectful silence. • REZONING PETITION R85-15/WADE BISHOP 176.1 Mayor Noland reported that Wade Bishop had submitted a letter requesting his rezoning petition be tabled to allow more time for possible plat revision. 176.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to table. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Director Bumpass absent. REZONING PETITION R85-17/AMERICAN RED CROSS 176.3 Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance rezoning 1.02 acres located south of Millsap Road, approximately 800' east of North College Avenue. The Mayor explained that the petitioner, the Washington County Chapter of the American Red Cross, requests rezoning from R-1, Low Density Residential, to R-0, Residential Office District. The Mayor reported' that the'Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6-0, and that Planning Consultant Larry Wood recommended the change for the following reasons: 176.4 1. The General Land Use Plan recommends R-0 zoning on the north side of Millsap Road across the street from this property and this request seems to be a logical extension of that suggested land use pattern; and 176.5 2. The nature of the development in this area over the last several years also suggests that an office/service use of the property is a reasonable use. 177 June 18, 1985 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. 177.1 Director Orton referred to .the Planning Consultant's comment that 177.2 sewer facilities may not be within 300 feet of this property and will have to be extended into the property. Speaking on behalf of the petition, John Sager stated that the property to the east is on a septic system; that a perc test had been conducted on the property and was approved by the State. Director Orton asked Sager if he was LO planning on putting the property on a septic system and he responded that his sewer requirements are extremely low, in that he has one C"{ full-time and two part-time employees. 0 Director Lancaster asked what the minimum lot size requirements were 177.3 Q for a septic system. Assistant City Manager David McWethy responded that there is a. requirement but only in the case of a subdivision, not in the case of a platted lot. City Attorney McCord noted there is a provision in the city's subdivision regulations which provides that, if city sewer is not reasonably available, the lot can have septic tank service if it is 1 1/2 acres. McCord pointed out that the property in question is not a new subdivision. McCord added that, on a rezoning, proper land use is the criteria to be applied, with directions to the Planning Commission to consider the other factors. Director Orton pointed out that the Health Department will have to approve the pert test before the septic tank can be approved. Director Martin, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to suspend the 177.4 rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Martin, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the ordinance and no public opposition was expressed. Director Lancaster stated he was not opposed to the rezoning but commented 177.5 that the Board often does not bring up problems which may later occur -- Lancaster said he wondered how many other properties would develop on this gravel street. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. 177.6 ORDINANCE NO. 3094 APPEARS ON PAGE /.2._ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK KXN THANKS TO JIM AND GAYLE CARNEY Mayor Noland reported that he had received a letter from some citizens in Dodge City, Kansas who had traveled through Fayetteville recently. The Mayor explained that these people had experienced an automotive • 177.7 178 178.1 June 18, 1985 mishap out at the Fayetteville boat dock and Jim Carney (boat dock operator) took hours out of his day to repair their car and never accepted payment -- that the travelers said Jim and Gayle Carney "were so friendly and nice...I felt like we were with old friends, and what a beautiful image they portray.for the City of Fayetteville..." SEWER BOND FINANCING 178.2 The Mayor introduced Chuck Devens of A. G. Edwards and Sons, in reference to a request for direction from the Board concerning the general scheme of the financing structure for the sewer bonds ,178.3 The City Attorney reported that a document drafting session is scheduled for Thursday, June 20 and a meeting is scheduled with rating agents in New York City for Tuesday, June 25. McCord explained that the underwriter and attorneys involved want to be sure the proposed financing structure being drafted and proposed for presentation to the rating agencies is acceptable to the Board of Directors. 178.4 Devers explained that two separateanalyses have been prepared and reviewed with city staff and members of the Finance Committee. Devers asked for direction from the Board regarding which financing method should be used and he reviewed the differences between adjustable- rate and fixed-rate financing. Devers explained that .an "A" to a "AA" rating are the assumed ratings on Series A fixed rate bonds (the "AA" rating reflects the second highest credit rating obtainable on municipal bonds). Devers explained that "credit enhancement" is necessary in order to obtain a "AAA" rating. (the highest credit rating available) on Series B bonds. Devers explained that, for adjustable rate financing, a bank letter of credit would have to be obtained; and under fixed rate financing, bond insurance would be used. Devers noted the current estimated interest rate on Series A bonds is 6.955% and the current estimated interest rate on the Series B bonds, for adjustable rate financing, is approximately 6 3/4% for five years, after which time the interest rate would be subject to annual adjustment, up to a limit of 10%. Devers pointed out the interest rate would be "locked in" on the fixed rate financing. Devers discussed costs, pre -payment terms and administrative requirements on the part of the city, noting the average debt service costs to the city for adjustable rate financing would vary from $700-725,000 per year; and total costs for fixed rate financing would. be $717,000. Devers noted his firm's charter is to design a financing that will produce the lowest possible interest rate and a bond which can be repaid as quickly as possible, so that the earliest possible retirement of the 1% city sales tax can be achieved. Devers projected that adjustable rate financing could allow the sales tax to be terminated at early as mid-1991; and that under fixed rate financing, the sales tax could be eliminated in early Fall of 1991. June 18, 1985 Devers recommended that the city would benefit*more from fixed rate financing. Devers explained that, at a. subsequent meeting, the Board will be asked to review the terms and conditions presented in the form of a "bond purchase contract" and will be asked to consider passage of an ordinance. In answer to a question from Director Hess, Devers explained that, under the adjustable rate financing, there is a 10% interest rate cap under Arkansas law which is considered by the letter -of -credit banking community to be an impediment to financing. City Attorney McCord pointed out that adjustable fatefinancing is not a viable 0 alternative without a bank letter of credit. McCord explained that Amendment 62 imposes a 10%, interest rate cap on capital improvement bonds issued by municipalities, and that the city has already been turned down by two AAA letter of credit banks. McCord added that the interest rate differential between the two methods of financing is nominal at the present time, so that it would be a very good time for the city to obtain an advantageous fixed rate. Director Maitin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that A. G. Edwards and Sons be authorized to develop a bond purchase contract for $19 million in sales and use tax bonds for further consideration and approval by the Board, based on a fixed rate structure. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 770. PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL The Mayor introduced a request by John Burrow that the city secure permission from the Highway Department to install, at city expense, a pedestrian -crossing phase at the Lafayette Street/College Avenue traffic signal. The Mayor explained concurrence from the State Highway Department would be necessary and he commented that this is a very busy intersection with two grocery stores and a lot of children crossing the intersection. Director Orton reported she had received a number of calls from concerned citizens on the hazards to pedestrians, and she expressed support for the request. Director Orton suggested a crosswalk also be designated at that ihtersection. Director Orton, seconded by Bess, made a notion that the city request a pedestrian -crossing phase at Lafayette and College. Assistant City Manager McWethy reported that the Highway Department has orally indicated they would grant such a request in about two to three weeks time. McWethy asked for authorization to use $21,000 of the Traffic Department's 1985 'budget (originally intended for replacing controllers at Dickson and Arkansas, Dickson and West, Dickson and 179 179.1 179.2 179.3 179.4 179.5 179.6 180 June 18, 1985 180.1 St. Charles, and Dickson and College) to upgrade the Dickson/College, College/Lafayette, and College/Maple signals with traffic controllers that meet NEMA standards. 180.2 Director Orton asked that McWethy's recommendation be included in the original motion. 180.3 Director Bumpass asked if the recommendation would use all the funds for traffic signalization on Dickson Street. McWethy reported that First South has indicated they will contribute $4250 towards the College and Dickson signal which means there will probably be enough funds left for the Maple, Lafayette and Dickson .signals, as well as one of the intersections on Dickson (probably Dickson and St. Charles). 180.4 Director Orton asked that the original motion include the use of the contribution from First South. 180.5 The Board discussed the need for a left -turn signal at that intersection but it was decided not to include this in the request for the pedes- trian -crossing phase at this time. 180.6 Upon roll call, the motion, as amended, was passed, 7-0. STREET COMMITTEE REPORT/V.A. MEDICAL CENTER REQUEST 180.7 Mayor Noland introduced a request by Dan Kadrovach, V.A. Medical Center Director, for the right of ingress and egress through Gregory Park for a new entrance/exit road to Sycamore Street. 180.8 Kadrovach expressed the V.A.'s concerns about the hazardous situation on College Avenue at the main entrance to the hospital. Kadrovach explained that it was discovered that the installation of a light at that point (so near to North Street) would create more problems than it would solve. Kadrovach proposed that a road be built across Gregory Park into Sycamore Street at a point where there is good visibility in both directions. Kadrovach pointed out that the federal government has agreed to fund the cost of building the street (with the city to act as contractor), with the V.A. to maintain the part of the street. on V.A. property and the city to maintain the part of the street on. city property. 180.9 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a contract for the design of the street across the V.A. hospital grounds to Sycamore Street; that this would be a contract for preliminary engineering design; that all expenses would be paid by the V.A.; and that the city will follow the Professional Selection Policy in selecting the engineer. June 18, 1985 Director Lancaster asked that, when the city begins the • design of this road, they look at the Sycamore/College intersection. Lancaster commented that a turning lane is needed for traffic going north. Kadrovach showed a drawing of the proposed layout recommended by the V.A. - he explained that the road would begin at the water tower and would have a minimal amount of slope. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.• rf RESOLUTION NO: 59-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 144 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION Q BOOK XXII czt Mayor Noland stated the Street Superintendent and the selected engineer would work.to coordinate this design with the V.A. ccr Director Orton pointed out that the Parks Board will have to re-evaluate the use of Gregory Park which was originally intended to be a wilderness park. Director Bumpass commented that there has been discussion about the possibility of having the city's parks consultant, Dr. Al Einert, look at the most suitable design for the road. Bumpass stated he would assume Einert's landscape architecture. fees might be reimbursable. CODE AMENDMENT/PLAT REVIEW Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance amending the City Code to provide that any member of the City Board of Directors may appeal the decision of the Planning Commission approving a preliminary subdivision plat. 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, 5-2, with Directors Martin and Hess voting in the minority. 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, 5-2, with Directors Martin and Hess voting in the minority. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Lancaster explained that he had requested this ordinance be written for the reason that the Board "has had some problems which it didn't know exactly how to cope with" recently. Lancaster stated he didn't wish the ordinance to state that one Director can require that a plat be reviewed but that one Director can put such a request to a vote of the entire Board. The City Attorney stated an amendment to that effect would be in order. Director Lancaster, seconded'by Martin, made a motion that the ordinance be amended to state that a majority vote of the Board of Directors shall be required for the appeal to be heard. 181 181.1 181.2 181.3 181.4 181.5 181.6 181.7 181.8 182 June 18, 1985 182.1 With Director Bumpass asking how the Board would be kept up to date on the status of subdivision plats, the Mayor noted that the Board routinely receives Planning Commission agendas and minutes. Director Johnson pointed out that ;it can be as long as 21 days after a Planning Commission meeting before the Board receives Planning Commission minutes (because they are sent out with Board agendas). 182.2 Director Martin expressed concern that the Board would become overly involved in the details of city planning and commented that there should be careful consideration of how the Board can exercise its role with regard to matters of major deviations from policies, as opposed to "minor interference with the planning process...which the Board has no business being involved in". Martin commented that this could mean the city would make private development more difficult, expensive, and time consuming, and will make life miserable for the developers. 182.3 Mayor Noland commented the proposed ordinance would be a reversion to a procedure which was followed ten or twelve years ago. 182.4 Director Hess stated he concurred with Martin's basic sentiments but he thought the basic problem was a failure to communicate between the Board and the Planning Commission. Hess stated he was not opposed to the amended version of the ordinance but suggested some Planning Office employee (such as Bobbie Jones) act as a liaison between the Board and the Commission, to report to the Board what transpired at Commission, Subdivision or Plat Review meetings. Hess suggested a meeting with that Planning Office staff member every two weeks. 182.5 Bumpass expressed concern that the Planning Commission may be looking at subdivision plats as "islands" in the city with pleasing layouts, but with no regard as to how they will integrate into the overall city, without regard to through streets that will allow for efficient, economic travel for emergency and city service vehicles. Bumpass stated he thought there should be a procedure whereby the Board could review a subdivision plat. :182.6 Director Orton stated she would prefer an appeal time be "by the next regular Board meeting". Orton commented that minutes of Planning Commission meetings could be sent to the Board as soon as they are prepared. There was general agreement that the proposed amendment was to provide that an appeal must be filed by the next regularly scheduled Board meeting and that &majority vote of the Board of Directors would be required before an appeal can be heard. 182.7 Upon roll call, the amendments to the ordinance were approved, 6-1, with Martin voting in the minority. 182.8 Upon roll call, the ordinance, as amended, passed, 6-1, with Martin voting in the minority. • June 18, 1985 ORDINANCE NO. 3095 APPEARS ON PAGE 1 Li OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXL M Director .Hess .asked if it was part of the Planning Office's duties to act as a liaison between the Board and the Commission, or if a recommendation should be made by the staff. Director Johnson stated she thought this was an administrative matter, and the Board should direct the City Manager to choose someone to act as liaison. Hess asked that the staff be directed to choose some liaison person either from the administrative staff or the Planning Commission office to report on a regular basis on the activities of the Planning Commission, 0 Subdivision and Plat Review committees. Mayor Noland commented that the Board already receives such information through minutes and he a hoped that reports from the Planning Office would only come to the Q Board when there is "a real planning. error". Director Martin pointed out that .the Board ought to have a staff member (who has attended the meetings) available at Board meetings to answer questions. Director Bumpass commented that he would like to have the opportunity to be briefed •concerning what transpired at the meetings. Director Johnson stated she would not be in favor of having such reports at a regular Board meeting, and she commented it would be asking a lot of that staff member to work additional overtime after they have already had to attend the Planning Commission meeting. Mayor Noland suggested the Assistant City Manager discuss this matter with the City Manager before the next Board meeting. The City Attorney pointed out that there are two times during the year when the Board meeting falls on the day after. the Planning Commission meeting. SOLID WASTE BONDS Mayor Noland suggested the tabling of an ordinance approving the issuance of $28,000,000 in Solid Waste Management Revenue bonds, and the scheduling of a special Board meeting. The Mayor explained that the Board did not have enough information with which to make a decision. Director Orton noted that she, but not the other members of the Board, had received information from Project Director Louis Watts regarding the difference between the. $14.4 million dollar project and the $28 million dollar bond issuance. The Mayor asked Watts to provide the Board with reasons for the additional funding and a breakdown on how the funds will be used. Director Martin pointed out that, since the information is just now becoming available, the staff has not had an opportunity to review it in terms of its effect on sanitation rates and tipping fees. Martin asked that. theproject consultants and Watts make this information 183 183.1 183.2 183.3 183.4 183.5 183.6 184 June 18, 1985 184.1 available to the Finance Director and he suggested the Finance Committee meet to review that information. The City Attorney suggested if the requested information could be distributed to the Board prior to July 3rd, perhaps a special Board meeting could be scheduled for that evening, with oral presentations from Watts, the engineer and the underwriter. 184.2 Director Bumpass asked if the ordinance could be referred to a vote of the people, if the Board wished to make this presentation to the voters of Fayetteville. The City Attorney responded that the Election Commission cannot hold an election sooner than thirty days from the date an election is called by the municipal governing body. McCord explained that the Board has the authority to refer any ordinance to a vote, or a referendum petition can be circulated by the electorate. 184.3 At the suggestion of the City Attorney, Louis Watts agreed the information available' to the Board and to the Finance in time to prepare for a special Board meeting on June 28th P.M., and he agreed to have an underwriter's representative at that meeting. The Board was in agreement to schedule a Board meeting for 4:00 on June 28th. to have Director at 4:00 present special • 184.4 Director Bumpass,, seconded by Bess, made a motion to table the ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 184.5 The Mayor asked the Finance Director if the necessary preparations could be made in time for the June 28th meeting and he responded that it would be very difficult to prepare for the meeting because of the various sewer bond meetings scheduled between now and that time. The City Attorney suggested that, if there is a delay in preparing the information, there is a possibility a quorum would be available to meet on July 3rd instead. CBID BONDS 184.6 The Mayor introduced a resolution approving the issuance of $885,000 in revenue bonds by the Central Business Improvement District, for permanent financing of Part 1 of The Southside project. 184.7 Jim Penick, developer, explained some of the history of The Southside project. Penick said that initially a resolution was passed authorizing $4 million in improvement district bonds to finance Phases 1 and 2 of the project but Phase 2 never materialized. Penick explained that interim financing was accomplished with the Central Business Improvement District's $800,000 construction note issued in September of 1981 and that note is currently due. He explained that First Commercial Bank in Little Rock has agreed to provide permanent financing by purchasing the $885,000 in bonds and the resolution before the Board would constitute approval of the issuance. Penick noted that the resolution has cone before the City Board because of a change in tax laws which require June 18, 1985 that an elected body approve the bond issue even though the CBID will issue the bonds. Penick pointed out that -the City of Fayetteville does not assume any financial obligations by passing this resolution. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to pass •the resolution approving the issuance by the Central Business Improvement District No. 1. of the City of Fayetteville of bonds not to exceed $885,000 principal amount for The Southside project. In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Jim McCord explained the City Board had appointed a Board of Commissioners for the CBID. 0 Jack Butt, Counsel for the CBID, told the Board the current members of the CBID Board of Commissioners are Pearl Clinehens, Don Loftus, a A. D. McAllister, Truman Yancey and Dale Christy. c The Mayor opened a public hearing and asked for public comment concerning the issuance of the bonds. With no public comment expressed, the public hearing was closed. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 60-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 162 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXII STREET COMMITTEE REPORT/SIDEWALK WAIVER REQUEST/HIGHWAY 265 The Mayor introduced a request for a waiver of the literal requirements of the Master Sidewalk Plan for property located east of Highway 265 North and south of Hyland Park. Director Orton, Chairman of the Street Committee, moved that a Bill of Assurance be granted at the call of the city for the installation of a sidewalk. The motion was seconded by Director Johnson. Uponroll call, the motion passed, 7-0. SIGN APPEAL/EL CHICO RESTAURANT Mayor. Noland introduced an appeal from the literal requirements of the Sign Ordinance for a sign located at 3854 North Front Street. The Mayor explained that the El Chico Restaurant which is located in a C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial District requests permission to erect a 243 square -foot, 35' high free=standing sign. There was no one present to represent the request. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to deny the request. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Director Martin pointed out that the Board observed, during their tour of the location, that there was ample opportunity for a wall sign, and the request appears to be unnecessary. Director Orton pointed out that other wall signs adjacent to this property were very visible. 185 185.1 185.2 185.3 185.4 185.5 185.6 185.7 185.8 188 SIGN APPEAL/O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE June 18, 1985 186.1 The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal requirements of the Sign Ordinance for a sign located at 901 North College Avenue in an R-0, Residential -Office, District. The Mayor explained that O'Reilly Automotive. requests permission to maintain two present wall signs, each of which is greater than 16 square feet, which• were installed without a sign permit The Mayor pointed out that, in the R-0 District, the maximum display surface for a wall sign is 16 square feet, unless the Board finds that strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties due to circumstances unique to the individual sign under consideration and such a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Sign Ordinance. 186.2 Ted Wise was present to represent O'Reilly Automotive. Wise stated he felt his property should be entitled to the same size sign as that which is permitted for the commercially zoned properties across the street. 186.3 Director Martin suggested an honest mistake may have been made by city staff in initially advising the company that the property was zoned commercial -- that this is a good basis for granting an exception. Director Martin made a motion to approve the request foi a variance. 186.4 In answer to a question from Bumpass, Wise explained that he applied for a sign permit on the day the sign was scheduled to be installed, only to find out that a permit could not be granted because the property was actually zoned R-0. Bumpass asked Wise why he installed the sign and Wise explained that it was hoped that, when the Board viewed the signs, "it would make a difference". Wise added that they had invested $4,000 in the signs and were open for business with no signage whatsoever. Bumpass pointed .out that there are additional signs painted above the front windows on both sides of the front of the building and another above the window on the south side of the building. Wise explained that he understood signs were permitted on 20% of the wall space, or 150 square feet per wall. Director Bumpass asked Wise if, in order to receive the variance, he would be willing to remove the painted signs on the windows and the projecting sign on the front of the building. Wise stated he thought the signs on the window look better than what is underneath them and he did not think they exceeded the 20% .of the wall space permitted. 186.5 Director Orton pointed out that the variance for a projecting sign was granted for the previous business, and that in.addition Wise was asking for all the privileges of a commercial site. Wise explained he had arranged a meeting with the Sign Inspector, Jay Pense, before ever negotiating the lease for the business. 186.6 Director Hess stated he did not object to the mansard or window signs, commenting these were a dramatic improvementover what was there before. Hess stated he objected to the protruding sign, explaining that it June 18, 1985 does not add much to the advertising since the mansard sign can be seen from 100 yards in either direction. Wise explained that the protruding sign is his only lighted sign. Hess suggested the protruding sign be removed. 187 187.1 Director Lancaster objected to the fact that the signs were installed 187.2 without a permit. Ln Director Hess asked Martin if he would be willing to amend his motion to ask that the protruding sign be removed. Martin commented that, even though the petitioner made a mistake by installing the sign before 0 receiving a permit, he was relying on the staff to provide him with accurate information. a Q With there being no second to Martin's motion, Director Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to deny the variance. Director Johnson commented that this was the second time the Sign Inspector "has done a wonderful job" and that, "if he can't read the rules, then we need to find another Sign Inspector". Director Lancaster moved to amend -the motion to state the variance be granted provided the projecting sign and the painted window signs be removed. Director Bumpass accepted the amendment. It was clarified for Wise that the mansard sign and the customer parking sign could remain under the proposed motion. Director Martin commented that the Board's actions were not fair, in light of the fact that there is an existing sign variance for this non -conforming business and that the owner moved into the building, ordered and installed a sign based on information he received from the city. In answer to a question from Director Orton, the City Attorney explained that a projecting sign does require a variance. Assistant City Manager McWethy stated he recalled that a variance had been granted for this projecting sign: Director Bumpass commented that the business had many times over the signage of any competitor on College Avenue and that what has been proposed in the motion was a good compromise. Upon roll call, the amended motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting against the motion. Director Bumpass asked the City Attorney if anyone using this building in the future would be entitled to a sign of the size now being allowed. The City Attorney explained that the variance "runs with the land" unless the Board imposes conditions limiting the variance to a particular business. Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to impose a condition that the variance be limited to O'Reilly Automotive only. 187.3 187.4 187.5 187.6 187.7 187.8 187.9 187.10 187.11 188 June 18, 1985 188.1 Director Orton asked if this action would remove the other variance which had been granted for the protruding sign. The City Attorney explained that, because the second variance was requested, the Board, as a condition of that variance, could alter the previous variance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting against the motion. 188.2 The Mayor, in answer to a question from Wise, clarified that it was permitted, under the Sign Ordinance, to paint on the inside of the window. 188.3 COMBS PARK ENGINEERING Noland introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute a contract for engineering services with Milholland Company, for an access road and gravel parking lot at Combs Park in the amount of $5,272.60. 188.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to pass the resolution. 188.5 Director Bumpass asked if this work could be done less expensively with Parks funds. Bumpass noted that a question came up about a parking lot (built with HUD funds) not being permitted in a flood plain. Assistant City Manager McWethy explained that HUD would prohibit a parking lot (paid for with HUD funds) being built in the flood plain. McWethy stated the work could be done less expensivelyAif Community Development Block Grant funds were not used -- because there would be no flood plain problem and it would not have to be engineered. McWethy pointed out however that the Street Department, because of its busy schedule, could not accomplish the work in a timely manner. 188.6 Director Johnson commented that the Parks budget is severely strapped for funds and had many more requests than funds available. Johnson stated she thought this project was a good use of Community Development funds. 188.7 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Director Bumpass voting against the motion. RESOLUTION NO.'61-85 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK XXII 188.8 Director Orton asked if supervision of the contract was included in the total amount and McWethy stated he would report back with that information at the next Board meeting. 165 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION June 18, 1985 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS Director Bumpass presented a report from the Board Police and Fire Committee, regarding the authorization of mutual aid agreements with the Wheeler, Wedington Woods, Round Mountain, Goshen, and West Fork Fire Departments. Bumpass reported that, based on an inquiry made to the staff, the recommendation of the City Manager and Fire Chief to the committee is that mutual aid agreements be entered into with those rural fire departments which desire to have such an agreement with the city. Bumpass explained that the procedure being recommended to the Board is one similar to that used with other city fire departments in the.area -- that, at times, the chief -officer -on -duty for the Fayette- ville Fire Department might be called for mutual aid by another fire department's'supervisor on duty. Bumpass reported that the committee has requested the City Manager to inform them any time a mutual aid request is made (Bumpass noted that the last time a mutual aid request was made was from the City of Rogers in 1978.) Bumpass explained the "mutual aid" the City of Fayetteville receives is men and equipment from other fire departments in the event of a Fayetteville emergency close to other departments' territory. Director Lancaster asked what conditions would initiate a call from another fire department to the Fayetteville Fire Department for assis- tance. Fire Chief Logue stated he thought rural fire departments might call for assistance in the case of a big fire (involving two or three buildings), a tanker accident on the highway, or a tornado. Director Lancaster asked the Chief if Fayetteville would respond to a call from another city in the case of a house on fire 1/2 mile outside the Fayetteville city limits. Logue stated he didn't think the intent of "mutual aid" was to respond to such a situation. Director Martin asked Bumpass if the mutual aid agreements being proposed would be "standing agreements" or on a case-by-case basis. Bumpass explained that the proposal is for standing agreements. Mayor Noland explained that such agreements are already in effect with some other city fire departments and today's proposal refers to rural fire departments only. Martin expressed his support for the proposal, stating that although the potential for abuse may be there, this would be grounds for terminating the agreement. Director Johnson expressed opposition to the proposal, stating she thought it would limit the growth of volunteer fire departments who she felt would just call Fayetteville rather than fighting their fires. Johnson stated she thought Fayetteville would be imposing itself on those rural fire departments; that if they wish to enter into such agreements they should come before the Board individually with a request. Director Bumpass stated he had been contacted by some of the rural fire departments Logue stated all of the rural fire departments have indicated an interest in the past. Mayor Noland pointed out this proposal is strictly an invitation to the rural fire departments. Director Orton asked if there should be certain qualifications placed 189 189.1 189.2 189.3 189.4 June 18, 1985 190.1 on the rural fire departments so they would be encouraged to keep up their training and equipment. 190.2 Director Martin commented that there is incentive for fire departments which are 15 or 20 minutes away from the Fayetteville Fire Department to do everything possible.to fight a fire, since the first few minutes of a fire are critical. Martin stated he didn't think Fayetteville would be providing a disincentive for communities to provide local fire service: '190.3 Director Johnson remarked that the City of Greenland pays Fayetteville an amount which is about 1/3 of their annual budget for fire protection. She asked if Greenland could discontinue its agreement, buy equipment and hire fire fighters and receive the same fire service as they do now. Director Martin commented that, if Greenland chose to do as Director Johnson suggested, they would be doing so at their own peril because the mutual aid agreements do not mean Fayetteville would respond automatically. Director Bumpass added that Greenland may also be using its contract with Fayetteville as a basis for their fire insurance rates. Bumpass stated he thought Fayetteville would simply be opening the door in the spirit of cooperation. 190.4 A member of the audience pointed out that the community of Wedington Woods is not a city and has only a volunteer fire department. He added that the rural fire departments do have equipment that Fayetteville does not have, such as trucks which can travel over rough terrain. 190.5 Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the recommendation of the committee.. Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, moved to amend the motion to state that a mutual aid agreement be drafted which would address the questions posed by Lancaster and that this be presented to the Board at its next meeting. 190.6 The City Attorney asked for input from the Fire Chief as to the terms of the agreement which he pointed out must be approved by the Board. 190.7 A member of the -audience stated that Goshen would like to have a mutual aid agreement with Fayetteville and he commented that "there's just as much mutual aid going•both ways" because of the availability of brush trucks from Goshen. He stated he didn't think a mutual aid agreement would .ever be abused. 190.8 The City Attorney asked the Board if they wished to adopt an agreement identical to those which have been entered into with other municipalities. McCord suggested that a copy of that contract be included in the next Board agenda for the Board to review. The Mayor suggested the Board not vote on the amendment and instead follow the suggestion as made by the City Attorney. Director Lancaster was in agreement. 190.9 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Director Johnson voting in the minority. June 18, 1985 PROPERTY DEMOLITION The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located at 201 S. Gregg Avenue. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Iless, 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. McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. The Mayor explained that attempts were made by the city, beginning 191.2 in January of 1984, to have the owner repair the house in question. There was no one present to represent the owner. In answer to a question from Bumpass, the City Attorney stated the violation notice was sent to the owner's mailing address (Route 5, Box 348, Springdale, Arkansas) and that it was returned marked "unclaimed". Director Bumpass noted that, according to a memo from the Inspection 191.4 Office, the owner "...said she had made arrangements with Claude Prewitt to renovate the house. I have called him a number of times and each time he said he was planning on getting started in a week or so." Bumpass asked if Prewitt had been contacted regarding the proposed ordinance. Director Lancaster pointed out that Prewitt had not even applied for a building permit. The City Attorney explained that the procedure would be to mail a copy of the ordinance to the owner, pointing out the deadlines prescribed in the ordinance and the fact that, if these deadlines are not met, the city will raze and remove the property. McCord remarked that the city will work with the owner on the deadlines. Director Bumpass requested that Claude Prewitt receive a copy of the 191.5 ordinance and a copy of the memo from the Inspection Office. 191 191.1 191.3 • Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 191.6 ORDINANCE NO. 3096 APPEARS ON PAGE 15 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK mi EASEMENT REDUCTION/LANGSTON PLACE Mayor Noland introduced a request -by Bill Meadows for the reduction, from 2-5' to 15', of a utility easement along the east side of 1470 Langston Place, so that a swimming pool can be constructed. McCord read the ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. McCord I 191.7 191.8 • June 18, 1985 192.1 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 ordinance was read for the third time. • 192.2 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to object to the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed. 192.3 Director Bumpass reported that concurrence had not yet been received in writing from Southwestern Bell Telephone Company. Assistant City Manager McWethy asked that approval be contingent upon receipt of the written concurrence of all utility companies. 192.4 Director Bumpass; seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the request, contingent upon receipt of written concurrence from all utility Companies. 192.5 • The City Attorney noted that, since there is no emergency clause in the ordinance, it would not be effective until 31 days from the date of publication and the telephone company should be advised that, if the city does not receive an objection within that time, it will be construed as approval. It was decided instead to amend the ordinance to include an emergency clause. - 192.6 Director Hess, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to amend the ordinance to include an emergency clause. Upon roll call, the ordinance, as amended, passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3097 APPEARS ON PAGE /7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK .Xx1/ 192.7 Director Bumpass asked if Meadows could obtain a building permit for the swimming pool before written concurrence is received from the utility companies. McWethy stated he expected to receive written confirmation within the next few days. The City Attorney suggested the staff be instructed not to issue the building permit until written concurrence has-been received. STREET COMMITTEE REPORT TOWNSHIP ROAD ENGINEERING 192.8 Director Orton made a motion to recommend payment of $6,850 in additional engineering fees for work to align the short section of Bois D'Arc and to design sidewalk along the extreme northern edge of Township right-of-way. Director Orton pointed out there will be land between the street and the sidewalk. Mayor Noland explained that the engineers have been instructed not to cut down any trees in excess of 8" in diameter in the sidewalk area. June 18, 1985 Director Lancaster seconded the motion. 0 rI . v:1. Director Johnson asked for the total amount of engineering fees for 193.1 Township. McWethy reported the total', with this change, would be approximately $45,000. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 193.2 RESOLUTION NO. 62-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 173 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXII McCOLLUM ROAD BRIDGE Director Orton introduced a recommendation to abandon and vacate McCollum Road from a point 50' north of the bridge to its southern terminus, retaining an easement for any utilities located there. The City Attorney read an ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. McCord 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 andfinal reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Orton explained that McCollum Road is located east of the Airport and runs into farmland but that there is access to the point where the city would be retaining an easement, for any residents to get to their property. Orton added that the bridge either must be replaced at great expense or will have to be abandoned. In answer to a question from Lancaster, the City Attorney explained that, after the road is abandoned, the property reverts to the abutting property owners on both sides, from the point of the center line. The City Attorney pointed out that the entire right-of-way would be retained as a utility easement. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Lancaster stated the city would have no need to use the road again, as all the airport property has been totally enclosed with a security fence. 193.3 193.4 193.5 193.6 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-1, with Johnson voting in 193.7 the minority. ORDINANCE NO. 3098 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK yxII 2A OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION MASONIC DRIVE PAVING • June 18, 1985 194.1 Director Orton, seconded by Martin, made a motion to recommend entering into a 50/50 cost sharing arrangement with the developer on Masonic Drive, with the city paying $12,750 in order to have a section of the street, from College Avenue to the western edge of the Masonic Temple property (about 474 feet), paved to full city standards, with funds to come from Public Works Account #054 Contract Services. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 62-A-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 175 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XXII OTHER BUSINESS SEWER OVERFLOW COMPENSATION 1194.2 Mayor Noland reported that the Water and Sewer Committee met and recom- mended that compensation, in the amount of $5,740, be paid to a homeowner on Ash Street .for damage to the inside of the house, because of an accident which occurred during the cleaning of a major line 194.3 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin,made a motion that .the city pay, from the Water and Sewer Fund, $5,725.29 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Director Bumpass absent. BID WAIVER/POLYMER 194.4 City Engineer Don Bunn requested a bid .waiver for the purchase of a truckload quantity of polymer (used for the conditioning of sludge at the Pollution Control Plant). Bunn explained that the existing contract expired at the end of 1984 and was not re -bid, since they have not been buying very much polymer. Bunn said it recently came to his attention that the supply was about to run out. Bunn reported the cost of the truckload would amount to $19,705. Bunn explained this is the same price as the contract price in the past -- that the alternative to the bid waiver would be to purchase the polymer in small enough quantities which would not exceed the $2500 limit and which would probably be more expensive. In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Bunn stated that this is a budgeted item. ' 194.5 Director Martin, seconded by Hess, made a motion to waive the.requirements for bids for the purchase of polymer for the Pollution Control Plant. '194.6 The City Attorney read an ordinance for the first time. Director Hess, seconded by Orton, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Bumpass absent. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Hess, seconded by Orton, made a motion to_further suspend June 18, 1985 the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Upon roll Call, the ordinance passed, 5-1, with Director Johnson voting against the ordinance, and Director Bumpass absent. ORDINANCE NO. 3099 APPEARS ON PAGE 25 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXII CD BID AWARD Mayor Noland introduced a request from Community Development Director Sandia Carlisle to award the bid for the construction of Pear, Birch, Easy, Velda Court, Oak Road and Rutledge Streets. The Mayor reported that one bid was submitted for an amount which was under the engineer's estimate. Director Johnson, seconded by laneaster, made a motion to award the bid to McClinton -Anchor for $67,576.65 for C. D. streets. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Bumpass absent. RESOLUTION NO. 63-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 178 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXII OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT ASSESSMENT Mayor Noland introduced a request from the City Attorney that the Board consider whether to reduce the annual levy against the Center for Continuing Education property (which is subject to assessment by Off -Street Parking Development District No. 1), or whether to pursue pending litigation. The City Attorney reported that the City Manager supports the proposed settlement of this case and McCord stated he thought a reduction in the annual levy would be a reasonable compromise for the reasons set out in his memorandum. McCord explained that acceptance of the settlement would mean a reduction in the annual levy from $6,109 to $2,500 for the CCE property (a 59% reduction). In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, McCord stated he did not believe the Commissioners would agree to go under $2,500 annually. Mayor Noland asked for how long the payment would be required and McCord responded that the bonds are amortized over 20 years and the assessment of benefits is payable in 20 annual installments but legal counsel for the improvement district has advised him that the bonds are expected to be paidout in approximately 15 years. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to accept the settlement for $2500. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.. 1«r v.3 195.1 195.2 195.3 195.4 195.5 195.6 Director Orton asked for an update on the status of this project and 195.7 McCord stated he would request that information from the attorney for the improvement district. 196 RESPONSE TO TCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS June 18, 1985 '196.1 Assistant City Manager McWethy reported that he received a. call from Earl Hines of TCI Telecommunications who indicated his firm proposes to purchase Warner Amex Cable Company, and who asked what requirements would be imposed by the Board to effect this transfer. McWethy asked the Board if they wished him to indicate in writing to TCI that the Board would expect to renegotiate the franchise. 196.2 The City Attorney stated he would review recent federal law regarding provisions on franchise renewal, and the language in the City Ordinance setting out the basis on which a transfer can be disapproved. McCord stated he saw no problem with suggesting that the franchise is outdated and should be renegotiated. FISHER BUICK-V. CITY ;x.196.3 The City Attorney reported he had sent a letter to counsel from Fisher Buick on June 6 advising them that the non -conforming signs should be removed within ten days; that he received a call advising him that the G.M. representative has indicated that G.M. would have the signs removed by July 1. STATUS REPORT ON DEPARTMENT HEAD TRAINING 196.4 Director Johnson made a request that the City Manager's Office obtain from the Personnel Department a report regarding the status of department head training. SELF-FUNDED WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAM 196.5 Director Johnson reported that the Workers' Compensation Commission denied the Arkansas Municipal League's application for a self-funded program. Johnson stated that Senate Bill 19 will be coming before the Arkansas legislature (whichwould exempt any self -funding group of participating municipalities or counties from the Workers' Compensation Commission regulations). • - ,196.6 Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to adopt a resolution stating that enactment of Senate Bill 19 is essential. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. .64-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 181 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xxII • MINUTES „196.7 The minutes of the June 4, 1985 meeting were approved with the following correction: June 18, 1985 175.2 At the end of the last sentence, delete "...or subdivision plat." ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 11:15 P.M. 197 197.1