HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-08-20 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, August 20, 1985, at 7:30 P.M. in the Board Room of
City Hall at 113 West 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.
SOLID WASTE FACILITY BONDS
Mayor Noland introduced an ordinance approving the issuance and sale
of approximately $18,000,000 in Solid Waste Management Revenue bonds,
by the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority.
The Mayor reported that the Resource Recovery Authority met on August
19 and passed a resolution recommending. an alternate method of financing
for the solid waste facility. Louis Watts was present to speak on
behalf of the Authority.
Watts reported that the financial plan recommended by the Authority
was developed by the Authority's financial consultant, Stephens, Inc.,
along with Morrison Knudsen's Financial Department. Watts explained
the plan was turned over to the city's Finance Director for an evaluation
of residential rates.
Jim Reynolds, Consulting Engineer for the project, presented the Board
with details regarding the guarantees included in the design/construction
and the operations/maintenance contracts for the facility.
Reynolds commented that, even though the University of Arkansas cannot,
by law, enter into a contract for more than five years at a time,
it was his feeling that the University had an incentive to stay with
its agreement to purchase steam generated by the facility. Reynolds
reported that, based on estimates, the University will purchase 97-99"%
of the steam generated by the plant. Reynolds stated that, although
it has been said the University will save $15 million on the steam
it buys from the plant, it has not been mentioned that they will purchase
247
247.1
247:2
247.3
247.4
247.5
?48
August 20, 1985
248.1 about $72 million of steam over the life of the project. He also
pointed out that steam not sold will be condensed back into the water
cycle and will not pass out of the plant and into the atmosphere.
248.2 Reynolds stated that a prudent estimate was made of the amount of
waste there will be in the near future but there has been added, at
a cost to the project, the ability for there to be a second "train"
which can double the size of the plant in the future. Reynolds noted
the only adjustment made to the guarantee has been a change from 38,500
tons of "through -put" to 41,000 tons.
248.3 Reynolds explained that, with the new financing alternative, the original
proposal for a $28 million bond issue would now amount to approximately
$18.7 million. Reynolds explained that this financing method will
increase rates in early years, but only by approximately $2 per month
per household (assuming that existing funds are not used).
248.4 Scott Linebaugh, City Finance Director, explained that, if the project
stood on its own, the financing proposed would require a bond cost
of approximately $22 million (actual costs of construction of the
plant being $15,300,000 plus approximately $7 million in bond issuance
Costs and capitalized interest). Linebaugh explained that the project,
in summary, would cost $50 per ton in .absolute dollars, over the life
of the financing. Based on 41,000 tons, Linebaugh explained that
the plant would cost $2,050,000 per year. Linebaugh explained that
the landfill and extra hauling costs (assuming tripling of fees and
5% escalation) would cost $1,504,769 per year. Linebaugh estimated
there to be a $541,000 per year difference in cost between operating
the facility and taking 41,000 tons to the landfill. Linebaugh noted
that by the year 2002, 30% of the city's trash will be sent to the
landfill at a cost of $30 per ton average, and the amount of this
tonnage going to the landfill instead of the incinerator will drop
our cost per year to $450,503. Linebaugh explained that the extra
cost per household per month would be $1.46 to $3.37.
248.5 Linebaugh noted' that other important variables which can affect the
financing are tipping fees and gas prices. Linebaugh explained that
the financing alternative now proposed (Alternative 3) would involve
a large up -front expenditure, with members of the Authority being
asked to pay the capitalized interest in the first two years, amounting
to approximately $1,500,000. Linebaugh noted this method reduces
the bond issue to $18,685,000 and lowers the annual debt service to
$1,928,112 and would result in lower tipping fees ranging from $35.80-
$45.76 per ton. Linebaugh explained that this will mean an extra
$2.13 per household per month rate increase immediately, raising the.
residential rate to $7.63, and commercial rates to $12.03. Linebaugh
explained that in 1988 there would have to be another increase of
$1.10 per month, bringing.residential rates to $8.73; and an increase
in 1993 and 1998 of .21 each time, bringing the top residential rate
up to $9.15.
August 20, 1985
Mayor Noland asked Linebaugh if the "absolute value" monthly rates
proposed under Alternative 3 reflected increased collection costs.
Linebaugh explained that the operating expenses of the collection
system would have to be added to the rates. Linebaugh added that,
if the $1,500,000 accrued towards the costs of the plant (including
$320,000 expended so far by the Authority) could be applied towards
operational increases, a rate increase would not be needed for quite
awhile. Jim Reynolds pointed out that the projected monthly rates
do include collection costs -- at today's costs of collection -- and
that it is only the increase in collections costs for the future which
are not included.
Reynolds displayed charts which showed that the $18.7 million alternative
financing would have a total debt service of $54 million over 25 years,
with the range -of residential rates being between $5.50 — $9.50.
In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Reynolds explained that
there is a 38,544 tons per year guaranteed minimum through—put included
in the contiact, with no maximum.
Director Hess asked if costs of machine repair were included in the
Operations & Maintenance contract price. Reynolds explained that
a "long—term maintenance fund" is included, at a rate of approximately
7% of the gross capital costs of the plant every year; that $75,000
per year would be held out of the fund for such expenses.
Peg Anderson, Authority member representing Washington County, commented
on the county's landfill problems. She noted that, of the two landfills
operating under permits in the county, Parsons' landfill received
10 violations and Sunray landfill received 34 violations in the last
year. Anderson explained that the Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology is mandated to inspect the landfills four times per year
but, because they do not inspect that frequently, Washington County
has hired someone to look at the landfills on a biweekly basis. Anderson
commented that the county is not sure whether or not there is leachate
pollution in Beaver Lake or Clear Creek from the landfills.
Director Orton commented that the incinerator facility should be another
long—term solution (in addition to the city's wastewater treatment
plant) to the problem of water pollution. Orton urged that the project
go forward, remarking that Fayetteville "can be proud to be leaders
in the State" and "be proud that it is doing a first—class job in
taking care of pollution problems". Director Orton stated she thought
citizens had heard about the project and there was a lot of support.
Orton added that, if there is enough opposition on the part of the
citizens, there is the opportunity to submit a petition for a referendum.
Mayor Noland asked that feedback be received from citizens, rather
than the Board taking action now on the basis of facts which he said
were received one day prior to the meeting. Noland commented that
249
249.1
249.2
249.3
249.4
249.5
249.6
249.7
250
August 20, 1985
"250.1. the Board is committing the citizens of Fayetteville for a 25 -year
period and he asked to be given time for further consideration of
the project.
250.2 Director Johnson commented that, in speaking to civic groups recently,
she mentioned the issue and received no negative feedback from citizens
regarding the idea of the plant. Johnson added that those with whom
she spoke did not seem afraid of a raise in sanitation rate of around
$3.00 per month. Johnson also expressed her concerns about the future
costs of operating a landfill in this area. Johnson stated she would
be in favor of an ordinance authorizing the bond issue.
250.3 Director Hess spoke in favor of the Board proceeding with a decision;
commenting that he felt the citizens put their trust in the ultimate
judgment of the Board. Hess remarked that, in visiting a Volund-designed
plant in Tampa, he observed that it did not emit any pollutants into
the atmosphere. Hess also pointed out that sometimes it pays to be
patient because, had the Board voted in June when the ordinance was
first proposed, they might have voted for a $28 million dollar issue.
250.4 Director Martin explained that, because he is an officer of Arkansas
Western Gas Company and, since the University of Arkansas is the gas
company's largest customer, he would abstain from the discussion and
voting.
250.5 Director Bumpass expressed his concerns about landfills, noting that
the geological sub -structure in Northwest, Arkansas has a limestone
base which fractures easily and allows water running through a landfill
to trickle down through the cracks in the limestone. Bumpass noted,
however, that he would still like to have an election on this issue,
rather than having a decision just by the Board of Directors. Bumpass
commented that, in every other instance where the city has borrowed
money for projects, the issue has been taken to a vote of the people.
Bumpass stated he didn't understand why in this instance the Board
was going around "an established procedure that is ordinarily mandated
by constitution or statute".
250.6 Director Lancaster remarked that he would support this issue at any
cost; rather than see the project go down the drain -- but that he
hated to see the Board pass an ordinance when they weren't in 100%
agreement.
250.7 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
failed to pass, 3-3-1, with Directors Hess, Johnson and Orton voting
"yes", Directors Noland, Bumpass and Lancaster voting "no", and Director
Martin abstaining.
•
August 20, 1985
In answer to a question from the Board, the City Attorney confirmed
that 1,092 signatures are necessary to call for a referendum. Director
Bumpass asked the City Attorney why an election was not required in
this instance, and he explained that a vote is necessitated on a bond
issue by a municipality only when required by statute, such as in
the case of General Obligation bonds. He also pointed out that the
city had issued other bonds without elections, specifically Airport
bonds and Water and Sewer Revenue bonds.
*THE MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:35 P.M. AND RECONVENED AT 9:45 P.M.*
FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT
Director Martin reported on the Finance Committee meeting held August
16th. Martin explained the committee discussed the refunding of out-
standing Water and Sewer bonds issued in 1963, 1966, 1969 and 1975
which were originally planned to eventually be defeased. Martin pointed
out .that, last January, the Supreme Court ruled that the proceeds
of a new bond issue cannot be used to defease old issues.
Finance Director Scott Linebaugh reported that, at the Finance Committee
meeting, underwriters A. G. Edwards and Sons proposed a new bond issue,
in the range of $5,000,000, be used to pay off all old Water and Sewer
bond issues. Linebaugh explained the proposal would allow rates to
remain the same, and would save money as well. Linebaugh added that
the proposal will also allow the city to earn more on the new bond
issue than it will pay out on the defeasance -- for a net absolute
savings of $1,755,000 (on premium and interest payments to be made
in the future). Linebaugh explained this would mean a .savings in
present dollars of $285,128. Linebaugh pointed out that, if a refunding
issue is not used, rates will increase 10% in 1986 , 20% in 1987,
10% in 1988 and 31% in 1999 (or collections of almost $900,000 more
per year).
Linebaugh requested the Board approve a resolution which would allow
A. G. Edwards to begin work on a refunding proposal which would be
brought before the Board for approval. Director Martin pointed out
that this request does not ask for any additional financing, in that
the defeasance of the bonds had been planned to take place.
Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that A. G. Edwards
and Sons be authorized to bring a firm proposal before the Board as
soon as possible. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 391 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XxII
251
251.1
251.2
251.3
251.4
251.5
252
August 20, 1985
GREGORY PARK ACCESS ROAD
252.1 A presentation was made by Wayne Jones of McClelland Engineers regarding
the preliminary design of an access road running through Gregory Park
on the V.A. Hospital grounds. Jones explained that his firm was retained
by the city to prepare plans and specifications for a roadway through
Gregory Park; that the plan was prepared in consultation with the
V.A. engineering staff and the city's Street Superintendent concerning
the Sycamore Street location. Jones added that his firm was also
asked to develop a pre -determined route through the park, to define
the locations of the road on the V.A. property and to determine the
location for the road to connect with Sycamore Street.
252.2 Jones told the Board of two alternatives which were considered for
the Sycamore connection - one being near the crest of Sycamore which
was thought would provide greater sight distance - the other being
at the intersection of Greenvalley Avenue.
252.3 Jones explained that their conceptual plan also includes the minimization
of street grades from Sycamore to the terminus point on the V.A. grounds,
storm drainage considerations, and minimum city street standard Con-
struction. Jones said the proposed road would be from 1550 to 1725
feet in distance, depending on the route used across the V.A. grounds,
with the average grade from Sycamore Street to the grounds being around
5.1%-5.2%. Jones stated the specific grades would vary from approximately
36 to 8%.
252.4 In answer to a question from Director Martin, Jones explained that
the main objection to the proposed route is the somewhat sharp curve
in the road, which has a 55 foot radius. Jones stated he thought
the final result would be a curve with a 70-75 foot radius, because
of the possible trailer -truck traffic using the road. Jones noted
that the proposed road would take up approximately 1 1/2 acres of
the park. Director Orton objected to the road using up so much of
the park. Jones pointed out that, although there are other routes
which would be.less sharp and circuitous, it was not the firm's task
to determine the routing and the desired grade. He explained that
the center portion of the road was pre -determined and his firm was
asked to determine the terminus on Sycamore Street and the terminus
on the grounds. Jones pointed out that a shorter route would have
a higher grade.
252.5 Director Johnson stated it was her observation that visibility is
poor to the west when presently exiting Greenvalley south to Sycamore.
Johnson commented that the proposed connection point at Greenvalley
would only compound the problem by increasing traffic. Jones pointed
out that the proposed exit point from the grounds is proposed to be
four feet higher and would give a clear line of sight.
August 20, 1985
John Mahaffey, speaking for the V.A. Hospital, explained that the
V.A.'s intention in building the road is to eliminate so many left
turns onto College Avenue. In answer to questions about large truck
traffic, he estimated there to be five or six trucks per day but that
traffic going southbound would be more likely to use the main exit
onto College Avenue.
Mayor Noland questioned. Jones about the possibility of locating the
exit one block east, at Woodland. Jones explained that using that
location would increase the grade to about 11%. The Mayor reported
that the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board is very much opposed
to the concept of the road cutting through the middle of the park.
The Mayor stated he hoped for a solution which would be acceptable
to both the V.A. and the PRAB.
Charles Richardson, resident of 1712 Greenvalley Avenue, submitted
a petition to the Board containing 31 signatures of area residents
who believe that extending Greenvalley to the V.A. Hospital grounds
would be harmful to their neighborhood, and urging the Board not to
approve the road., Richardson explained that the eastern boundary of
the neighborhood is zoned R-0, there is no access from the north,
to the west is R-2 zoning, and to the south is Gregory Park. Richardson
remarked that the Planning Commission and the Board of Directors had
done a good job in protecting the neighborhood with "good zoning".
Richardson stated he thought the concept for the road would be an
invitation to drive through the Greenvalley neighborhood for access
to College. Richardson urged the Board to reject the proposal. Helene
Furst, resident of 1729 Greenvalley, also spoke in opposition. Furst
,pointed out that there is another exit from the V.A. grounds onto
Woolsey and she stated she thought this proposal would simply move
the traffic problem from Woolsey to Greenvalley. Furst asked if truck
traffic would be permitted to travel on residential streets.
Director Johnson suggested the Board drive south on Greenvalley and
also drive east or west through the College Avenue/Sycamore intersection.
She commented that those two intersections are extremely dangerous
and should be viewed by the Board before taking any further action.
Johnson remarked that Director Lancaster, at a prior meeting, had
already requested the College/Sycamore intersection be studied by
the engineers.
Wayne Jones asked that a decision be made whether to approve the plan
as proposed, in order for plans and specs to be advertised by the
end of September.
Director Hess asked Jones if, in the interest of compromise, the terminus
of the road on the grounds could be located further east, near a cul
de sac shown on the plan, thus allowing for a shorter length of road.
253
253.1
253.2
253.3
253.4
253.5
253.6
254
August 20, 1985
254.1 Jones stated that service drives are located in that area, which is
a heavy traffic receiving area, and do not lend themselves to additional
traffic.
254.2 Mayor Noland suggested the Traffic Superintendent, the V.A. and McClelland
Engineering review the objections from the area residents and the
Parks Board, with a view to finding a feasible route which would be
acceptable to the V.A., satisfactory from an engineering standpoint,
and still take care of the traffic problems
254.3 Director Martin stated he recalled that when the Board first considered
the question of having the road, it was to be located on the east
side of the park, and it was not intended that it would cut the park
in two.
254.:4 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to refer this
issue back to McClelland Engineers to meet with all those concerned
and report back to the Board with a different proposal.
254.5 Doris Cassady, Acting Associate Director for the V.A., addressed the
Board. Ms. Cassady noted that three engineering proposals had been
presented to the Parks Board. She commented that the V.A. is also
interested in the conservation of the park, noting that the V.A. had
donated the land to the city for a park and that the city, in twenty
years, had built one pavilion. She pointed out that the V.A. is in
the process of building three new units, and that they too have received
petitions from V.A. organizations, asking for a safer access. Cassady
stated that, if truck traffic is a problem, she thought the V.A. could
ban such traffic from using the new street, since the V.A.'s main
interest is to provide a safe entrance for the patients.
254.6 In answer to a query from Director Hess, Charles Richardson and a
spokesperson from the Parks Board both agreed that, if there is to
be a road at all, it would be preferable for it to be located further
east.
254.7 City Manager Grimes commented that the possibility of acquiring private
property might also be considered, if it was necessary in order for
an acceptable route to be found.
254.8 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
254.9 Director Johnson stressed that there be some study of the Sycamore/College
intersection to improve its design.
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
254.10 Director Johnson reported for the Board Nominating
committee recommended the following persons be nominated
Committee. That
to fill vacancies,
255
August 20, 1985
representing managers of hotels, motels or restaurants, on the Advertising 255.1
and Promotion Commission:
Wayne Dyer, of the Hush Puppy
Linn Carlson, of the Ozark Mountain Smokehouse
Bill Clodfelter, of the Holiday Inn
Directoi Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the
recommendation of the committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
7-0.
Director Johnson reported that the Nominating Committee did not have
a recommendation for the vacancy on the Planning Commission at this
time but she expected to report on that nomination at the next Board
meeting.
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY/1328 S.SCHOOL AVE
The Board considered an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly
conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located
at 1328 South School Avenue, which was left on first reading at the
August 6th meeting.
Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 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 time.
No one was present to represent this item and, upon roll call, the
ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3103 APPEARS ON PAGE 36 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK xxii
REZONING APPEAL/EARTHWORKS
The Board considered an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission
regarding failure to approve rezoning petition R85-21. The Mayor
explained that the petitioner, "Earthworks", requested a change from
A-1, Agricultural, to C-2 Thoroughfare Commercial for 33.26 acres
located at the northeast corner of the Fulbright Expressway and Highway
112 North. The Mayor reported that the Planning Commission's motion
to recommend approval failed to pass by a vote of 3-3; that the Planning
Consultant recommended C-2 zoning for the following reasons:
255.2
255.3
255.4
255.5
255.6
255.7
?56
August 20, 1985
256.1 1. C-2 zoning is consistent with the recommendations of the
General Land Use Plan;
256.2 2. C-2 zoning currently exists to the north, south, and west
of this property;
256.3 3. The property is bounded on two sides by an expressway, with
an arterial street on the third side and a drive-in theater
• on the fourth; and
256.4
4. Water and sewer is available to serve the property.
„256.5 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to
the ordinance.. With no public opposition expressed, 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
final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3104 APPEARS ON PAGE 38 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK xxzz
REZONING PETITION R85-22/JOHNSON
256.6 The Board considered an ordinance rezoning 7.04 acres located west
of Root Avenue and the Fulbright Expressway and south of West Sixth
Street from A-1, Agricultural, and R-2, Medium Density Residential,
to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial. The Mayor explained that the petition,
submitted by Lewis P. and Harold B. Johnson, was considered by the
Planning Commission which recommended approval by a vote of 5-1.
The Mayor noted.t_hat the Directors had viewed the property.
256.7 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 ordinanceon third and final reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the third time.
256.8 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak against the ordinance.
There being no public opposition expressed, the roll was called and
the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ii
August 20, 1985
ORDINANCE NO. 3105,APPEARS ON PAGE 40 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK :XXII
REZONING PETITION R85-19/ROBBINS
The Board considered an ordinance rezoning 2.04 acres located at the
northwest corner of Highway 16 East and Hunt Lane, which was left
on first reading at the August 6th meeting. The Mayo* explained that
the petition, submitted by Keith and Jackie Robbins, was to rezone
from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, and was recom-
mended for approval by the Planning Commission by a vote of 7-0.
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 ordinance
was read for the third time.
The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak against the ordinance.
There being no public opposition expressed, the roll was called and
the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3106 APPEARS ON PAGE 42 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXii
O
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY/920 W. BERRY ST.
The Board considered an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly
conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located
at 920 West Berry Street, which was left on first reading at the August
6th meeting.
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 ordinance
was read for the third time.
The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak against the ordinance.
There was no ppblic opposition expressed. Upon roll call, the ordinance
passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3107 APPEARS ON PAGE 44. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK xxII
2
257.1
257.2
257.3
257.4
257.5
257.6
258
258.1
August 20, 1985
ALLEY CLOSING
The Board gave further consideration to an ordinance abandoning and
vacating a ten -foot north/south alley located between Rockwood Trail
and Rebecca, east of Fallin Avenue, which was left on first reading
at the August 6th meeting.
258.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, 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 time.
258.3 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished .to speak in opposition to
the ordinance. There being no public comment expressed, the roll
was called and the ordinance passed, 6-1, with Director Bumpass voting
in the minority.
ORDINANCE NO. 3108 APPEARS ON PAGE 46 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
SIDEWALK INSTALLATIONS/CODE AMENDMENT
258.4 The Board considered an ordinance amending the City Code to provide
that the City Manager's designee may, under specified conditions,
give a property owner notice to construct a sidewalk. The ordinance
was .left on first reading at the August 6th meeting.
258.5 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 time.
258.6 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak against the ordinance.
No public opposition was expressed.
258.7 Director Johnson stated she did not understand why a designee is needed
to handle this item, rather than the City Manager. David McWethy,
Assistant City Manager, explained that the City Code presently provides
that the City. Manager must give notice to property owners to construct
a sidewalk, yet it is the Planning Office which knows when such notice
must be given. McWethy commented that the change would simplify the
process, in allowing the Planning Office to give the notice.
August 20, 1985
In answer to a question from Director Martin, the City Attorney explained
that, pursuant to a policy decision by the Board, the City Code requires
a sidewalk to be built (if shown on the Master Sidewalk Plan) when
a new structure is being built, or an existing structure is being
modified, or where a parking lot having a minimum capacity of seven
automobiles is being constructed or enlarged.
Director Johnson stated that she thought, in order to "give clout
to the issue" of requiring sidewalks; the task of signing the notice
should be remain in the City Manager's Office, although she thought
it still could be administered by the Planning Office.
Mayor Noland asked the City Manager how many such notices were sent
out in the course of a month. Grimes explainedthat the notices have
been going out from the Planning Office, and that he hadn't been signing
them. Grimes stated he thought there were not a large number of notices
and most of them had been in conjunction with new construction. Grimes
explained that, if he were to sign the notices, he might then be burdened
with having to discuss the marter with the property owners involved
to try to work out problems when they arise.
Director Orton stated she thought this task should be handled in the
Planning Office and she commented that, although it is a policy decision
for the Board, she thought this should be an administrative matter.
Orton added that the City Manager should not have to handle such routine
jobs, with the ordinance containing guidelines for the Planning Office
to follow.
The City Attorney recommended the question be tabled and that a copy
of Section 18-31 of the Code of Ordinances be provided the Directors
in the agenda for the next meeting, so that the Board can review the
factual circumstances being addressed.
259
259.1
259.2
259.3
259.4
259.5
Director Bumpais, seconded by Orton, made a motion to table. Dpon 259.6
roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
PRESENTATION TO ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
Director Hess explained that during his travels he discovered that
the proper sign of authority was adequate head covering and he presented
Assistant City Manager McWethy with an Arab kaffiyeh which Hess brought
back from a recent journey to Israel. Director Hess expressed the
hope that McWethy would wear the headdress in his "wanderings around
City Hall".
i
259.7
260
August 20, 1985
SEWER ENGINEERING SERVICES
260.1 The Board considered a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a contract for engineering services with Northwest Engineers,
for the extension of sewer lines to the Sherwood Forest Estates sub-
division. The Mayor explained that the Health Department was working
with the city on some problems in this area and he noted that the
proposed not -to -exceed fee is $12,600. In answer to Director Lancaster,
Mayor Noland confirmed that this item had been reviewed by the Water
and Sewer Committee.
260.2 Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve
the resolution.
260.3 In answer to'a question from Director Orton, City Utilities Engineer
Don Bunn explained that engineering is planned for'the entire area,
not just the east section; and that only construction which is necessary
will take place. Bunn added that, after plans and specs are drawn
up, and cost Is determined, an attempt will be made to meet with property
owners to decide what should be constructed.
260.4 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 89-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 392 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
WATER QUALITY STUDY
260.5 The Board considered a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a contract for professional services with Dr. David Parker,
for the preparation of a background water quality study of Mud Creek
and Clear Creek. The Mayor explained this study would establish a
baseline prior to the city's discharge of treated sewage into the
streams. The Mayor added that the proposal was brought before the
Board once before as a joint venture, at a higher fee, but that now
the work is proposed to be done by Dr. Parker himself.
260.6 Director Orton, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the resolution.
260.7 Director Bumpass remarked that the city had not followed its professional
selection policy in awarding this contract. Bumpass expressed concern
that a citizen of Fayetteville had been chosen to prepare the study,
"in an appearance of a conflict of interest" which could be raised
as an issue in future litigation. Mayor Noland noted that the Water
Ind Sewer Committee had discussed the fact that a local person must
supervise the study, because some monitoring is necessary on the site
after a rain. City Manager Grimes remarked that he did not think
Parker had any vested interest in the results of the study.
•
August 20, 1985
Director Martin asked why the first sampling location was not at or
near the point of discharge. Dr. Parker explained that the sampling
point should be located sufficiently downstream because of the necessity
for the effluent discharge to be well mixed in the stream. Parker
stated that, although he felt his choice of first sampling point to
be better, he would have no objection to changing the first sampling
point, or adding an additional point. Martin pointed out that the
project was presented to the public on the basis that the effluent
to be discharged would be of equal or superior quality to the water
in the stream. Dr. Parker noted that, even if the first point is
moved closer to the point of discharge, he would recommend it be slightly
below the point of discharge so that it can't be argued that the discharge
isn't well mixed (because one of the criteria for sampling the effect
of a discharge is to make sure it is mixed into the water). Parker
pointed out that the effluent can be superior in quality and still
take time to mix with the water in the stream.
Director Johnson suggested another point be added at the point of
discharge which Parker could choose whether or not to include in his
study.
Mayor Noland asked what additional cost would have to be incurred
to add another sampling point. Dr. Parker explained that there would
be an additional cost for adding a sampling point, because more lab
analysis would be involved, and he estimated this cost to be about
$1200 (12 analyses at $100 per analysis).
Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, moved to amend the resolution
to reflect an additional sampling point, at the discharge point, with
the fee to be increased by $1200. Upon roll call, the amendment passed,
6-0-1, with Director Martin abstaining.
Upon roll call, the original motion passed, 5-1-1, with Director Bumpass
voting against the motion, and Director Martin abstaining.
RESOLUTION NO. 90-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 396 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
DRILLING LEASE
The Board considered a request by Quapaw Oil & Gas, Inc. for Board
approval ofan oil and gas lease, to allow drilling on city property
in the area of Lake Sequoyah.
Director Martin stated that, as an officer of Arkansas Western Gas
Company to whom Quapaw would sell gas, he would abstain from voting
on this request.
261
261.1
261.2
261.3
261.4
261.5
261.6
261.7
262
262.1
August 20, 1985
Director piton made a motion to accept the request with the provision
that the City Attorney review the lease and that the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board have some say regarding the site where a well could
be placed.
262.2 Director Lancaster expressed concern that no more than one well be
drilled on the property. It was clarified that the State of Arkansas
sets a limitation of no more than one well on 40 acres of land. Director
Lancaster, with City Manager Grimes concurring, asked that it be stipulated
that any pipeline location be subject to approval by the City of Fayette-
ville.
262.3 Director Bumpass seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 6-0-1,vith Martin abstaining.
RESOLUTION NO. 91-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 398 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
CONTRACT AMENDMENT/CH2M HILL
.262.4 The Board considered a resolution authorizing an amendment to a contract
for engineering services between the City and CH2M Hill, to reflect
additional design work necessitated by changes in the electrical system
of the. new sewer treatment plant. The Mayor explained that the changes
would cost $2,775 in additional engineering fees, but will save the
city $9,305 in construction costs --a net savings of $6,530.
262.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the reso-
lution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-85 APPEARS ON'PAGE 402 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
PART-TIME EMPLOYEE BENEFITS
262.6 The Board considered a proposal to allow certain employee benefits
for permanent part-time city employees. Personnel Officer Jeanette
Crumpler told the Board she hoped a policy could be adopted which
would allow benefits to be uniform for all permanent part-time employees.
262.7 Director Orton asked for information on such benefits given by other
employers in Fayetteville, for part-time employees. Director Martin
stated that Arkansas Western Gas Company's part-time employees do
not receive health insurance benefits, although most of those employees
are temporary.
262.8 Director Johnson commented that the city is faced with a problem where
some part-time city employees, such as those at the Library, are currently
August 20, 1985
receiving benefits while others do not. Johnson stated she thought
the proposal was fair to all employees.
Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the recom-
mendation of the Personnel Officer for benefits for permanent, part-time
employees.
At the suggestion of Director Martin that the city look into the matter
of pension plan qualifications and waiting periods, the City Attorney
suggested arecomthendation be obtained from the city's consultant,
Bob Hall.
Director Martin, seconded by Orton, moved to amend the motion to, state
that the-iecommendation be approved; subject to review and concurrence.
by Bob Hall.
In answer to questions from Director
the Sidewalk Inspector's status- is
employee, simply working full-time
and that'his benefits would accrue on
Upon roll call, the motion as amended
voting in the minority.
•
Johnson, Grumpier explained that
that of a permanent, part-time
for a temporary period of time;
a pro -rata basis.
passed, 6-1, with Director Bumpass
BRIDGE WEIGHTS
The Board considered a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute an agreement with the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation
Department regarding the posting of weight limits on bridges in the
city.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the • 263.8
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
4
RESOLUTION NO. 93-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 405 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
:63
263.1
263.2
263.3
263.4
263.5
263.6
263.7
BID AWARD 11642/TRAFFIC SIGNAL EQUIPMENT
The Board considered award of Bid 11642 for traffic signal equipment.
The Mayor explained three bids were received, with the low bid, for
$43,808, being received from Pinkley Sales Company of Oklahoma City.
The Mayor added that the equipment would be used to install the pedestrian -
actuated crossing at the Lafayette Street/College Avenue intersection;
and to upgrade and standardize the signals at a number of other inter-
sections on College Avenue and Dickson Street.
263.9
264
264.1
August 20, 1985
Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid
to Pinkley Sales Company. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
BID WAIVER/PUMPING UNIT
264.2 The Board considered an ordinance waiving competitive bidding require-
ments for the rehabilitation of an hydraulic pumping unit on the Sewer
Department's high pressure wash truck.
264.3 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, 7-0. 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, 7-0. The City Attorney read the
ordinance for the third time. There being no public comment regarding
the ordinance, the roll was called and the ordinance passed, 7-0.'
ORDINANCE NO. 3109 APPEARS ON PAGE
BOOK XXII
BID WAIVER/POLYMER FEED SYSTEM
47 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
264.4 The Board considered an ordinance waiving competitive bidding requirements
for the purchase of a polymer feed system for the Pollution Control
Plant.
264.5 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, 7-0. 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, 7-0. The ordinance was read for
the third time.
264.6 It was pointed out that the Water and Sewer budget contains $6,900
for the purchase of two polymer mix and feed pumps but that a quotation
has been received for $17,660 for the units. Don Bunn requested that
the units be purchased with Sewer Plant Construction funds since they
will be an integral part of the renovated plant. Director Martin
noted that it should be specified to the Finance Director that funding
for this purchase will be offset from the Sewer. Plant Construction
Account. Director Lancaster commented that the Water and Sewer budget
August 20, 1985
will be reduced by $6,900, before' any funds are used from the Sewer
Plant Construction Fund. City Manager Grimes explained that Bunn's
request is that the full amount of the purchase be taken from the
Sewer Plant Construction Fund.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3110 APPEARS ON PAGE 49 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXII
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY%615 N. COLLEGE
The Board considered an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly
Conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located
at 615 North.College Avenue. •
City Attorney McCord 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, 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. McCord read the ordinance for the third
time. There being no one present to represent the property owner,
and with there being no public comment, the roll was called and the
ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3111 APPEARS ON PAGE 51 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK xXII
BUILDING PERMIT TIME LIMITS
The Board considered an ordinance amending the City Code by prescribing
time limits for -which building permits shall be valid, which was left
on first reading at the August 6th meeting.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the
rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call,
the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for
the second time. Director .Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion
to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and
final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0, and the City
Attorney read the.ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the
ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3112 APPEARS ON PAGE 53 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK xxII
265.1
265.2
265.3
265.4
265.5
265.6
August 20, 1985
266.1 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, the City Attorney clarified
that the time extensions would automatically be granted upon payment
of the fees.. Director Bumpass pointed out that, in some cases, when
construction of single family residences takes two or three years
to complete, it can be unsightly. Mayor Noland suggested the Planning
Director bring a recommendation back to the Board at some future date.
OTHER BUSINESS
REQUEST FOR PENSION WITHDRAWAL
266.2 The Board considered a request from Phillip Jefferson for authorization
to allow him to withdraw his contributions from his city pension account.
Assistant City Manager McWethy explained that when refferson joined
the pension program in 1983, employees were -permitted to withdraw
from the pension plan -- and that the Board, in July of 1984, changed
this policy. In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, McWethy
explained that, at the time the policy was changed in 1984, employees
were not given an opportunity to withdraw from the pension plan.
Lancaster commented that he recalled the intention of the Board at
the time the policy was changed was that the pension plan not be used
as "a savings account". Director Bumpass asked if employees were
notified of the change in policy, suggesting perhaps notice should
have gone out with employee paychecks. McWethy stated a memorandum
was sent to department heads but that it was not known whether Jefferson
himself ever received the memorandum.
266.3 Director Martin commented that, for the Board to deny the request
would be like "confiscating" Jefferson's money -- since the policy
for withdrawing funds was changed with no opportunity being given
to employees to withdraw their funds.
"266.4 Director Johnson expressed concerns that granting this request would
allow every other employee who joined the plan before the policy was
changed to withdraw funds. McWethy pointed out that Jefferson is
only requesting his, not the city's, contributions to the plan. He
added that only two or three individuals have expressed a desire to
withdraw funds.
266.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to deny the request.
266.6 Director Martin asked the City Attorney to research the issue of whether
the law requires the city to pay interest to employees who withdraw
their contributions. Noland suggested the request be tabled until
further information can be obtained regarding when Jefferson began
making contributions to the pension plan.
266.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table the
request. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
ri
August 20, 1985
1
Director Johnsontstated she thought a report was needed regarding
how an employeeleaving the plan can affect the soundness of the entire
plan.
SPECIAL CENSUS
26
267.1
Assistant City Manager McWethy asked the Board if they still wished 267.2
to have a special census conducted, if it cannot be done until approxi-
mately October. 7th. McWethy explained that in March a certified letter
was sent to schedule the census, with a reminder letter being sent
on July 10th.. McWethy stated that the Census Bureau, in a letter
dated July, 26th, promised that the census would be scheduled between
August 20th and October 1st. McWethy explained that, in calling the
Dallas office last week, he, was informed that other cities had been
scheduled ahead of Fayetteville and that Dallas knew nothing of our
request. McWethy added that he would be informed. within the next
few days whether Dallas will be able to obtain a special census director
from another area, in order to begin our census in mid-September.
Mayor Noland 'was in favor of conducting the census even if it had 267.3
to be as late as October 7th. The Directors were in general agreement,
with Director Orton commenting that the census should be done before
Christmas.
STREET VACATION REQUEST
John Leonard requested the Board approve the vacation of Warwick Drive.
Leonard explained that when he bought a lot on Warwick, he did not
realize that 30 feet of the property was street right-of-way, and
ten feet of the property is an easement. Warwick explained this leaves
him with only 66 feet, and unable to meet the zoning setbacks required
to build a house. Warwick explained that he came before the Board
with this request because of time restrictions relating to a loan.
The City Attorney told the Board that, should the Board choose not
to vacate the street, Leonard would have to schedule a hearing before
the Board of Adjustment for a waiver of setback requirements, a process
which could take about a month because of public notification require-
ments.
Director Lancaster pointed out that, in the process of vacating a
street, there must be written concurrence from utility companies involved.
Lancaster added that he thought such requests should appear on the
regular agenda, and should include the necessary paperwork.
After discussion by the Directors, Director Orton stated she would
prefer that Leonard go through the Board of Adjustment. McCord explained
that the Board of Adjustment schedules regular meeting dates, but
has the authority to call a special .meeting, as long as the 15 day
public notification requirement is met.
267.4
267.5
267.6
267.7
268.1
Directoi Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a
of Adjustment to schedule a special meeting
Upon loll call, the motion passed, 6-0-1, with
268.2 The City Attorney told Leonard to contact
advise the Planning Director that the Board
of Adjustment to hold a special meeting.
August 20, 1985
motion to ask the Boaid
to considei this issue.
Director Hess abstaining.
the Planning Office and
voted to ask the Board
POLICE DEPARTMENT VACANCIES
268.3 Director Bumpass asked if the City Manager could be instructed to
call a special meeting of the Civil Service Commission to fill vacancies
in the Police Department. Police Chief Jones stated that"it was possible
to .schedule special meetings but would take about 30-40 days. It
was decided to place this item on the agenda for the next Board meeting.
MINUTES
:268.4 The minutes of the August 6th meeting were approved, with the following
additions and changes:
232.5 At the end of the sentence, add "...and the work would
be completed in six weeks."
235.2 ...an island of busy highways around Happy Hollow
School..." should be changed to read "...Happy Hollow
School an island surrounded by busy highways..."
235.3 "and around" should be changed to "along"
239.8 After "polypropylene", add "...with only Choctaw bidding."
ADJOURNMENT
The Directors agreed to adjourn the meeting at about 1:03 A.M., without
considering items 13 through 20.
0
10`(ET r,r
Fi I
Q
oN co��'��
�'AYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
OFFICE OF CITY MANAGER
P. O. DRAWER F 72702 (501) 521-7700
August 21, 1985
H. Keith Cearley
it 1 Center Square
Fayetteville, AR
Dear Mr. Cearley:
Earlier this month you applied for appointment to the City Advertising 6 Promotion
Commission. The City Board made s to this group at last night's meeting,
but I'm afraid that you w not one of .those se ected at this time. There were quite
a few applicants, and several Board members expressed the feeling that the Commission
needed members representing the North College Avenue trade and firms located further
from the central part of town.
We will keep your application on file, however, and it will. automatically be
re -submitted fo,r consideration if a vacancy occurs within the next year.
Thanks for your interest.
Sincerely,
cl��-rjd
vvu�
David McWethy
Assistant City Manager