Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-10-01 MinutesMINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, October 1, 1985 at 7:00 P.M. in the Board Room of City Hall at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Johnson, Martin, Orton, Hess, and Bumpass; City Manager Grimes, Assistant City Manager McWethy, City Attorney McCord; members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Director Lancaster CALL TO ORDER • Mayor Noland called the meeting to order with five directors present. The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. TAX LEVY • Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance levying real and personal property taxes within the City for the year 1985, to be collected in 1986. City Attorney McCord pointed out that there is a 2 mill decrease this year because the City will be retiring some general obligation bonds. 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 the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0, with Directors Lancaster and Hess absent. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0, with Directors Lancaster and Hess absent. The ordinance Was read for the third time. The Mayor noted that this is not a new tax but an annual review of the current tax levy with a reduction of 2 mills from last year. Director Bumpass questioned a statement in the agenda saying "...the levy must be ratified...anyway", asking if all of these mills are pledged toward the bonds. Mr. Grimes answered negatively stating that 5 mills are for general operations, 1 mill is for the police pension fund and 1 mill for the fire pension fund. Grimes also noted that 2 mills go off this year which were used to expand the library and the youth center. McCord explained that that statement refers to a requirement that millage be ratified by the Quorum Court which is an administerial duty over which the Court has no discretion. 301 301.1 301.2 301.3 301.4 301.5 302 • October 1, 1985 302.1 In answer to a question f m Director Bumpass, Mr. Grimes stated the revenue on these taxes is approximately $75,000 per mill. 302.2 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0-1, with Director Hess ab- staining. Hess stated as he was not present for the discussion he did not feel he could make an intelligent vote. ORDINANCE NO, 3126 APPEARS ON PAGE 399 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xxIII SOLID WASTE REPORT 302.3 Director Johnson reported on a meeting of the Board Solid Waste Committee held Friday, September 27. Johnson noted that the committee proposed that Jim Reynolds of Henningson, Durham & Richardson appear before the Board to summarize the difference between going for electrical generation and going for steam generation which is presently in the proposed Authority plan. 302.4 Mayor Noland asked Jim Reynolds to address the Board as to what he found out by incorporating the proposed electric rate increases into the revenue projections. Reynolds stated that HDR had been requested to investigate questions concerning the possibility of generating electric power at the resource recovery facility and selling that power to one of the local utilities. Reynolds reported that FIDR did a file search of past work and noted that in 1982 they had asked SWEPCO (Southwestern Energy Power Company) and Ozarks Electric Cooperative if they would be willing to buy power, at what price etc., and then updated this information. Reynolds stated that if the City sells electric power only and did not sell any steam, the net revenues to the project would be approximately $900,000 less every year. However, Reynolds noted that if the City developed a co -generation power and steam system, there would be approximately $100,000 less net revenue flow per year. Reynolds also stated that all of the electric companies they spoke with say the City could receive approximately 1.9 cents to 2 cents per kwh for its power. Reynolds then noted that the City could get more money by selling steam to the University than it would by selling power to a utility 'company. In answer to a question from Noland, Reynolds stated there are no "wheeling" charges included in the figures given. 302.5 Richard Bell of HDR also addressed the Board noting that whether the City chooses "private" or "public" ownership, the cost for solid waste disposal is really going to be borne by the community. Bell summarized that if the City is looking for a short term solution (5-10 years or less), privatization is a very attractive alternative. However, Bell noted, if the City is looking for a long term solution (more than 10 years), the public option should be considered. Bell went on to note that resource recovery usually costs more than landfilling initially. • October 1, 1985 Finance Director Scott Linebaugh, at the request of Director Orton, addressed the question that if the City were to infuse $2 million on the front end of this project as capital expenditure, what would this do to the City's bond requirements. Linebaugh stated that if the City put an additional $2 million up front into the project, the bond issue could be "knocked down" to approximately $18,800,000. Linebaugh also noted that the interest rate has gone up at present to 9.684% which means the $20.96 million bond issue now would be $21.32 million, but if the City puts the $2 million in now, it would "knock that down to an $18,845,000 bond issue." Linebaugh reiterated that this would mean putting $2 million up front plus paying almost $2 million of capitalized interest in the first three years. Linebaugh pointed out that the $2 million plan came from taking $1 million from sanitation funds and $1 million frcut the general fund. Director Hess stated that although putting up the $2 million would save the City approximately $500,000, he does not feel that this is a substantial savings in return for the "leverage" of keeping the $2 million. Linebaugh pointed out that you also have savings in the yearly principal and interest. Director Johnson stated that it is the recommendation of the Board Solid Waste Committee that the Board authorize the issuance of a maximum of $22 million in bonds for the resource recovery facility. Johnson also noted that there was an ordinance previously before the Board approving the issuance of $18,685,000 in solid waste bonds. Director Johnson moved that the Board place this ordinance on the second reading. City Attorney McCord stated it will be necessary to amend the ordinance to increase the authorization if the ordinance is ultimately adopted. McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion that the ordinance be amended to read $22 million in solid waste bonds. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-1-1, with Bunpass voting against the motion and Martin abstaining. Director Johnson further noted that since Director Lancaster was not present and since the Board had postponed their first decision so • that all members of the Board could be present - she further moved that the third reading and final action for this ordinance be deferred and placed as the first item on the Board Retreat on Sunday. The motion died for lack of a second. After further discussion, Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to call a Special Board Meeting on Sunday, October 6, and have the third reading of the ordinance at 1:30 P.M. Gordon Cummings addressed the Board and expressed his opposition to this bond issue and called for an election "by the people" on this bond issue. Cummings also called for the "impeachment" of any City Director who votes for these bonds without letting the people vote on them. He stated he believed landfills were still the cheapest and best way to deal with waste and he knew of land in southeast Fayette- ville for a city -owned landfill. 303 303.1 303.2 303.3 303.4 303.5 104 304.1 October 1, 1985 Director Johnson stated that any citizen of Fayetteville is welcome to start a petition drive for a referendum on this issue and noted that it takes 1,100 signatures. 304.2 Mayor Noland then called for a vote on the motion to hold a special meeting. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-1-1, with Martin abstaining and Bumpass voting no. In explanation of his "no" vote, Bumpass stated he hoped the Board would not get into "a long protracted discussion on that day that we have reserved for our long term planning goals." 304.3 Director Johnson stated that the Solid Waste Committee requests that the Authority's proposed budget for the next three months be approved but that no funds be allocated. Johnson further stated that the Authority does have funds in the bank now to cover anything in the proposed budget and that it is a procedural matter that the Board approve the Authority's budget. 304.4 A motion was made by Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, that the Authority's proposed budget for, the next three months be approved. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-0-2, with Martin and Bumpass abstaining. 304.5 Director Johnson made a motion, seconded by Orton, that a bill totalling $68,366.96 for BUR be paid. Johnson noted that the Engineer of Record bill would be paid out of bond proceeds and is not included in the $68 thousand. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-1-1, with Martin abstaining and Bumpass voting no. 304.6 Director Johnson also noted that the Solid Waste Committee at their meeting discussed changing the Authority membership for the City of Fayetteville frau 1 representative to the 7 members of the Fayetteville City Board. This would be in addition to the one representative from West Fork and the one representative from the County. Johnson noted that this change will require the passage of an ordinance by the Board and will also require adoption by the city of West Fork and the Quorum ('hurt. Director Orton questioned whether the wording of the ordinance should say "...7 members from the City of Fayetteville which may be City Board members." Director Johnson replied that the reason the Committee chose 7 City Board members was so they wouldn't have to go through everything twice. 304.7 Director Martin questioned whether the Committee had considered if the facility could be operated strictly as a department in the City. Johnson answered that the Committee considered City ownership versus Authority ownership and the only difference they ascertained was about $8,000 for the annual premium on a public liability insurance policy. Johnson also noted that City ownership would eliminate a voice for West Fork and for the County, and would require the City to contract with West Fork and the County if they desire this service. October 1, 1985 Mayor Noland noted that if this project proceeds, Fayetteville will be financing 91% of the total cost of the facility. Noland pointed out this is why the Board feels 7 members on the Authority along with the West Fork and County representatives would "give Fayetteville a more proportionate representation. Johnson noted this will not affect the voting in the Authority as it stands now - Fayetteville will still have 91% of the vote, however, that 91% would then be vested in 7 members rather than one. Mrs. Peg Anderson asked City Attorney McCord if the ordinances could be revised in the future to make the membership more proportional to the percentage of waste generated - if, the County for instance, ended up with a larger percentage than they started out with. McCord answered affirmatively. Mayor Noland stated he felt the vote should be proportional to the amount of waste generated. McCord recommended that if the Certificate of Incorporation is amended, in accordance with the discussion tonight, that it not be keyed to percentage of waste. If the proportion of waste increases in the future, the Certificate of Incorporation can be amended again to reflect the number of members that would be appropriate in view of the change of waste percentage. The Mayor instructed the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance on this matter. CD BUDGET PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor opened the Public Hearing on the preliminary 1986 Community Development Block Grant Budget. Noland stated there are several proposals in the budget which would exceed the estimated amount of money to be received in 1986 and reviewed the list of requests which had boon received during the past year. Bruce Davis with EOA Housing addressed the Board, stating they had been inadvertently left off the preliminary list this year. EOA is requesting $3,500 this year. Sandra Carlisle, Community Development Director stated she would add EOA to the list. Carol Hart, Director, Life Styles, Inc., addressed the Board concerning the Sycamore Street project. Hart requested assistance from CD on the off-site improvements on Sycamore totalling about $18,000. Mayor Noland pointed out that final action will be taken on these items at the October 15th Board meeting. In answer to a question from Director &mpass, Carlisle stated that the preliminary list is not prioritized. Carlisle stated that anyone wishing to submit additional projects should do so before the October 15th meeting. 305 305.1 305.2 305.3 305.4 305.5 305.6 305.7 305.8 306.1 October 1, 1985 City Manager Grimes noted to the Board that Acting Fire Chief Bill Boudrey wished to apprise the Board that the Giles Addition project is at the top of his priority list because of the inadequate fire protection there. Boudrey also expressed concern, said Grimes, that the Wyman project be given priority consideration. 306.2 Director Johnson requested that Directors prioritize the preliminary list. Mayor Noland closed the Public Hearing. REZONING APPEAL 306.3 Mayor Noland introduced an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission regarding the denial of rezoning petition R85-23, located at the northeast corner of East Huntsville Road and Sherman Avenue. The request is to rezone from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-0 "Residential -Office". 306.4 Mr. B.W. Dykes, representing First National Bank of Tahlequah, the owner, addressed the Board stating the owner feels the best use for this property would be R-0 zoning for office use. Dykes stated the owner would provide a Bill of Assurance that the offices would be closed by 7:00 p.m. to protect the neighborhood from heavy traffic and noise. In answer to a question from Director Martin, Dykes stated he doesn't believe the property has R-1 application at all. Martin further asked if there was any way the building could be modified into some kind of residential housing, short of tearing it down. Dykes replied it would be possible to do this at an extensive cost and further stated a triplex might be feasible. In answer to a question from Mr. Dykes, Mayor Noland stated that a duplex is a permissible use in R-1 zoning. Director Martin pointed out that this would be the only commercial enterprise for several blocks in that particular area and stated that, although he could sympathize with the owner's desire to use the building for what it was designed for, he maintained the Board has to consider the residential homes in the area. Dykes explained the owner had changed their rezoning request to R-0 in the hope of coming up with something that would be satisfactory to everyone involved. 306.5 Mr. James Lacey, a resident from the neighborhood, addressed the Board expressing his concern over not knowing what type of business would be put in there. Another resident, Mr. Haver McBroom, addressed the Board expressing his opposition to the rezoning. 306.6 City Attorney McCord advised the Board that: (1) The Constitution does not require that a zoning ordinance permit a given piece of property to be put to its highest and best and most profitable use; and (2) The Constitution does require that a zoning ordinance permit a given piece of property be put .to a reasonable use. 306.7 Director Bumpass questioned whether the Board should focus on whether the building could be used as a residence or a duplex. McCord answered affirmatively. October 1, 1985 Director Orton made a motion, seconded by Martin, that the rezoning appeal be denied. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. City Attorney McCord, in clarification of his answer to Director Bumpass, stated there are other uses permissible in the R-1 district as conditional uses with the approval of the Planning Commission, one of which is cultural and recreational facilities. McCord went on to say that there is a possibility that the property owner could obtain a condi- tional use permit for a cultural or recreational facility. ACT 9 BONDS The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a Memorandum of Intent for an Act 9 bond issue for the expansion of the Hackney Bros. Body Company plant. Mr. Shep Russell of the Friday, the Board and requested that the from $600,000 to $700,000, due to Eldridge & Clark law firm addressed fee previously requested be changed higher cost estimates. Mayor Noland asked how many new employees, if any, this expansion would ultimately yield. Art Freeman, Plant Manager for Hackney Bros., answered they felt it would increase their employees by at least 25 which would put them up over 100 employees. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Freeman noted they would be adding 25,000 sq. ft. along with some new equipment. Mayor Noland noted that the Board Bros. in 1977 and pointed out that stimulation for the economy of he feels that Hackney Bros. meet had issued its first bonds to Hackney this new issue would provide economic the area. Noland then stated that the qualifications for these bonds. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to adopt the resolution authorizing a Mamrandum of Intent for approximately $700,000 in Act 9 Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for Hackney Bros. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 104-85 APPEARS ON PAGE 521 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xxn SIGN APPEAL The Mayor introduced a request from Campus Book Store for permission to erect two roof signs on the Campus Book Store. Rick Mayes representing Campus Book Store addressed the Board stating the intent of the store is to take the existing signs and place them above the roof line in order to place a large awning on the exterior of the building. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Mayes stated the awning is to be made of canvas. Director Martin questioned 307 307.1 307.2 307.3 307.4 307.5 307.6 307.7 307.8 307.9 108 October 1, 1985 308.1 whether the primary intent of this request is for the appearance of the building. Mayes answered affirmatively, adding that the present awning leaks when it rains and it can't be patched. Mayes further noted that the awning installers have stated they cannot guarantee that the awning would not leak if the signs are left where they are. Mayes, in answer to a question from Martin, stated they would be using the existing signs. Noland asked Mayes if they would agree not to put up another freestanding sign if the Board grants this request. Mayes stated they would be willing to give the City a Bill of Assurance that they would not construct any more signs. Director Martin pointed out that the Pride in Dickson Street organization has written a letter in support of this request. ' 308.2 Director Martin, seconded by Hess, made a motion that the request be approved upon condition that an additional freestanding sign would not be erected. Mayor Noland stated that another condition should be if the awning is removed then the signs should be placed back on the wall. Mayes stated they intend to maintain the awning and when the guarantee on the awning is up in five years, they will replace the awning. City Attorney McCord stated the ordinance provides that in granting a variance the Board can impose reasonable conditions. McCord stated these conditions can be put in the file by the Inspection Department. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. CAR RENTAL BOOTH 308.3 The Mayor introduced consideration of the execution of a lease agreement with National Car Rental for a car rental booth in the Drake Field Terminal Building. 308.4 City Manager Grimes stated this is a continuation of a car rental leasereflecting a change of ownership of the rental agency. 308.5 Director Bumpass, seconded ty Johnson, made a motion that the resolution be passed. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 105-85 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK xxII BID AWARDS 523 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 308.6 The Mayor introduced consideration of Bid No. 648 for pickups for Sanitation, Inspection, Water & Sewer, and Parks Departments. 308.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bess, made a motion that the bids be awarded for the one 1/2 -ton pickup for Sanitation to Steve Smith CHIC, for the one 1/2 -ton pick for Inspection to Steve Smith (SIC, for the two 3/4 ton pickups for Water & Sewer and one 3/4 -ton pickup for Parks/ Maintenance to Nelms Chevrolet. October 1, 1985 Director Orton questioned Purchasing Agent Sturman Mackey as to why 3/4 ton pickups are needed. Mackey stated these pickups are needed to haul heavier loads. Mackey, in answer to a question from Mayor Noland, stated these are to replace existing vehicles which are no longer cost effective. 309 309.1 Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. 309.2 The Mayor introduced consideration of Bid No. 654 for playground equipment 309.3 for installation in Wilson Park. A motion was made by Director Johnson, seconded by Bless, that the 309.4 Redwood Play Structure be awarded to Tan Beverly and the Merry -Go -Round to Tom Beverly, and the Climbing Device be awarded to Apex Associates. Mayor Noland asked whether these were within the budget. Mackey answered affirmatively. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Mackey stated that the redwood structure goes to Wilson Park, the merry-go-round goes to Walker Park and the climbing device goes to Greathouse Park. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. 309.5 FAIR LABOR STANDARDS Mayor Noland introduced a report from the Personnel Officer on the steps necessary to bring the City into compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. Director Johnson noted to the Board that the Garcia legislation has brought into law that the City must pay back -pay for overtime for anyone in the police and fire departments, where before that decision, cities were exempt from paying overtime to these employees. Johnson also noted. the law was passed on April 15th. In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Johnson stated this was a Supreme Court decision. Personnel Officer Jeanette Crumpler addressed the Board stating that several of the recommendations to bring the City into compliance with this law havealready been accomplished and noted the main impact has been on firemen and police officers. Crumpler noted the recommen- dations she wanted to address are implementing a fluctuating work week schedule for these two departments and be able to utilize the 171 hour - 28 day cycle for police officers and the 169 hour = 21 day cycle for firemen. In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Crumpler stated this is in agreement with what other cities are doing and is not unique to Fayetteville. Director Johnson stated there were several options the City could choose from and noted that supervisors are exempt from overtime requirements and that there are certain criteria that supervisors must meet. Johnson stated the City has the option of choosing anywhere from a 1 to 28 day work period which does not necessarily mean pay period. Johnson then stated that it looked like it would be easier to pay half-time for anything over a certain number of hours a week and to choose a flexible work schedule saying that 309.6 309.7 309.8 10 October 1, 1985 310.1 all police and fire employees would work 171 or 169 hours, respectively, in those particular work cycles. Johnson went on to say that anything they worked over the respective hours in their work cycle, they would be paid half-time for so that they would actually be getting time and one-half, but they would be paid regular time for 171 or 169 hours. 310.2 In answer to a question ftuu Mayor Noland, Crumpler requested the Board to act on the fluctuating work -week schedule and asked the Board to address the issue of payment of compensatory time with deferral of the payment until such time as further action is taken by the legis- lature. Noland clarified compensatory time being the accrued time since the law was passed up to this point. 310.3 Director Martin asked whether the Performance Auditors have considered work schedules in the Police and Fire Departments and asked if their recommendations would have any effect on the Board's actions on these issues. Crumpler answered she did not think so. Johnson pointed out that this is back -time (hours already worked) and does not address any issues which may come past October 15th. Johnson went on to clarify that the Board needs to adopt a policy implementing the flexible workweek schedule as recommended by the Personnel Officer and secondly, The Board needs to adopt a back -payment of about $40,000 to cover overtime which has been worked from April 15th until October 15th. 310.4 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Johnson stated that their present work schedule is 171 hours which is 9 hours overtime for firemen. Director Martin asked whether the Police Chief and Acting Fire Chief has subscribed to this plan. Crumpler stated she did not know. Crumpler noted to the Board that, should they make a decision on these issues tonight, their decision could be changed. 310.5 A motion was made by Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, that the Board adopt the flexible workweek schedule of 169 hours for the Fire Department and 171 hours for the Police Department. Upon roll call, the notion passed 6-0. 310.6 City Attorney McCord pointed out to the Board that there is pending legislation in Congress which would exempt firefighters and police officers from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. McCord further stated that the recommendation of the City Manager's office is .that the Board approve payment of overtime accrued since the effective date of the Garcia decision which was April 15, 1985, but withhold payment pending a decision by Congress on pending legis- lation. 310.7 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, City Manager Grimes stated the City has paid overtime to police officers in the past. McCord noted that, until the Garcia decision, the City was not required by federal law to pay overtime to any municipal employee. McCord further noted that police officers had been compensated for court time when they had to testify during their off -time. October 1, 1985 Director Johnson, seconded by Bunpass, made a motion that the Board approve payment of overtime accrued frau April 15th, and then withhold payment until pending legislation has been resolved. Johnson also noted that in the past the City has excluded holiday pay when figuring time and one-half, but now holiday pay must be'included. Director Martin asked why anything needs to be authorized now when, if the legislation passes, it may not be necessary. McCord answered that the Federal Department of Labor has indicated that, effective October 15th it will begin enforcing the Garcia decision against munic- ipalities nationwide. 311 311.1 311.2 Upon toll call, the motion passed 6-0. 311.3 ANTI -PICKETING ORDINANCE The Mayor introduced a request from attorney David Morris for an oppor- tunity to discuss an ordinance passed at the last Board meeting which prohibits picketing of private residences. Mayor Noland noted that in order for the Board to rehear this issue, a Board member would have to agree to bring this issue back up. Director Hess stated he had no objection to hearing the individuals speak providing they address their remarks to the issue at hand, which is the ordinance itself. David Morris addressed the Board stating he had been contacted by a number of individuals who had some concerns about this ordinance. Morris noted that he had discussed this issue with City Attorney McCord at some length. McCord, at the request of the Mayor and Director Martin; summarized the ordinance and the reasons it was adopted. McCord pointed out that this ordinance was adopted under "Other Business" at the last meeting basically because it was viewed as a housekeeping item to merely cure a defect in a State statute which prohibits the picketing of private residences but contains an exemption for picketing by labor unions. The City Attorney stated that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that similar statute was unconstitutional. In answer to a question from Director Martin, McCord stated that the State law has not been declared unconstitutional and that it is the -opinion of the City Attorney and the City Prosecutor, that if the City sought to enforce the State statute the defendant would unquestionably challenge the statute as being unconstitutional and the challenge would be successful. McCord further stated that if the City desires to prevent residential picketing, it needs to enforce a local ordinance which does not contain the ob3ec- tional exemption. Charles Berger addressed the Board and stated that he did not necessarily have a problem with the ordinance which was passed, but was concerned with the way the issue was handled. Mayor Noland pointed out that 311.4 311.5 311.6 311.7 311.8 l2 October 1, 1985 312.1 approximately 90% of the ordinances passed are taken care of during one meeting. Mayor Noland asked Berger if he wanted the Board to reconsider the ordinance. Berger answered affirmatively. 312.2 Gary Carnahan addressed the Board stating several people had contacted him and felt that the public shouldhave had some input into this ordinance. Mayor Noland requested Carnahan to state in his comments to the Board why he felt the Board should revoke this ordinance. Carnahan stated that the public reaction to this ordinance is one reason he feels the Board should rescind this ordinance. 312.3 David Morris addressed the Board again stating he felt that "there are some grave questions as to the constitutionality of this particular City ordinance." Morris also stated he thought this ordinance has restricted the rights as are guaranteed under the First Amendment and feels if there is a valid cause for passing this ordinance, there are certain less restrictive measures that could have been adopted rather than a blanket ban on residential picketing. 312.4 Mayor Noland asked the Board if there was a motion to reconsider this ordinance. No motion was forthcoming. 312.5 Samuel G. Campbell addressed the Board stating he felt the ordinance should be rescinded because (1) the Board neglected to define "private residences", (2) the Board neglected to define "picketing", and (3) the Board neglected to define "demonstrations". 312.6 Mayor Noland again asked the Board if there was a motion to reconsider this ordinance. No motion was forthcoming. Noland stated the ordinance stands as passed. R-1.5 ZONING DISTRICT 312.7 The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance amending the City Code by establishing an R-1.5 "Moderate Density Residential" zoning district. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 meeting. 312.8 Noland stated this ordinance was recommended by the Planning Commission because currently in R-1 "Low Density Residential", 4-7 families per acre of density is allowed and R-1.5 would permit 12 families per acre of density. Noland stated the purpose of this .ordinance is to find a transition zoning between R-1 and R-2 zoning districts. 312.9 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. City Attorney 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 the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the third time. October 1, .1985 Loris Stanton addressed the Board expressing his support for the passage of this ordinance. Director Johnson noted to the Board that this ordinance was discussed at the joint meeting of the Board of Directors and the Planning Commission and the Commission felt there was a real need for this ordinance to provide them with more flexibility in zoning. Upon roll call, the ordinance was passed by a 6-0 vote. ORDINANCE NO. 3128 APPEARS ON PAGE 401 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION HOOK xxxii ANTIQUE SHOPS The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance amending the City Code by classifying antique shops as Use Unit 2; this ordinance was recommended to the Board by the Planning Commission. Noland further noted this ordinance would allow antique shops to be located anywhere in the City, subject to a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. The ordinance was read for the first time by City Attorney McCord. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Orton asked why an antique shop should be singled out for this privilege. McCord pointed out that this is not a use by right throughout the City, but in many districts will be a conditional use. Planning Director Sandra Carlisle stated that antique shops are only allowed in C-2, C-3 and I-1 zonings as a use by right. Noland pointed out that antique shops are low traffic businesses. ,Upon roll call, the ordinance passed 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3129 APPEARS ON PAGE 403 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXTTT NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance amending the City Code to authorize the enlargement of certain noncon- forming structures. The ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 meeting. 313 313.1 313.2 . 313.3 313.4 313.5 313.6 313.7 313.8 14 October 1, 1985 314.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. 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 the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. McCord read the ordinance for the third time. 314.2 Director Orton questioned whether these exceptions include structures in all zones except where it specifically states residential. McCord stated that as the ordinance is drafted, exceptions 1 and 2 would be restricted to residential zones; exceptions 3 and 4 would not be restricted to residential zones. 314.3 Director Orton questioned the intent of the Planning Commission on this ordinance. Planning Director Carlisle stated their recommendation was to restrict it to residential zones on all four exceptions. 314.4 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to amend the ordinance to restrict all four exceptions to residential zones. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. 314.5 Upon roll call, the amended ordinance passed 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3130 APPEARS ON PAGE 404 BOOK xxinI ACCESSORY STRUCTURES OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 314.6 The Mayor introduced consideration of an ordinance amending the City Code to regulate the use of accessory structures. The ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 meeting. 314.7 Mayor Noland stated the purpose of this ordinance is to prevent a building from being built on a lot without prior approval; regulates the location of "Lo -Dal" -type trash containers; specifies that swimming pools shall not be located in any required front yard; and deletes the requirement that accessory buildings be separated from other buildings by ten feet. 314.8 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time by the City Attorney. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. October 1, 1985 Director Bumpass questioned whether a swimming pool in a front yard would be absolutely and unconditionally prohibited. Director Hess answered negatively, stating the ordinance reads "in any required front yard." The Planning Director and City Attorney both agreed with this interpretation. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3131 APPEARS ON PAGE 406 BOOK XXIII RESIDENTIAL USES OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance amending the City Code by allowing accessory residential uses in non- residential zoning districts. Noland elaborated stating this would permit people to live in C-1, C-2, I-1, and I-2 zoning districts. Noland further stated detached residential dwelling units would be conditional uses in these zoning districts. Noland noted residential uses would be allowed "by right" if they are attached to the principal building in the C-1, C-2, I-1 and I-2 districts. 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 the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Bumpass questioned whether this conditional use allowing a residential use in these zones would change a particular facility into a residential purpose for the purposes of the anti -picketing law. Director. Hess stated his interpretation is that if there is only one place which can be picketed, then they have a right to picket it. Director Bumpass stated he felt this would be infringing upon the rights of the neighbors. City Attorney McCord stated in these zones you might have an isolated residence, not a residential neighbor- hood. 315 315.1 315.2 315.3 315.4 315.5 315.6 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-1-0, with Director Johnson 315.7 voting in the minority. ORDINANCE NO. 3132 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK XXTTT 408 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 316 OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES October 1, 1985 316.1 The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance, amending the City Code definition of off-street parking space. This ordinance was left on the first reading at the September 3 meeting. 316.2 • Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 316.3 Director Orton asked for clarification on this ordinance. Planning Director Carlisle answered saying the ordinance now reads that no more than three cars may back into a street. Director Bumpass asked what the need is for the language ",...and so that any automobile may be parked or unparked without moving another automobile;...". City Attorney McCord answered that this language is in the existing ordinance which was drafted in 1970. Director Orton said the intent seems to be that if you have a common drive you get permission to back into a public street. Director OtLon questioned whether there should be a provision to this ordinance stating something to the effect that the preferred way would be not to back into a public street. 316.4 McCord stated that the ordinance was recommended by the Planning Commission and suggested that if the Board is not comfortable with the wording of the ordinance, perhaps they should defer it back to the Planning Commission. Director Orton stated her concern is whether the ordinance would encourage backing into a public street when it is not necessary. Orton stated her question to the Planning Commission is "Is their intent to make it more restrictive?" Orton stated she felt there should be more restrictions in the ordinance. 316.5 The ordinance was referred back to the Planning Commission for clarifi- cation. STREET COMMIrrFE 316.6 Director Orton reported on the Street Committee meeting held September 30. 316.7 Orton stated the Committee requested the Board to permit up to $2,000 more for engineering fees for the Sycamore Street drainage project. Director Orton, seconded by Noland, made a motion that the Board grant this request. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. 316.8 Orton reported on a staff proposal for a phased project to reduce drainage problems along Highway 16 West. The Committee requested Board authorization to start the procedure of hiring an engineer for • October 1, 1985 this project. Grimes noted that if this project could be accelerated, funds could be budgeted in the 1986 funds to start doing some of the work. Grimes further requested the Board to authorize the Committee to take proposals for this project, so that sufficient engineering could be done to determine what amount of money should be budgeted in the 1986 budget for the initial phases of this project. Director Orton, seconded by Noland, made a motion that the Hoard grant the Committee's request for authorization to prepare requests for proposals for engineering services for this project. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. Orton reported on the Committee's discussion of a sidewalk on the west side of Winwood Drive. The Committee decided to place this on the list for sidewalk requests for the Board to prioritize at budget time. Orton reported on a request for a one -lane bridge located on Markham Road to be widened to two lanes. Orton said a cost estimate will be made and this project will be considered at budget time. Orton reported on a discussion concerning a proposed amendment to the Master Street Plan; the proposal being that Hwy. 265 would loop south of 216 and come out on Happy Hollow Road to join Hwy. 16. Orton further stated there would be no action taken on this at this time because the staff is doing further research on it. Orton reported on a review of engineering proposals for the most feasible routes for a street connecting Hwy. 265 to the downtown area. Four proposals from engineers were submitted and the Committee recommended that the proposal from Crafton, Tull, Span & Yoe, Inc., with a fee of $13,950 be accepted. Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the engineering proposal from Crafton, 11111, Span & Yoe, Inc., be accepted. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. Director Orton noted some concerns about this project expressed by members of the audienceat the meeting: (1) they wish the Board to consider the impact of this street on the neighborhood if it connects with an existing street; (2) they expressed concern about the width of this street in the hilly terrain; and (3) they questioned that, if it is not feasible to build a street in this area, would the engineer say so. Orton reported on a letter concerning a culvert directing run-off into a private yard on Dickson Street close to the public library. Orton stated there had been an estimate for the cost of widening the street which was around $200,000. The property owner concerned with the run-off asked that a concrete wall be built at this point to keep the run-off from his yard. This wall could be built so that it would 317 317.1 317.2 317.3 317.4 317.5 317.6 317.7 317.8 317.9 118 October 1, 1985 318.1 be made a part of the widening of the street and also, according to the Street Superintendent, a dirt path could be put along this point. Cost estimates on this item are forthcoming and will be considered at budget time. PAY PLAN DISCREPANCIES 318.2 City Manager Grimes asked the Board to consider the discrepancies set out in the memo presented to the Board and stated he feels there are better ways to solve these than have been recommended in staff meetings. Grimes further stated more information is forthcoming to the Board on Water and Sewer Department employees. 318.3 Director Orton questioned whether there are other departments, other than the ones listed, which have discrepancies. Grimes answered affir- matively. Mayor Noland suggested that this could be discussed further at the Board Retreat on Sunday, October 6. WAIVER OF COMPETITIVE BIDDING 318.4 Mayor Noland introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance waiving the requirement of competitive bidding for remedial work to the stone panels at the front of the City Administration Building. The estimated cost for this work is $2,500-$3,000. 318.5 The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney. A notion was made by Director Bumpass, seconded ,by Johnson, that the rules be . suspended and the ordinance be place on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed. 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. A motion was made by Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, that the rules be further suspended and the ordinance be placed on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 318.6 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3133 APPEARS ON PAGE 4Q9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Xx T T T UTILITY EASEMENT 318.7 The Mayor introduced consideration of the passage of an ordinance closing and vacating a 20' utility easement along the south side of the Bargo Engineering site in the Industrial Park 318.8 The ordinance was read for the first time by the City Attorney. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be place on the second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The notion was read for the second time. October 1, 1985 Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to further suspend the rules and the ordinance be placed on the third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 319 319.1 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-1-0, with Director Johnson 319.2 in the minority. ORDINANCE NO. 3137 APPEARS ON PAGE 446 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xxiii LANDSCAPE DESIGN CONTEST The Mayor introduced consideration of a request for the Mayor to sign off on an application of Al Einert to enter the Finger Park Master Plan in a landscape design award contest. Director ampass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to grant authorization of this application. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0. BOARD RETREAT The Mayor stated he did not feel there was any State law which says the Board retreat has to start at 8:00 on Sunday morning, and proposed that it start at 9:00 A.M. STARNES EMINENT DOMAIN CASE The Mayor introduced consideration of a settlement offer in an eminent. domain case condemning 78.33 acres of land owned by Bill and Stella Starnes and First State Bank. City Attorney McCord stated this is one of the sites the City has condemned as a sludge application site when the improvements to the Wastewater Treatment Plant are completed. McCord stated the appraisal by the City's independent appraiser, Kerry Schultz, is $86,200. The landowner's independent appraisals, said McCord, are $125,000 and $118,000. McCord noted the Board had previously authorized a settlement offer of $105,000, the property owners made a counter offer of $115,000 which is above the City's appraisal but belga the landowners' appraisal. McCord also pointed out that the case is set for jury trial on October 16, 1985. McCord requested instruction from the, Board on whether to settle for $115,000 or to try the case Director Martin stated he felt the Board should settle the case because this offer does not appear to be excessive. Mayor Noland stated that the City has been voluntarily offered a tract of land adjacent to this one for $1,000 per acre. Director Hess questioned whether there was a big time discrepancy between when the appraisals 319.3 319.4 319.5 319.6 319.7 319.8 320 October 1, 1985 320.1 were made.McCord stated the $125,000 appraisal was made in 1983, the $118,000 appraisal was made recently, as of the date of taking which is October, 1984. McCord said Schultz's appraisal was made right before the condemnation was filed which was October, 1984. Mayor Noland pointed out the agricultural land has been depreciating in value in recent months. McCord stated the landowners are entitled to the current market value as of the date of taking. 320.2 Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a notion that the City settle for $115,000. Director Johnson stated she seconded the motion because the City had already authorized up to $105,000. Upon roll call, the notion passed, 4-2-0, with Hess and Bumpass in the minority. MINUTES 320.3 The minutes of the September 17 meeting were approved with no corrections. • HUD APPROPRIATIONS 320.4 Director Johnson noted to the Board that Senator Nickles of Oklahoma is placing an amendment on the HUD appropriations to deny the Fayetteville Discharge Permit for the Illinois River. Johnson further stated that Senators Bloopers and Pryor are looking out for the City's interests but after a morning -long negotiation, they were at an impasse. NEWSPAPER ARTIC.FS 320.5 Director Bumpass, in reference to newspaper articles which were circulated to the Board regarding the quantity of phosphorus, asked if those were correct. Mayor Noland stated he thought they were probably pretty correct. Director Johnson stated the City will have less phosphorus than Prairie Grove. ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at about 11:00 P.M.