Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-21 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, January 21, 1986 at 7:30 P.M. in the Directors' Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin and Orton; Acting City Manager Murphy, Interim Department Heads Bunn, Jackson, and Linebaugh, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience. CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order, with seven Directors present, and asked for a moment of silence. REVENUE SHARING BUDGET The Mayor opened a public .hearing for comments regarding a proposed 1986 Revenue Sharing budget. The Mayor noted that, in the past, previous regulations required that a preliminary budget hearing be held. He pointed out that this requirement is no longer necessary but noted that the proposed budget would be used for salaries in the General Fund, the Public Works Fund and the Shop Fund in 1986. The Mayor added that any oral or written comments will be accepted regarding this budget. Director Johnson pointed out that the budget revenue has been lowered, from $1,012,000 in 1985 to $744,000 for 1986, to reflect pending federal cuts. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the 1986 Revenue Sharing budget. The public hearing was closed and, upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 12-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 266 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII ARTS CENTER SITE The Mayor introduced consideration of a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an Option on approximately 7/10 of 25.1 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 25.7 C f) Janury 21, 1986 26.1 an acre proposed as a site for the Arts Center, located south of Rock Street. The Mayor explained that the agreement would be made with First National Bank, in the amount of $1,000 per month to hold the option on the property until such time as a decision is made regarding a site. The Mayor pointed out that payments received under the option could be applied towards the total purchase price. 26.2 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Arts Center Board Chairman Frank Sharp stated there had not been an independent appraisal of the property. Sharp explained that the Arts Center Board would meet with the University next Thursday and that there would be discussion regarding such issues as a site. Mayor Noland concurred with Bumpass that appraisals should be conducted on potential sites. Bumpass suggested deferral of action on the option. 26.3 Director Hess commented that the cost was "somewhat overblown" and that, assuming there would not be an arts center on the proposed site, the best use for the property would be apartments. 26.4 Director Orton stated she thought it would be a good idea to hold the property until such time as the City Arts Center Board and the University reach a joint decision, but a reasonable price for the property should be determined first. 26.5 In answer to a question from Director Sharp, the City Attorney stated that the city could have an appraisal performed and make a counter- offer equivalent to the appraised value. 26.6 Director Orton made a motion to approve the option, with the price of the land to be determined by an appraisal. There was no second to the motion. 26.7 The City Attorney recommended the Board specify a firm to perform the appraisal. He added that the Board could decide to have the appraisal performed before the next Board meeting, at which time the Board could consider whether it wishes to make an offer in the amount of the ap- praisal. Director Orton stated she would be willing to wait until an appraisal has been performed. 26.8 After further discussion, the City Attorney advised that the Board could choose to approve the form of the option, with the purchase price to be subject to later Board approval, upon receipt of an appraisal by an appraiser selected by the Board. Director Orton made a motion to approve the form of the option. with the purchase price to be subject to later Board approval. upon receipt of an appraisal to be performed by Schultz Appraisers. The motion was seconded by Director Johnson. 26.9 Regarding the provision in the proposed option that "All abstracting or title insurance expenses and all closing costs shall be borne by Purchaser", Director Hess commented this was not standard procedure. Janury 21, 1986 The City Attorney pointed out this has been standard practice followed by the City of Fayetteville but that .it was obviously negotiable. Hess pointed out that abstracting and title insurance expenses are normally borne by the seller, with closing costs normally being divided by buyer and seller.. The City Attorney stated he would revise the option before final approval. In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, the City Attorney explained that if -the option is not exercised, the sums paid would be retained by the seller. Director Bumpass stated he did not think this action was necessary in light of ongoing meetings between the University and the Arts Center Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, .with Bumpass voting in the minority. • RESOLUTION NO. 13-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 268 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII ARTS. CENTER FUND BUDGET The Board considered a resolution adopting the Arts Center Fund budget for 1986. The Mayor noted the budget would include total expenditures of $10,650. In answer to a question from Director Martin, Scott Linebaugh explained that this was a "generalized budget" which will cover "minor, general costs", and that when more specific action is taken by the Board on the Arts Center, more specific costs would be entered into the budget. Martin remarked that, although the Finance Committee had not reviewed the budget, he felt it appeared to be a fairly minimal appropriation of funds for the Arts Center Board's activities. Director Martin, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the Arts Center budget as proposed. Upon roll 'call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 14-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 269 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xXIII FUTURE PARK The Board considered a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Parks Department that the city purchase land in the Quail Creek Addition for a future park. 27.1 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 27.7 27.8 January 21, 1986 28.1 The Mayor noted this recommendation was discussed at a joint meeting between the City Board and Park Board, and that the City Board had toured the site. 28.2 Director Johnson commented that, since no cost figures were given to the Board for the proposed acreage and since there are so little excess funds, she was not in favor of making a commitment. Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a notion that the Boaid wait until either a generalized cost estimate is obtained, or until more information is available regarding other parts needs. 28.3 Director Bumpass asked that C.D. and Planning Director Carlisle look at this acquisition in light of its impact on the Master Street Plan. 28.4 Upon roll Call, the motion passed, 7-0. 28.5 Director Orton agreed with the motion but remarked that the Board's action should not be interpreted to mean that the Board is not in favor of the idea of the park. 28.6 In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, property owner Wade Bishop responded that 5.65 acres of the total acreage under discussion were located in the flood plain. After further discussion, it was agreed that Bishop and the Parks Board should discuss costs and the matter of how much and which portion of the property would be donated as a result of the Green Space requirement. REZONING PETITION R85-31 28.7 The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 0.45 acres located south of Mt. Comfort Road at Deane Solomon Road, from R-1, "Low Density Residential", to R-2, "Medium Density Residential". The Mayor noted that the request, from Eben and Linda Jones, was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on January 13, by a vote of 5-3. 28.8 28.9 28.10 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Orton noted that the Board, when it viewed the property, had not observed that a sign had been posted to notify the neighbors of the rezoning request. Sandra Carlisle explained that a sign had been installed on November 15 and was taken down on January 15, having been posted longer than the required time period. Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its 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 its third 1 1 Janury 21, 1986 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 in opposition to the rezoning. No public opposition was expressed from the audience. Director Bumpass asked about the purpose for rezoning the property. Carlisle explained that, before the property was annexed into the city, three houses hadbeen built on the lot, making it non -conforming in an R-1 zoning district. Carlisle stated that the owner could sell the houses individually., on one lot, if the property were to be rezoned R-2. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3163 APPEARS ON PAGE 488 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII BILL OF ASSURANCE RELEASE The Board considered a request by Jim Lindsey for the release of a Bill of Assurance. The Mayor explained that in 1978 when the Board rezoned 44.2 acres west of Crossover Road at its intersection with Zion Road, it was done with the provision that the property owner enter into a Bill of Assurance allowing only one building permit to be issued on the property, until sewer became available. The Mayor added that, according to Lindsey, sewer is now available to the property and he asks for release from the Bill of Assurance. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to release the Bill of Assurance. Lindsey told the Board that, although the Bill of Assurance makes no mention of hooking the Human Services Building onto sewer, sewer is available approximately 1100 feet from the building and it was his intention to hook sewer onto the building at the time it can be extended into the area without exorbitant costs. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Lindsey explained that, although only 44.2 acres had been rezoned, through some error the legal description used in the Bill of Assurance described 87 acres he had originally purchased but did not own at the time he entered into the Bill of Assurance. Lindsey clarified that sewer is now available to the 44.2 acres in question. Don Bunn, City Engineer, was in concurrence. Lindsey explained that the intent of his request is to "clear up a cloud on the title" for the property. 29.1 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 30 30.1 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 30.2 January 21, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 15-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 271 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII PASTURE LEASE The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of a one-year pasture and hay lease with Kenneth Clark, in the sum of $800, for 40 acres recently purchased by the City for a sludge disposal site. 30.3 Director Dnapass, seconded by Hess, made a lotion to approve the reso- lution. Upon roll call, the notion passed, 7-0. 30.4 30.5 30.6 30.7 30.8 RESOLUTION NO. 16-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 275 OF ORDINANCE S RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT The Board considered a resolution authorizing approval of Change Order No. 5 to the city's construction contract with Olson Construction Company, for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Mayor explained the change order consisted of eleven modifications and would result in a net deduct of ($8,424) for Phase I and a net addition of $9,695.48 for Phase II which results in a net contract increase of $1,271.48. Director Johnson asked for an explanation of the additional telephone receptacles, at a cost of $447, for the Administration Building. Dennis Sandretto, Project Manager for CH2M Hill, explained that the original design did not contain telephones in the training/conference area and Mike Lawrence, Operations Manager, requested consideration of this addition to make it easier for employees to answer the phone while working in that area. In answer to a question from Johnson, Sandretto explained that the addition of a valve to the strainer, and motor start -stops for the aeration basin drain pumps and the sludge storage reservoir aerators were not shown in the drawings, but are necessary to the project. The Board also considered authorizing approval of Change Order No. 7 to the city's construction contract, consisting of three modifications resulting'in a net change order amount of $43,068 and an extension of time of 90 calendar days for the completion of the administration building. Director Martin asked if it was an oversight that the design did not include the replacement of site lights at the existing plant. Sandretto 1 31 Janury 21, 1986 explained it was not considered but he was not sure whether this was 31.1 intentional or unintentional. In answer to a question from the Mayor, City Engineer Don Bunn stated that a 90 -day delay on the occupation of the Administration Building would not interfere with ongoing operations. Director Hess asked if the city should be responsible for errors of omission on the part .of the engineer. Sandretto responded that he did not think the city should be responsible for an error of omission where there is an additional cost t� the city that would not otherwise have existed had the item been included in the original contract docu- ments. Sandretto added that he did not think it inappropriate to have a change order which adds something which was inadvertently left out. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve a resolution to incorporate Change Order No. 5 -and Change Order No. 7. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. - RESOLUTION NO. 17-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 277 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII Director Johnson commented that, at two recent Board meetings, requests for change orders such as these have been submitted, and she stated she would be looking more closely at change order, recommendations in the future. SIGNATORY AGENT • The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing H. James Murphy and Scott C. Linebaugh to execute documents necessary to expedite completion of all phases of improvements to the city's pollution control facilities. The Mayor explained that the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology has advised that the signatory agent must be designated by name, rather than by title; and that a resolution passed by the Board on December 17 designated the agent by title only. 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 Director Orton, seconded -by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 31.7 resolution.. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 18-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 280 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII HEATING & A.C. CONTRACT The Board considered a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into a contract with Ozark Mountain Air for heating and air 31.8 J�. January 21, 1986 32.1 conditioning maintenance for the City Administration building. The Mayor explained that the city's current contract with Ozark Mountain Air is scheduled to expire on February 5, 1986, and that the staff recommends an extension of the present agreement to a term of five years. The Mayor noted that the cost for 1986 would be at the same price which was contracted in 1985 ($7,632), with that cost being adjusted according to the Consumer Price Index for each succeeding year. 32.2 Scott Linebaugh told the Board that the city's experience with Ozark Mountain Air had been good. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Ken Smith of Ozark Mountain Air stated that the equipment is being maintained as needed, according to manufacturer's recommen- dations. Smith added that there have been no major problems with the equipment. 32.3 Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a notion to authorize entering into the contract with Ozark Mountain Air. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 19-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 281 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII LAKE REGULATIONS 32.4 The Mayor introduced an ordinance amending regulations for fishing, boating and picnicking at Lake Fayetteville, Lake Sequoyah and Lake Wilson, recommended by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. 32.5 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 32.6 Director Orton noted that, under Section 4 of the proposed ordinance, it states that "Picnicking or other recreational activities shall be permitted on any part of ..." the lakes. Orton pointed out that there is a nature preserve around certain areas of Lake Fayetteville. Director Orton, seconded by Buapass, made a motion to amend the ordinance to exclude any restricted nature areas. Upon roll call, the notion passed, 7-0. 32.7 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak in opposition to the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed and, upon roll call, the ordinance as amended passed by a vote of 7-0. Janury 21, 1986 ORDINANCE NO, 3164 APPEARS ON PAGE 490 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Director Johnson, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, reported that committee met and recommended the appointment of F. L. "Butch" Robertson to a term on the City Planning Commission which expires on January 1, 1989. - Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion t� approve the nomination. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Director Johnson noted that Fayetteville has been lucky to have the number of citizens who serve as volunteers on city committees. She expressed thanks to those who applied but were not selected. Johnson pointed out that applications are kept on file for one year and applicants are drawn from these files when vacancies occur. OTHER BUSINESS POLICE LITIGATION The City Attorney reported to the Board on the present status of a class action by 27 Fayetteville police officers who allege that the City of Fayetteville has not compensated them for holiday pay and overtime court appearances as required by State law. McCord noted the case is set for trial April 29-30 and the plaintiffs have made a settlement offer proposing the City pay one year's holiday pay based upon 1983 salaries, and overtime pay at time -and -one-half, consistent with what evidence they can present as to actual hours worked. McCord added that counsel for plaintiffs has indicated that the settlement offer may be withdrawn if the Court overrules the City's Motion for Summary Judgement on the holiday pay or statute of limitation issues. McCord stated that, under the proposed settlement, the City of Fayetteville would pay plaintiffs, andmembers of the affected class who have not "opted out", approximately $23,000 in holiday pay; and that the total amount of overtime payments which would be paid is estimated to be approximately $18,000. The City Attorney recommended the Board decide whether he should continue to defend theIlitigation, to accept the settlement offer as presented, or to propose a counter offer. Director Lancaster stated he felt "all this time we were operating legally". Lancaster recommended the case be tried in court. Director Martin stated he believed that in continuing to pursue the case through litigation, there was a cost to the city that goes beyond.. 33 33.1 33.2 33.3 33.4 33.5 33.6 J c{ 34.1 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 January 21, 1986 dollars, in terms of the city's relationship with its police officers. Martin stated he would be in favor of a compromise settlement. Director Johnson made a motion to settle on the issue of the overtime pay and litigate on the issue of the holiday pay; and to go to court on both issues if the settlement offer is not accepted. The City Attorney stated there was a good chance that the city could prevail on the issue of holiday pay. McCord stated however that there is merit to plaintiffs' claim for overtime pay. He said that Ark.Stat.Ann. Sec. 19-1712 provides that any police officer working over 40 hours in a week "shall receive additional pay for all time worked in excess of 40 hours in such week, in accordance with the regular schedule of pay for such officers." McCord added that, until August 9, 1983, the City paid police officers $5.00 per case for overtime court appear- ances; and since August 9, 1983, the City has paid time and one-half. He said this was consistent with what police officers receive for other overtime work and complies with the statute. McCord stated he thought that claim should be settled if the parties can agree on the number of hours actually worked. McCord explained that the plaintiffs offer to settle the issue of overtime pay if the City will pay one year's holiday pay. Director Orton seconded the motion. In answer to a question from Director Hess regarding how an $18,000 settlement would be dispensed, McCord explained that individual officers would present evidence as to the number of hours each had worked overtime in connection with court appearances and, based upon their annual hourly rates for that year, the additional compensation would be computed after deducting any payments they may have already received. 34.6 In answer to a question from Lancaster, McCord stated that of the 27 named plaintiffs, only three or four are not on the city's payroll. 34.7 Upon roll call, the motion failed, 3-4, with Directors Orton, Noland and Johnson voting in favor of the motion, and Directors Lancaster, Martin, Hess and Bumpass voting against the motion. 34.8 34.9 34.10 Mayor Noland stated the City Attorney would be directed to proceed with litigation on both aspects of the case. Director Martin made a motion that the city offer to settle on both issues of the case. There was no second to that motion. OFFICE SPACE FOR N.W.A.R.R.A Mayor Noland reported there had been a request from Louis Watts, Project Director for the Solid Waste Project, for office space at City Hall. Director Orton pointed out that it has been inconvenient for Watts Janury 21, 1986 to work out of a Springdale office on a Fayetteville project. Orton added that Acting City Manager Murphy has recommended approval of the request. Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to accept.the recom- mendation of the Acting City Manager. Murphy noted that this change will address the problem of a communications gap which city staff has had with the Authority, in terms of responding to the Authority's needs for financial information, and city staff's needs for information on progress. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. ADVERTISING & PROMOTION Director Bumpass reported that the advertising firm of Blackwood and Martin wishes to develop some joint advertising efforts between the City of Fayetteville and airlines. Bumpass noted that the firm would meet with the Airport Manager and the airlines regarding this issue. MINUTES The Minutes of the December 31, 1985 meeting were approved with the following corrections: 424.2 Delete "for use by the Continuing Education Center" and insert "before it was pledged to debt service on the CEC bonds" 428.3 After "made a motion to..." add "not approve the Municipal Court budget until a meeting is scheduled with the Municipal Judge, and..." 432.9 At the end of this paragraph, add "Johnson requested that the University be included in the performance measurement bids." The Minutes of the January 7, 1986 meeting were approved as circulated. MEETING WITH MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Acting City Manager Murphy reported that, in a meeting with the Municipal Court Judge two weeks ago, he suggested to Judge Williams that, based on the fact that the Court was using the ten-day collection of $21,000 as documentation for their success on collections, they should wait until as close to January 30 as they can before setting up a meeting with the Board, 35.1 35.2 35.3 35.4 35.5 35.6 • 35.7 35.8 January 21, 1986 36.1 to demonstrate that 45 days is better than ten days, in terms of measuring sustained success. Murphy added that Williams would schedule a meeting with the Board sometime next week. BUDGET 36.2 Director Bumpass asked why the Budget for 1986 salaries and wages is shown to be up from 1985 by $1,052,107. Scott Linebaugh explained that the $1,052,107 figure includes pension costs and insurance costs which were not shown in the 1985 figure. Mayor Noland stated he would be interested in seeing a total figure for salaries and wages for 1986, excluding fringe benefits. Linebaugh estimated that figure to be approximately $400,000 for existing personnel. Linebaugh pointed out that, since the city has eliminated capital construction, salaries for existing personnel in that area are now shown in the operating section instead of being shown in the capital portion of the budget. ADJOURNMENT 36.3 With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at about 9:20 P.M.