HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-05-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
128.1 A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, May 6, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of
City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster,
Martin, and Orton; Acting City Manager Murphy, Department
Directors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh, City Attorney
McCord, City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and
audience
CALL TO ORDER
128.2 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Noland, with seven Directors
present. The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence.
REPORT TO'THE PUBLIC h BOARD
128.3 The Mayor introduced a Report to the Public and Board, given by Acting
City Manager Murphy.
Administrative Services Department
128.4 Murphy reported the staff is in the process of revising and updating
the city's personnel policies. Murphy noted that division heads have
been asked for input into this process, and that revised personnel
policies will be presented to the Board for their approval. Murphy
reported the staff is working on the area of personnel file documentation,
including enforcement of proper documentation and evaluations. Murphy
reported testing and oral interviews have been completed for all entry-
level fire and police positions. Murphy reported an Assistant Chief
of Police has been hired.
128.5 Murphy reported the Data Processing staff is presently conducting
a requirements analysis for the new computer system Murphy reported
training courses are being conducted for the employees on the use
of LOTUS and word processing programs on personal computers.
128.6 Murphy reported the staff is investigating a change in the Business
Office's billing system, which would give customers 20 days in which
to pay their bills rather than the current ten days.
128.7 Murphy reported the amount of incoming calls has tripled in the past
two years, creating problems for the switchboard operator who is sometimes
unable to answer a call until after it has rung numerous times. Murphy
May 6, 1986
reported the staff has concluded the city should stay with its current
equipment, but use dlrect :inward dialing from Southwestern Bell. Murphy
stated this proposal will be presented to the Board in detail at the
next meeting.
129.1
Murphy reported that several types of work order systems have been 129.2
combined, and a work order system program has been written to handle
all public works maintenance pool operations but it has not yet been
integrated with the scheduling system because of the cost. •
Murphy reported that several meetings have been scheduled with Campbell
Soup to discuss the solid waste incinerator project and that, following
a meeting with Campbell Soup representatives tomorrow, the staff should
have a better idea of the status of this project.
Murphy reported a bid system is being developed to cut time spent 129.4
on preparation of bid documents, allowing the Purchasing Officer to
spend time in other areas.
129.3
Murphy reported an insurance audit has been completed and a bid package 129.5
has gone out locally, regionally and nationally to handle all insurance
needs Murphy noted bids are due by June 16, 1986.
Murphy reported that remodeling work has been finished on Room 307 129.6
and in the Municipal Court offices. Murphy said progress reports
on other Building Maintenance projects are available for review.
Murphy reported the Shop contract with NTE will be closed out, with 129.7
a Maintenance Coordinator having been hired for ,the vehicle shop.
Murphy reported the same individual who has been working for NTE will
continue in that position. Murphy said a detailed report will be
presented at the next meeting, along with a tour of the Shop facility.
Maintenance and Engineering Projects
Murphy reported on the status of the following projects: The Dickson 129.8
Street radius and Mission and North Street project are scheduled for
August construction pending right-of-way acquisition. Mission sidewalk
construction is 90% complete. Utility relocation for the intersections
of Highways 265/45 and Highways 265/16 is completed. Bids for traffic
light installation improvements have been awarded. No change in the
status report on the Library but staff is preparing to receive quotes
from State license vendors. Bid has been awarded and construction
is to start soon on the fuel farm project at the Airport. North and
Pollard turn right-of-way is acquired and project is scheduled for
June construction. Sewer relocation for the Mud Creek bridge has
been submitted to the State for their approval but no replies have
been received as of yet. Washington Street sidewalk plans and specs
are being prepared: Advertisement for bids should be ready at the
end of the month. Appleby Road extension plans and specs are being
130
May 6, 1986
130.1 prepared under the same schedule as the Washington sidewalk project.
School Street bids have been received, with Sweetser Construction
being the low bidder. Drainage work and street preparation has begun
and Portland Cement concrete overlay should begin tomorrow, weather
permitting. Sidewalk at the east end of the pool is scheduled for
this month. Plans and specs for Mud Creek water line crossings in
conjunction with the split flow plan will be complete this week and
will go to the Health Department for approval. Old Wire Road State
and Federal bridge project is currently under construction.
Requests for Easement Vacations
130.2 Murphy reported he will meet with the Board of Adjustment to form
a committee to prepare criteria for evaluating requests for easement
vacations.
130.3
Public Safety Department
Murphy reported that Richard Watson has been selected as the new Assistant
Police Chief.
130.4 Murphy reported the State Department of Labor has more safety classes
scheduled in July and staff is investigating headlight and safety
belt rules for all city vehicles.
130.5 Murphy reported a new property and sign inspector was selected and
began work last Monday.
Questions from Directors
130.6 Director Johnson asked for net savings on moving from the NTE Shop
contract to a City -run Shop. Linebaugh reported about $8,500 would
be saved. Johnson asked if efficiency had increased in the Shop.
Linebaugh reported the main Shop has gone from about 65% productive
time to about 83% productive time. Murphy reported that materials
control and scheduling has improved.
130.7 Johnson asked for the beginning construction date for light installation
and realignment at the intersections of Highways 265/45 and 265/16.
Murphy told Johnson he would check on that date. Burch estimated
30 to 45 days.
130,8 Johnson asked about the status of criteria which was requested by
the Board for evaluation of the City Manager. Murphy reported a composite
which is being prepared willgive the Board an opportunity to evaluate
the City Manager based on broad categories, as he relates not only
to the work force and his employees, but also to the Board. Murphy
stated this covers areas such as communication with the Board and
employees. Murphy said this criteria would be available by the next
Board meeting.
May 6, 1986
In answer to a question from the Mayor, Murphy stated the Business
Office and Planning/Inspection Offices will be open during the noon
hour beginning Monday.
In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Murphy stated the staff
believes agreement can be reached very quickly with Campbell Soup,
if they are prepared to move ahead. City Attorney McCord reported
after tomorrow's meeting the staff will have a better idea of the
timetable.
ARTS CENTER REPORT
•
The Mayor introduced a report from the Joint Arts Center Committee,
explaining that on January 14, 1986, a temporary joint planning committee
was formed composed of the Fayetteville Arts Center Board and the
University of Arkansas Performing Arts Center Committee. The Mayor
noted the charge of the joint committee was to present a report to
the City Board of Directors on several aspects of the committee's
work.
Frank Sharp, Chairman of the Fayetteville Arts Center Board, introduced
members of the joint committee:
Fayetteville Arts Center Board University of Arkansas Committee
Frank Sharp
Steve Adams
Sarah Burnside
Mary Margaret Durst
Loris Stanton
Billie Starr
Roger Widder
Daniel Ferritor
Andrew Gibbs
James Greeson
Alex Lacy
Bernard Madison
Don Pederson
Winfred Thompson
Ginger Crisp,
(Legal Staff)
Sharp thanked City staff Scott Linebaugh, Lou Ann Westerfield, Jim
McCord and Suzanne Kennedy for their assistance; and thanked Rick
Mays from the "Pride in Dickson Street" tenants group. Sharp extended
appreciation from the committee to the city and the university for
their help during the preparation of the report; and extended thanks
to Mr. and Mrs. Sam Walton for their generosity, and to the citizens
of Fayetteville who made it all possible.
Sharp explained the committee was charged to answer seven questions:
a general recommendation as to whether a common operation
will best serve the art needs of the area;
a general plan for the size and character of the facilities;
131.1
131.2
131.3
131.4
131.5
131.6
May 6, 1986
(c) a preferred location for the arts facilities;
(d) an estimate of the total capital cost;
(e) a timetable for construction of the facilities;
(f) recommended structure for the long-term management and
maintenance of the facilities; and
(g) an estimate of operating costs and plans for ongoing operational
expenses
132.1 Mary Margaret Durst addressed question (a), telling the Board there
is considerable overlap in both the programming needs and the potential
usership of the City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas,
and the committee feels it would be practical for the two entities
to work together. Durst added that the Center, as perceived by the
joint committee, would accommodate music, dance, theatre, touring
productions and space for the visual arts.
132.2 Sharp explained that a subcommittee was formed composed of Alex Lacy,
Steve Adams, Jim McCord and Ginger Crisp to study the question of
the recommended structure for the long=term management and maintenance
of the facilities. Sharp reported the committee approved their recom-
mendation - that all citizens have equal access to the facility.
Sharp reported the recommendation is that there be two autonomous
entities (an operating entity and an endowment entity), not tied to
either the City or the University but accountable to both through
appointment of six board members to each of the two entities. Sharp
explained one entity would be charged with the responsibility of hiring
a director, approving budgets, establishing overall direction and
management control of the facility; and the other would be organized
to invest and maintain assets for endowment of the center. Sharp
explained the initial organization of the Center should be accomplished
by the execution of an agreement between the University of Arkansas
Board of Trustees and the City of Fayetteville Board of Directors,
completing three functions: (1) funding the Center, ,(2) creating
the operating entity, and (3) establishing the endowment.
132.3 Sharp said the first function of the agreement would be to commit
both entities to the necessary funding for the construction and operation
of the Center. Sharp said the Articles of Incorporation and the By -Laws
of each entity would be appended tothe agreement and would provide
as a matter of course for reporting to the Trustees and Directors
the results of operations at least annually.
132.4 Billie Starr reported on the estimate of operating costs and plans
for funding of ongoing operational expenses. Starr said that to arrive
at the figures, the committee talked with representatives of similar
facilities in Arkansas and out of state as well. Starr reported that
for a 61,000 square foot facility with 1200 seats, general administrative
expenses are estimated to be $150,000, with operations estimated to
be $202,940, for a total of $352,940. Starr pointed out this did
not include production expenses, anticipated to be borne by participants.
Starr reported
of $3 million
Fayetteville,
an estimated $325,000 in annual income
-- 1/2 from the University and 1/2
arts council grants, user fees and
May 6, 1986
(with an endowment
from the City of
membership fees).
Sarah Burnside reported the Center should contain a large performance
hall (of approximately 1000 to 1200 -seat capacity), two smaller rehear-
sal/performance areas, arts studios, administrative offices, production
recording capability, and an art gallery. Burnside reported the joint
committee decided that, based on anticipated funds, the capital cost
of the facility including land acquisition, professional fees, contin-
gencies and equipment should not exceed $6 million (to insure the
funding of an endowment).
Loris Stanton reported the joint committee recommends further investigation.
of the following four sites:
Downtown Site: The south half of the block facing the south
side of the Square and including the undeveloped sixty foot
wide space on the Square just east of the Southside and south
of this area across Rock Street, generally bounded by East Avenue,
Block Avenue and Archibald Yell.
Dickson Street Site: An area on the south side of Dickson Street
bounded on the west by Duncan Avenue and on the east by School
Avenue.
Garland/Wedington Site: A 7 1/2 acre area north of the University
campus in the area of Wedington Drive and bounded on the east
by Garland Avenue.
Highway 62 Site: An area owned by the University on the north
side of US Highway 62 bounded on the west by Razorback Road
and on the east by Garland Avenue.
Sharp reported that the freshman Design class at the University School
of Architecture chose to use the Center as a project. Pat O'Leary,
Associate Dean of the School of Architecture, displayed some models
which were prepared by the students. Sharp reported that Frank Burggraf's
class in Landscape Architecture worked on a project in which the students
prepared sketches of a Center. These sketches were displayed.
Sharp requested the Board's authorization to continue with the project
and he presented the joint committee's tentative schedule for planning
and construction:
Item
Authorization to continue
Legal document preparation
Appoint board members
Legal determination
Date of Completion
May 6, 1986
June 22, 1986
July 14, 1986
September 1, 1986
133
133.1
133.2
133.3
133.4
133.5
134
IRS non-profit status.,:
Retain,:architect
Obtain land
Retain. director
Design phase and construction estimate
Bid phase.
Let bids....
Begin construction...,:. .....•.•
External shell complete,: „..
Complete. internal, construction
Dedication.:
May 6, 1986
LNovember 1., 1986 •
:December 1,.1986:
December 1, 1986
January 1, 1987
June 1, 1987
.August •15, ..1987
August_.15,,-.1982
.. May..15, 1988,.:
May .:15,. :1989....
..June..1;;.1989 ., ...
134.1 Director Orton made a motion to continue with the project and proceed
as rapidly as:possible..1
134.2 Director,Johnson asked if the next big decision for the joint boards
would..be:to tenter in on..one.site. .,Sharp responded that although
the committee •.was:unanimous. on.•the .criteria -for, the .center, itd.1s
difficult ,to: pinpoint,one...site, with the existing budget for land
acquisition....Stanton not.ed,$300,.000:,was..budgeted..for.land acquisition.
134.3 Director Bumpass commented that it might be
accept..the, report but;to.give the Board, time,
to absorb. some.of..its
an appropriate time to
.until the...next meeting,
134.4 In answer to questions from Director Bumpass, Steve Adams explained
that the intent would be •to..:form. two ,separate; corporations .and to
develop:a.joint operating agreement..,
134.5 Mayor Noland commented that, at this point, there is still an open-ended
working,.:relationship.and,..at..the time the, legal entities are! actually
approved and board members appointed, more firm commitments will be
made.
134.6 Director Hess stated...he-.thought the Board should authorizethe..joint
committee to select one., site; giving the City Board time - to. reflect
on the.. issues-.in.the.;repor.t.
134.7 Director: Martin congratulated., the joint, committee, on its :achievement
of a "coalition....between..town.and gown".. Martin..seconded .Director
Orton's motion.
134.8 Director Johnson said she thought:the:.Board..should determine a. .method
for financing a Center. Johnson said the City had made no commitment.
regarding the amount of its contribution to the Center.
134.9 City Attorney McCord said he saw no logical reason to, prepare incor-
poration documents_,and..bylaws for two entities if the ,financing is
not feasible. McCord.. said he thought the critical ;,decision :.wouldt
be how the capital andoperating costs will be financed.- The Mayor
•
May 6, 1986
said he thought, after a financial board is appointed, it would be
their charge to come up with a financial package. Noland commented
that this new board would be in a better position to determine the
financing package because they will be the ones to administer it.
Director Johnson suggested the City could have a different financing
package in mind from that which might be proposed by the Arts committees.
Director Orton suggested the City's Finance Department, working with
the Arts Center Board, come up with a financing recommendation. McCord
suggested the existing joint committee bring a recommended financing
package to the City Board. Director Bumpass suggested the Board provide
an opportunity for public input.
135.1
The Mayor asked that this matter be placed on the next agenda, to 135.2
look at the projections prepared by Linebaugh and to discuss them
in more detail, including consideration of some recommendations made
by City Attorney McCord.
Steve Adams explained the joint venture agreement to be proposed will
contain the specific outline of how funds are to be committed, when
the University is obligated to commit funds, and what obligation the
City has in connection with the Center. Adams said this agreement
would be presented for approval shortly after legal document preparation
is concluded on June 22, 1986.
Director Hess stated he could not envision a financing decision being
made without the selection of a site being made first, since there
are great differences in the amount of financing needed for the various
sites being proposed. Sharp noted that the joint committee is working
on this question, and that a site will be chosen. Director Orton
noted that the timetable does not include a date for site selection.
Director Hess suggested asking the committee to make a final site
selection and prepare a general joint venture document by June 22.
Director Johnson stated she was supportive of the joint venture but
just wanted the process to move along a little faster. Mayor Noland
commented that he thought this committee had accomplished more in
the past three or four months than in the past 30 years of various
efforts to build an arts center.
Director Bumpass suggested an amendment to the motion, to accept the
report and to recommend that the joint committee proceed to preparation
of a recommended joint venture operating contract and structure for
operations and financing of the facility. Directors Orton and Martin
agreed to the amendment. The motion, as amended, passed by a 7-0
vote.
135.3
135.4
135.5
135.6
There was a recess at 8:55 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 135.7
13$
REZONING/TOWNSHIP & HIGHWAY 265
May 6, 1986
136.1 The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 11 acres located at the
northwest corner of Township Road (uncoinstructed) and Highway 265.,
submitted by'St. John's Lutheran Church, from A-1 "Agricultural" to
P-1 "Institutional".. The Mayor reported the Planning Commission recom-
mended approval by a 9-0 vote.
136.2 City Attorney. McCordread the ordinance.for the first time,.. Director
Bumpass, seconded"by Johnson,'made a motion to'suspend`the rules and
place the ordinance on its second reading.
136.3 Director Orton noted that the Planning Consultant's report contained
a reminder that high density residential is a conditional use allowed
in the P-1 district, and she suggested the Planning Commission be
asked to consider dropping that conditional use from the P-1. district.
Orton commented that Use Unit 4 allows by right, in the P-1 district,
uses such as child care, college, dormitory, stadium, playing fields,
riding stables, swimming pool, legitimate theatre, zoo, or private
club or lodge. Orton said she thought some of those uses were not
compatible with the area.
•
136.4 Director Martin suggested the real solution to the problem was to
change the ordinance rather than to ask the church to request permission
for a conditional use in a zoning district. which is not appropriate
for churches. -
136.5 Mayor Noland .suggested Use Unit 4 be modified, moving some of the
permitted uses, which are inappropriate in a P-1 zone, to another
zone.
136.6 In a related matter, Director Bumpass noted that a Resolution passed
recently by the Board regarding conditional use permits should have
been worded to restrict conditional use permits, not to allow building
permits for new structures, and that in the alternative, conditional
use permits be issued, to existing structures only. .
136.7 Director Bumpass asked if it was appropriate to ask for a Bill of
Assurance which would restrict the use of property. McCord explained
that many jurisdictions take the position that "contract zoning" is
unconstitutional (when the governing body exactsa commitment such
as a Bill of Assurance to restrict the use of property to a certain
manner). In answer to a'question from the Mayor, the petitioner explained
that the church's.. plan.. is to use the entire 11 acres for the church,.
day care and eventually a church school.
136.8 Upon roll call, the motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading passed by a vote of 7-0. McCord read the ordinance
for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion
to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third
May 6, 1986
and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. The Mayor asked
if anyone presentwished to speak against the rezoning. With no public
opposition expressed, the roll was called and the .ordinance passed
by a vote of 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3184 APPEARS ON PAGE 7a OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXI✓
Director Orton made a motion that (1) the Board send to the Planning
Commission a request that they consider some revisions to the uses
permitted in the P-1 zone; and (2) to consider the deletion of high
density residential from the P-1 zone; and (3) to consider making
Use Unit 4 conditional. There was no second to the motion.
Director Johnson suggested discussion of this matter at the Board
retreat rather than making "a hasty recommendation" to the Planning
Commission, noting that there may be other recommendations the Board
would wish to send to the Planning Commission.
Director Bumpass stated he thought there was a deficiency in the way
people are notified about conditional use permit applications. Bumpass
said he thought policy should be dictated to change the way area residents
are notified and also that a change should be dictated in what is
and what is not permitted as a conditional use in certain zones.
Director Bumpass noted. that Planning Commission minutes did not reflect
any discussion by the Commission regarding the question of notification.
The City Attorney explained that he had sent a letter and a resolution
to the Planning Director addressing the Board's concerns regarding
notification on conditional use permits, and also regarding Director
Bumpass' concerns about conditional use restrictions. Carlisle stated
the Resolution she received from the City Attorney was worded to restrict
conditional use permits to new structures. She stated the Planning
Commission also received notice of the notification concerns but did
not act on that matter. Bumpass stated he meant to say that conditional
use permits should be "restricted to existing structures and to no
new construction instead of a rezoning". Director Bumpass asked Carlisle
to clarify to the Planning Commission the intent behind the resolution.
Bumpass moved to amend the Resolution to apply to existing structures
and not be a basis for new construction. There was no second to the
motion. Director Johnson recommended this issue be discussed at the
Board Retreat.
Director Johnson asked for the status of the Land Use Plan. Planning
Director Carlisle reported that one additional meeting will be held
before the Land Use Plan is submitted to the Planning Commission and
the Board of Directors.
137.1
137.2
137.3
137.4
137.5
137.6
138
May 6, 1986
REZONING/HWY. 471 & 24TH -ST.
138.1 The Mayor introduced an ordinance' rezoning '2.05 acres located on the
east side••of Highway—g471-between 12nd Street and' 24th Street; submitted
by Randy and L. J. Adair, from R-1, "Low Density Residential-" to •C'-2'
"Thoroughfare Commercial". The Mayor reported the Planning Commission
recommended 'approval by a vote of 9-0, and that the'Planning Consultant
recommended approval as well.
138.2 City Attorney McCord' read the ordinance for the first time. -Director
Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made -a motion to -suspend the rules and
place the'ordinance`on it's' secohd' reading. '
138.3 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Planning Director Carlisle
explained the property would be reviewed by the Plat Review Committee,
as the first step in the large scale development process. Bumpass
noted that bulldozers 'were seen on- the site and Carlisle clarified'
that site work is permitted at this time.
138.4 Upon roll call, the motion to place the ordinance on its second reading
passed by a- vote of 7-0. • McCord read the ordinance -for the second'
time. Director'Johnson, seconded.by Martin;`made a motion to further
suspend'-th'e'rules and place the ordinance on'its third and final'reading.
Upon roll call, the -'motion passed by a vote of 7-0. McCord read'the
ordinance for the' third time. The Mayor asked if anyone present wish'ed'
to speak against the ordinance. With no public opposition expressed,
the roll was called and •the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 -1; -with
Director Bumpass'voting in the minority.
ORDINANCE NO". 3185 APPEARS ON PAGE /51 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK )(y,•/ V
REZONING/SYCAMOREE & CHESTNUT-•
138.5 The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 1.57 acres located on the
north side of Sycamore Street, just west of Chestnut Avenue, submitted
by John Ci' an'd 'Lynn' M. -McLarty; from-11—"Heavy "Heavy Commercial and+ Light
Industrial" tb' C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial".' Tile Mayor. reported
the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 9-0.
138.6 Director Hess stated he had some interest in property across the street
and therefore would not participate in discussion and would not vote.
138.7 City Attorney McCbrd read the ordinance for the first time:' Director
Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on its second reading.
138.8 Director Bumpass raised the question of the extension of Chestnut
May 6, 1986
Street north. of Ash Street. Bumpass said there have been requests 139.1
to connect that street to Sycamore. Bumpass asked if there was enough
"rational nexus" with the building of the facility on Lot 9 to ask
for some contribution to the development of Chestnut. Bumpass did
note that there was other property located between Lot 9 and Chestnut.
Director Lancaster stated he recalled that the owner of Lot 7, on
the other side of Chestnut, made a commitment to contribute his share
towards the development of Chestnut at the appropriate time. The
petitioner explained that Lot 10 (lying between the property proposed
to be rezoned and Chestnut) is owned by Helen Edmiston. In answer
to a question from Director Bumpass, the petitioner explained that
the 20' strip shown on the plat map between Lots 9 and 10 was a property
line adjustment to Edmiston which became a part of Lot 10. The petitioner
stated that the records in the Planning Office will show that a deter-
mination was made at some time in the past that property owners abutting
Chestnut should contribute their share of the costs to develop Chestnut.
The Mayor noted that the majority of the property lies below the 100 -year 139.2
flood plain. Inspection Superintendent Freeman Wood explained that
the only requirement for building in the flood plain area is to raise
the floor by two feet above the 100 -year flood elevation. The Mayor
asked the petitioner if he planned to do this and he responded that
the engineers have included this in their study.
The roll was called on the motion to place the ordinance on its second 139.3
reading and it passed by a vote of 6-0-1, with Director Hess abstaining.
McCord read the ordinance for the second time. Director Martin, seconded
by Bumpass, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 6-0-1. McCord read the ordinance for the third time.
Director Bumpass asked the petitioner why he felt his property should
be zoned commercial when so much of the other property in the area
is zoned I-1. The petitioner stated he thought the trend in the area
is more toward commercial than I-1, that the great amount of multi -family
housing in the area increases the need for neighborhood commercial
shopping, that he thought there did not appear to be a need for more
light industrial in the area, commenting that most of the industrial
buildings in the area are empty. The petitioner stated he thought
rezoning to neighborhood commercial would better meet the needs of
the residents of the area.
In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, the petitioner said
he intended to develop a small retail center, similar to the shopping
area at the corner of Township and Gregg.
Director Bumpass pointed out this would be the only commercially zoned
property in what is essentially an industrial area, and that the property
is not located at an intersection.
139.4
139.5
139.6
140
May 6, 1986
140.1 Director _Johnson: commentedy that. a commercial establishment.•_open: for:_
long hours-could:,be :disturbing to residents living, in:the R-3 zoned
area across the .creek. .The petitioner noted a sign had been posted
and no objections have been expressed by residents or property owners
in the area. .:
•
140.2 Mayor Noland.pointed out that the PlanninrConsultant had indicated
that "introducing commercial activities _at this location_is contrary
to the.commercta1 ocation.policies and standards in. the- General Plan":
and thatI:the Planning -Consultant .recommended .against the rezoning
140.3 Director -Martin commented:.that:the Planning Commission had recommended
approval byva::9-0 vote., :The pet•itioner,;said fie'. thought the. Commission
felt the!Planning Consultant had based :his recommendation on_a.,Plan
which is 14 .years:old,-and that Commissioner Jacks had commented that
the area had not developed the way:it:was planned.
140.4 The Mayor said. he thought the Planning Consultant was objecting to
starting C-1 zoning in the middle of the block, since the policy is
to reserves C-1 =zoning: for .intersections. : ,
140.5 The petitioner noted that Commissioner Madison had stated she thought.
the Commission was deceiving itself by trying:to have:industrial..zoning
in an area that was mainly commercial and multi -family.
140.6 Upon roll .call, 7the .ordinance failed,. 1-5-1,s with Director Martin
voting in favor of_.the ordinance and. Director 'Hess .abstaining.
.
EASEMENT VACATION
140.7 The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance abandoning and vacating
a portion of a. utility easement- located on property at 2341 :Country.
Way. The Mayor:explained the house overhang encroaches two feet into
the easement and the:recommendation is:to vacate,the.existing easement
and to'•dedi'cate anew five foot easement,:.sixty.feet long:
140.8 Jim Lindsey (speaking for the property- owners)' explained that, in
the process, of obtaining title insurancefor the sale of the house,
the encroachment was discovered. Lindsey statedthe house is seven
years old. Lindsey said the owners were willing to dedicate the new
easement in order to correct the problem.
140.9 At the request of Director Bumpass, the City Attorney read the ordinance
for the first time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a
motion :to.suspend-therules•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.' Martin, made a
motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its
•
May 6, 1986
third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
The ordinance was read for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance
passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3186 APPEARS ON PAGE :j4 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XX/V
C.D. BUDGET REVISION
The Board considered a resolution authorizinga budget revision, to
transfer 1984 Community Development surplus funds to a current C.D. pro-
ject. The Mayor explained the staff requests a transfer of $21,265.96
in Community Development's 1984 Administration funds to the 1986 Giles
Addition fire protection project.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Carlisle explained
that only $25,000 had been budgeted for the Giles project, and costs
are running over because of the necessity of extending an 8" water
line and because of easement acquisitions. Carlisle noted there had
been no contingencies for this project.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
•
RESOLUTION NO. 49-86 APPEARS ON PAGE /,?‘„ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXV'll
SIGN APPEAL/HOLIDAY INN
The Board considered an appeal from the literal provisions of the
Sign Ordinance submitted by the Holiday Inn, to install a 13' tall,
62 -square -foot free-standing sign at a 15' setback from street right-of-
way, in a C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" district.
The Mayor explained that the ordinance requires that the maximum size
for a free-standing sign at a 15' setback is 10 square feet, unless
the Board determines that strict enforcement would cause practical
difficulties due to circumstances unique to the sign under consideration
and such a variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the Sign Ordinance.
Jack Francis, General Manager of the Holiday Inn, distributed photos
to the Directors showing the existing sign which the Holiday Inn proposes
to remove. Francis explained the intention is to install the new
141.1
141.2
141.3
141.4
141.5
141.6
141.7
141.8
May 6, 1986
142.1 sign on the steel base 'of the existing sign. Francis' said'any other
location for the 'sign would be out of proportion with their new land-
scaping.
142.2 Director Orton commented that erecting a sign in the same location
as the previous one has been requested by most persons asking for
variances. Orton said that, unless there is hardship, such requests
have been denied when the sign size does not conform to the requirements
of the ordinance. Francis said that to conform to the ordinance the
sign would have to be located up against the canopy of the building.
Francis added that the sign they propose is the only one the Holiday
Inn will allow them to install.
142.3 The Mayor asked the City Attorney to 'review the background on'litigation:
regarding the Holiday Inn sign: McCord ekplaiined that the Sign'Ordinance
was originally adopted in December of 1972, became effective in January
of 1973, there was litigation commenced nearly immediately regarding
the constitutionality "of the o'r'dinance" and the 'former' owners"of the
Holiday Inn were parties to one of those lawsuits which went all the
way to the Supreme Court. McCord said that in 1977 the Supreme Court
held that the City could not enforce the amortization provision in
the Sign Ordinance as applied to that particular sign,' but that four
years Pater, in 1983, in the Mcllroy Bank case, the Supreme Court
issued a majority opinion upholding the amortization provision in
the Sign Ordinance, which requires non -conforming` signs' be remo"ved
by a specified date, which has expired in the Holiday Inn's case.
McCord said that in his opinion, since the'ownership his changed hainds;
the City can enforce the Sign Ordinance and require literal compliance.
The petitioner stated he came unprepared as he was asked to speak
on behalf of the Senior Vice President who was unable to attend.
The petitioner said the Vice President had asked that he withdraw
the request.
142.4 Director Martin commented that, although the Board takes the -Sign
Ordinance seriously, he hoped that the Holiday Inn would come back
with a more creative request.
142.5 McCord stated that the Inspection Department and the City Attorney's
office would be glad to work with the new owners of the Holiday Inn
in locating the sign in a position that will comply with the ordinance
and adequately identify the business.
CONDEMNATION
142.6 The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the initiation of condem-
nation proceedings, for property owned by Kenneth Horn, for improvements
to the Fayetteville 'Municipal Airport:
May 6, 1986
Director Johnson, seconded, by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 143.1
resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION N0. 50 86 APPEARS ON PAGE 427 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
NO. XXV11
LEASE MODIFICATION
The Mayor introduced a resolution approving a modification to Aero 143.2
Tech's fixed base operator lease, to provide for rental of the City -owned
fuel farm, at $440 per month through February 28, 1987.
Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the 143.3
lease modification. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 51-86 APPEARS ON PAGE /27 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXV //
Director Johnson noted that the normal routine maintenance will be
performed by Aero Tech, which will amount to about $2,000 per year
and which will increase their lease by approximately $160 per month.
Johnson said that initially a Consumer Price Index increase was to
have been considered, which would have amounted to only about $13
per month.
BID AWARD
The Mayor reported that bids were opened this morning for apron expansion
and taxiway reconstruction at the Airport. Airport Manager Dale Frederick
reported there was only one bidder and the bid was 1% over estimated
costs. Frederick recommended the award of bid to Sweetser Construction
which bid $737,431.70. He said the City was in a position to spend
$480,534, which is this year's allocation, meaning that someof next
year's allocation will have to be used, until the Phase 2 funds are
allocated. Frederick explained the FAA budget for Phase 1 is $450,000
and $256,000 for Phase 2. Director Johnson stated the project cost
for Phase 1 is $31,500 more than the grant which will be received
this year. Director Lancaster stated that all the project cost has
been committed but not yet funded.
143.4
143.5
Department Director Linebaugh explained that a budget adjustment will 143.6
be made which will increase revenues.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the
award of bid, subject to FAA concurrence. Upon roll call, the motion
passed; 7-0.
143.7
•
14'
May 6, 1986
WHITE HANGAR 'RENOVATION
144.1 Mayor Noland reported that only one bid was received for renovation
of the White Hangar, and was over -budget. The Mayor explained the
staff requests authorization to obtain quotes for each area of the
work on the project.
144.2 Department Director Burch explained no general contractors wanted
to sub -contract each of the separate areas of the project. With this
in mind, Burch explained the staff wishes to act as its own general
contract and obtain quotes for separate areas of the project.'.
144.3 Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to authorize the
staff to proceed as requested.
144.4 In answer to a question from Director Hess, Burch said $25-30,000
was budgeted for this project. Director Johnson noted the bid which
was submitted was approximately $50,000.
144.5 The City Attorney advised that if costs for any of the separate phases
amount to over $2500, the staff would have to advertise for bids or
request an ordinance to waive the bidding requirements, if competitive
bidding is not practical. •
144.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
BID AWARD/FUEL FARM PAVING
144.7 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid for the paving
project at the fuel farm, with staff recommending the award of bid
to Sweetser Construction, in the amount of $18,114.
144.8 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to Sweetser Construction. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
7-0.
144.9 Mayor Noland expressed appreciation to the the staff for efforts made
in planning the dedication ceremony for the new traffic control tower
at the Airport. Director Johnson also expressed thanks'to the Chamber
of Commerce, which she noted was instrumental in helping with the
luncheon and other activities involved in the tower dedication.
POLICE & FIRE COMMITTEE REPORT
144.10 The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Police and Fire Committee
meeting of April 25, 1986, concerning a request from the Washington
May 6, 1986
County Fire Protection Association that, in exchange for their furnishing
our Fire Department with a new breathing air compressor and mobile
breathing air cascade system, our Fire Department agree to operate
and maintain the system
Director Bumpass reported that the committee discussed the request
with the staff and recommends entering into the agreement. Bumpass
said the committee felt this would be a mutually beneficial arrangement.
Director Bumpass explained that,
Mutual Aid agreements with rural
Fire Chief Jackson explained the
of a statement, "...to deliver b
the county...".
to allow this arrangement, the City's
fire departments should be amended.
amendment would include the addition
reathing gear to the major fires in
Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the
amendment and the recommendation of the committee. Upon roll call,
the motion passed; 7-0.
Director Hess commented that, ever since Chief Jackson joined the
staff, he has attended almost every Board meeting. Hess said he was
glad Jackson felt such dedication to his job and he wished some of
the other department heads would show the same dedication. Hess thanked
Jackson for being available to answer. questions from the Directors.
WATER & SEWER COMMITTEE REPORT
ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Water and Sewer Committee
meeting of April 28, 1986.
Vernon Rowe, speaking on behalf of McClelland Consulting Engineers,
Inc., reported that archeological investigation of the sludge management
site pipeline route is complete, that it was determined there is a
significant archeological find in the area, and additional investigation
is needed. Rowe stated it should be made clear the additional investi-
gation must be done in order to receive the EPA grants for other aspects
of the project. Rowe explained the options are to go around the site
at a cost of $60-70,000, or to go through the site for the same cost.
Rowe said he thought going through the site was the best alternative
because (1) it is the best engineering approach as it allows the pipelines
to come into the center of the site and (2) this is a significant
find of archeological artifacts and offers a unique opportunity in
Northwest Arkansas to gain some knowledge about prehistoric activities
in the area.
145.1
145.2
145.3
145.4
145.5
145.6
145.7
1
May 6, 1986
146.1 Bob Lafferty, speaking for Mid -Continental Research Associates,.explained
that the first phase of the investigation was "controlled ,surface
collection" -- picking up every artifact on the surface over a five -acre
area. Lafferty said around.100,000 artifacts were collected. 'Lafferty
said they also excavated three back -hoe trenches and several test
units He said these areas contained large quantities of artifacts
and preserved.,carbon. Lafferty said the State, Archeologist agreed
the site should either be avoided or the impact zone should have major
excavation prior to construction to pipeline. Lafferty said the proposal
is to excavate a large sample of the pipeline area and adjacent con-
struction, using techniques which meet or exceed scientific standards
for such work. Lafferty said the result will be a scientific report
detailing the work and a major contribution to the prehistory of,Northwest
Arkansas. Lafferty said the findings will be curated with the University
of Arkansas, Museum., •
146.2 Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to accept the,
recommendation of the engineer to engage the services of Mid -Continental.
146.3 In answer to a question from Director Martin, Rowe stated enough backhoe
work and surface collection has been done to have a reasonable degree
of certainty that the budget being proposed should coverall the excavation
needed, and that there should be no other significant findings. Rowe
added, however, that other parts of the site will not be dug but should
be protected in the future by the City.
146.4 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 52-86 APPEARS ON PAGE /3/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK W.111..
SLUDGE CONTRACT
146.5 The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing. the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute a contract with Olson Construction Company for construction
of the City's sludge management system, for the lump sum of $3,680,775
(contingent upon approval by the Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology).
146.6 The Mayor reported three bids were received and Olson Construction
Company submitted the low bid. In answer to a question from Director
Hess, Project Coordinator Bob Franzmeier responded that about $2.7
million had been budgeted for this expenditure. Department Director
Linebaugh explained that the last grant which was received amounted
to $2.6 millionmore than what was originally expected. .Linebaugh
said this excess will be used to cover the over -expenditure. Linebaugh
added that the extra funding means sales tax collections would end
sooner.
•
May 6, 1986
Dennis Sandretto, Project Manager for CH2M Hill, explained the original 147.1
estimate for this project was prepared during the facility planning
stage and was based on cost curves and rule -of -thumb. Sandretto said
they did not update this estimate after the actual design was completed.
Sandretto explained that one major change was the addition of a north
and south interceptor channel. Sandretto explained that the recent
architectural investigation required keeping the contractor off about
1,000 feet of the force main until the evaluation is completed. Sandretto
explained also it is unknown whether the remainder of fiscal year
1986 grant money will be forthcoming in 1986 or in 1987. Sandretto
said a sludge day tank was added, and there were other changes which
were necessary either from a design standpoint in terms of good operation,
or which were required by the Health Department.
In answer to a question from Bumpass, Sandretto said the sludge pipeline 147.2
project is grant -eligible, but the EPA determined they would not fund
any part of the effluent line, or anything related to the effluent.
Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve 147.3
the resolution authorizing the contract with Olson Construction Company
for $3,680,775. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 53-86 APPEARS ON PAGE /Y/ o OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOR XXV11 .
CH2M HILL CONTRACT AMENDMENT
The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk
to execute an amendment to the City's Basic Agreement with CH2M Hill,
to include preparation of an amendment to the facility plan and preparation
of plans, specifications and bidding documents for rehabilitation
of the existing plant equipment that will be reused in the new treatment
plant.
It was clarified that engineering costs are estimated to be $65,595,
total material costs are estimated to be $419,162 and labor costs
are yet to be determined.
147.4
147.5
Sandretto said approval is being requested only for engineering at 147.6
this time.. Sandretto said that, at a future time, a recommendation
would come before the Board for the award of bid.
Director Orton, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve an amendment
to the engineering contract, for $65,595, to prepare the bid documents
for the renovation project concerning the old equipment, and to approve
a modification to the facility plan.
147.7
Sandretto pointed out that this project started out in 1984 with a 147.8
contingency budget of $99,000 (usually needed to fund contract modifi-
d
8
May 6, 1986
148.1 cations) but, because of some negative contract modifications which
are grant -eligible, that contingency has been built up to a present
level of $253,000. Sandretto explained that the contingency must
be used or is lost, and by amending the facility plan, CH2M Hill hopes
to partially fund this work by making use of the contingency funds.
148.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 54-86 APPEARS ON PAGE MI ' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK x'7(11!)
148.3 Director Bumpass told Sandretto that there is a belief among some
local contractors and Street Department employees that perhaps the
engineering specifications for the parking lot and roadway to the
facility may not be best suited for the area. Bumpass said he was
told the plan was for 18" of SB2, with 2" of asphalt, and that recent
experience has shown this may not be adequate and that a better deal
can be obtained with a much higher strength surface. Sandretto said
he would be happy to meet -with the City Street Department to share
information and determine what is best.
148.4 In answer to a question from Mayor Noland regarding the upcoming evi-
dentiary hearing, City Attorney McCord informed the Board that he
received notice from the EPA that an agency official has been appointed
to hear the appeal. McCord said no time schedule has been established
as of yet. McCord pointed out that the City of Fayetteville is not
even a party to the hearing.
BID AWARDS
PROPANE GENERATOR
148.5 The Mayor reported three bids were submitted for a propane generator
for radio equipment for the Public Safety Department, the low bid
being submitted by S & J Electric in the amount of $12,667. In answer
to a question from Director Johnson, it was clarified that the bid
amount includes the installation costs. Director Johnson, seconded
by Orton, made a motion to award Bid #678 to the low bidder. Upon
roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
SIGNS
148.6 On bids for street and traffic signs, the Mayor reported Interstate
Sign Company 'submi'tted a bid in the amount of $1,284.57, Vulcan Signs
submitted a bid in the amount of $16,924.87 and SA -SO submitted a
bid in the amount of $263.73. The Mayor reported these were low bidders.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to the low bidders. In answer to a question from Director Orton,
May 6, 1986
Public Works Director Burch explained the bids are for blank signs,
including some completed signs which can be bought cheaper than they
can be made by the City. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
ANIMAL SHELTER CAGES
In reference to Bid 11684 for animal shelter cages, the Mayor reported
the low bid of $3,530 was received from Anconco of Kansas City, Missouri.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to accept the
low bid. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
TRAFFIC TRUCK
Concerning the award of bid for a one -ton truck for the Traffic Department,
the Mayor reported the low bidder was Jones GMC, at $11,409. Director
Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion the bid be awarded to
the low bidder. Director Orton asked why a one -ton truck was needed.
Acting City Manager Murphy explained the previous equipment had literally
broken down because it was undersized. He said Shop Maintenance Coor-
dinator Bob Jacobs has recommended the one -ton truck to better handle
the loads carried by the Traffic Department. In answer to a question
from Director Johnson, it was clarified that the bid amount was within
budget. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
Director Hess asked that when possible the agenda indicate the budgeted
amount in the case of any expenditures.
FIRE MARSHALL VEHICLE
The Mayor reported the staff recommends the award of bid, for a V-6
intermediate -size vehicle for the Fire Marshall, to Nelms Chevrolet,
for $10,550.70, with that amount being under -budget. In answer to
a question from Director Lancaster, the staff explained the vehicle
presently assigned to the Fire Marshall would be sold at auction.
Director Orton asked why an intermediate -size car was needed as opposed
to a compact car. Administrative Services Director Linebaugh responded
that the Purchasing Officer and Shop Maintenance Coordinator, after
studying the usage of the vehicle, felt the smaller unit would not
last as long. Director Orton asked what type of usage the car would
receive. Fire Chief Jackson explained the vehicle would be used for
the public education program and for fire investigations, that equipment
such as boxes of brochures would be hauled in the vehicle. Director
Lancaster asked what justification there was for the use of this vehicle
24 hours per day. Jackson responded that the Fire Marshall was "on-call"
24 hours per day. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion
to award the bid for the intermediate size V-6 vehicle to Nelms Chevrolet.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Orton voting in the minority.
143
149.1
149.2
149.3
149.4
149.5
150
TELEPHONE SYSTEM
May 6, 1986
150.1 The Mayor reported therewere five bidders for Bid No. 692, for a
telephone system for the Pollution Control Plant. He reported the
low bid was submitted by Executone, .in the amount of $14,337.99.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to the low bidder. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
PUMP ALIGNMENT KIT
150.2 Regarding the purchase of a pump alignment kit for the Public Works
Department, the Mayor reported Mid-America Packing & Seals, Inc. submitted
the low bid, for $2682. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass,_made
a motion to award the bid to the low bidder. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 7-0.
SEWER PROJECT
150.3 Concerning the award of bid for a sanitary sewer system rehabilitation
project, the Mayor reported there were three bids, with Fayette Tree
and Trench submitting the low bid, in the amount of $422,907.71.
Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the
bid to Fayette Tree and Trench. In answer to a question from the
Mayor, Wastewater Treatment Project Coordinator Bob Franzmeier told
the Board this expenditure would not be grant -eligible. Upon roll
call, the motion passed, 7-0.
BID WAIVER
150.4 The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements
bidding requirements for the purchase of cast iron pipe
ductile iron pipe, soil pipe, water meters, clay pipe
brass water and sewer items, copper pipe and fittings
pipe and fittings for the Water and Sewer Department.
of competitive
and fittings,
and fittings,
and plastic
150.5 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and
place the ordinance on 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 Hess, made a motion to further
suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. TheCity Attorney read the
ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed,
7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3187 APPEARS ON PAGE / P OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK X X
OTHER BUSINESS
BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
May 6, 1986
Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the
budget adjustments as presented in the agenda. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 7-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 55-86 APPEARS ON PAGE IVY OF ORDINANCE Et RESOLUTION
BOOK )(Mill
BROCCARD LITIGATION
The Board was asked to consider whether to accept a settlement offer
in the matter of City 'of Fayetteville;- Arkansat 7_-Broccard
et"ux, where the City's existing sewer line across the Broccard property
overflowed and raw sewage was discharged into the Broccard's stock
pond.
The City Attorney told the Board the condemnation case was set for
trial June 4 and he asked whether that case should be dismissed or
settled. The Mayor pointed out that if a favorable ruling is not
received on the evidentiary hearing, the condemnation case will not
be needed.
•
Director Martin commented that the City has an obligation to the Broccards
in this case. The City Attorney said the settlement offer as outlined
would resolve both the pollution claim and the eminent domain case.
In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, the City Attorney stated
the value of the pollution claim is unknown at this time, but that
he thought the measure of damages would be the value of the property
before the pollution. The City Attorney said the property owner has
not filed a lawsuit on his pollution claim as of yet.
The Mayor suggested the Board defer action until the next Board meeting
in order to have more time to think about the matter. The City Attorney
added that this would allow time for a test to be conducted between
now and then.
POLICE OFFICER LITIGATION
The Mayor asked if there was any Board sentiment to reconsider the
settlement offer in Larry Perdue et al v. City of Fayetteville. The
City Attorney explained the plaintiffs have indicated that, if the
City wishes to make a settlement offer on the same terms previously
agreed to by the plaintiffs, they would accept the City's offer.
Director Orton, seconded by Martin, made a motion that the City make
an offer to settle, using the same conditions previously contained
•
151
151.1
151.2
151.3
151.4
151.5
151.6
151.7
May 6, 1986
152.1 in the plaintiff's offer. Director Johnson pointed out that Director
Orton had voted in the affirmative the last time a motion was made
in this matter and that only a Director who voted in the minority
may make a motion to reconsider. Director Orton withdrew her motion
and Director Martinwithdrew his second.
152.2 Director Hess, seconded by Johnson, made the motion to reconsider.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Director Hess, seconded by
Johnson, made a motion to settle the case according to the memorandum
from the City Attorney dated May 5, 1986. The City Attorney stated
his recollection was that Director Hess had voted in favor of the
settlement at a previous meeting. He advised that someone who voted
against the settlement should make the motion at this meeting. Director
Hess withdrew his motions.
152.3 Director Johnson, seconded by_ Hess, made a motion to reconsider.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
152.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to settle the case
and to submit as settlement the terms whichare set out in the City
Attorney's memorandum dated May 5, 1986. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
CITY COMMITTEE VACANCIES
152.5 Director Johnson, Chairperson of the Nominating Committee, reported
there is a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission and on the Board
of Adjustment. Johnson noted .that she had asked these vacancies to
be advertised at this time. Johnson encouraged citizens to apply
for positions on these committees, noting that the deadline for submitting
an application is May 16.
SIGNAL AT MEADOW & CENTER
152.6 Director Johnson, referring to signal lights at the intersections.
of Meadow/College and Center/College, stated she understood that when
the light was authorized at Meadow/College, it was in order to help
in the revamping of traffic around the Courthouse. Johnson asked
the staff to return the light at Center/College to its previous position
(including the retention of the pedestrian crossing signal), and that
the question of the Courthouse traffic plan and its impact on those
two intersections be addressed by the Board Street Committee.
152.7 Acting City Manager ,Murphy stated it was his understanding that the
elimination of the light at the. Center/College intersection was a
requirement by the State Highway Department.
May 6, 1986
Director Bumpass asked the staff to determine whether the pedestrian
crossing button can be kept at the Center/College intersection as
well as at the Meadow/College intersection.
Director Johnson made.a motion to return the light at the intersection
of Center/College. There was no second to the motion. After discussion,
it was agreed that the staff would look into this matter.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the April 15 Board meeting were approved with the following
corrections:
120.6 Change "20" to "50"
123.6 Change "$5.20" to "$150"
125.7 Add at the end of this paragraph "but from Hotel/Motel/
Restaurant revenues which are allocated to various
needs as determined by the Advertising and Promotion
Commission."
AIRPORT ADVERTISING
Director Bumpass asked the Acting City Manager if he had contacted
the ad agency regarding the Airport ad campaign. Murphy stated he
informed a representative of that agency that the staff wished to
discuss the matter.
PLANNING COMMISSION
Director Bumpass stated he wanted the Planning Commission to know
that they were correct in assuming that the conditional use Resolution
was not appropriately worded.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 11:55 p.m.
ILJ3
153.1
153.2
153.3
153.4
153.5
153.6
•