Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-06-18 MinutesI 0 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 30.1 A regular meeting of. the. Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Wednesday, June 18, 1986. at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 30.2 PRESENT: Mayor. Noland; Director Hess, Johnson, Lancaster and Martin; City Manager Grimes, Department Directors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience 30.3 ABSENT: Directors Bumpass and Orton • CALL TO ORDER • 30.4 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Noland, with five Directors present. The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. 1978 G.O. BONDS 30.5 The Mayor introduced a request from the Administrative Services Director to authorize the City Attorney to petition the Chancery Court concerning a transfer of excess funds which were collected to support the 1978 General Obligation bonds. The Mayor explained the City has an excess balance of $220,060 after making an early payoff of this bond issue; that the revenue came from property millage (amounting to 2 mills) which the City had collected in excess. The Mayor said the authorization would allow citizens to receive a refund of all or a portion of the millage due in October of 1985 for a specified claim period. 30.6 The City Attorney noted that, after a specified period, any remaining funds can be transferred to the City's General Fund for use for any lawful purpose. 30.7 The Mayor asked if the 2 mills were no longer being levied. The City Attorney explained the revenues which were collected were a result of that levy, which will not be'collected in the future. 30.8 The City Attorney stated a motion would be in order to instruct his office to petition the Court for the procedure recommended by the staff. • June 18, 1986 Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the recommen- dation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0, with Directors Bumpass and Orton absent. EASEMENT VACATION The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance vacating and abandoning the west 5' of a 20' utility easement on property located on Susan Drive. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. The Mayor noted that concurrence was on record from all utility companies. He asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition. No public opposition was expressed. The roll was called and the ordinance passed, 5-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3192 APPEARS ON PAGE ,?S OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIV CDBG FUNDS 181.1 181.2 181.3 181.4 The Mayor introduced a request to transfer new Community Development Block 181.5 Grant funds, in the amount of $3,260, to the Wedington area drainage project. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to transfer the new 181.6 funds to the Wedington area drainage project. Director Johnson asked for the total amount now slated for the project. 181.7 Carlisle explained that close to $200,000 is available for that project and that $10,000 was budgeted for easements and these were expected to run over -budget. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 66-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 01/7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK 181.7 WATER & SEWER COMMITTEE REPORT June 18, 1986 82.1 The Mayor introduced a report from the Water and Sewer Committee meeting of June 11. SLUDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FINANCING 82.2 The Mayor reported a recommendation was made that the cost of financing, the sludge management system, which is in excess of available grant funds, be financed by the City. 82.3 Public Works Director Deryl Burch explained that, since the June 11 meeting, word has been received that funding of the excess has not been approved, and the staff recommends the City finance the approximately $1 million excess costs which will not be grant eligible. 82.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve a resolution. 82.5 In answer to a question from Director Martin, Burch explained that, over all three phases of the project, there will be a total of about $2 million in costs which are not grant -eligible. 82.6 The Mayor noted that the City has received over $17 million in federal grants for the Wastewater Treatment Project and hopes to receive another $4 million. 82.7 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 82.8 The Mayor reported the committee discussed the possibility of appealing to the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology and the E.P.A. concerning their decision not to grant pre -award approval of this phase of the project. The Mayor asked Engineer Vernon Rowe for his thoughts on this matter. Rowe agreed that a letter should be sent protesting the decision in. the event the grant situation changes and the City is able to receive more grant funds. 82.9 Director Hess, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to instruct CH2M Hill and McClelland Engineers to draft a letter protesting the recent decision. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. PLANT EQUIPMENT REHABILITATION 82.10 Vernon Rowe reported that one of the bar screens at the Pollution Control Plant had failed which, at the item. Rowe reported that, at decided the screen could be money. No action was taken on June 18, 1986 time, suggested a need for replacement of the the Water and Sewer Committee meeting, it was repaired for a relatively small amount of this item WATER/SEWER/SANITATION BILLS Administrative Services Director Linebaugh reported a major complaint from customers is the fact that the City only allows 10 days to make payment on water bills. Linebaugh recommended the payment period be extended to 20 days. He noted this would hurt the City's cash flow position and would cost approximately $22-28,000 annually in interest revenues. Linebaugh suggested a change from a 4 -cycle to an 8 -cycle billing system will minimize the cash flow problems. Linebaugh said the cut-off dates will be maintained as before. The City Attorney read an ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Martin asked Linebaugh if changing from 4 -cycles to 8 cycles minimizes cash flow problems, why the staff does not consider a change to 20 cycles. Linebaugh responded that such a change would be more beneficial but is not feasible in light of the current staff available. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0. ORDINANCE N0. 3193 APPEARS ON PAGE an OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XK V STREET COMMITTEE REPORT The Mayor reported the Board Street Committee met on June 13 to consider an update to the Transportation Improvement Program priority list. The Mayor explained this list contains street construction projects to be completed through 1990, and funded from various different sources such as urban funds, Community Development funds and some from City funds. Director Lancaster asked why improvements to Appleby Road were not included on the list. Deryl Burch clarified that, although the project did not appear on the list, 560' of Appleby Road improvements were in progress on I 183.1 183.2 183.3 183.4 183.5 183.6 183.7 June 18, 1986. 34.1 the west end of the road. Burch said that.$35,000 was originally budgeted for a "bandaid" approach to fixing the road, but a budget adjustment will be required because the staff has recommended, and the Board has approved, that a more total project be undertaken at estimated costs of $70,000. Burch said he thought this project could proceed within thirty days. 34.2 Mayor Noland remarked that some City -funded projects never appear on the TIP priority list. Johnson commented that it is frustrating that there is no master plan of street projects in progress. 84.3 Mayor Noland stated a letter had been received from the Chamber. of Commerce supporting the Razorback Road extension. Director Johnson made a motion to approve the adoption of the TIP Program. 84.4 City Manager Grimes pointed out that the local total for 1987 is $1,231,000 whereas the local total for 1988 is $277,000. Grimes recommended that the Poplar Street bridge project be done in 1987, but the actual Poplar Street construction be moved to 1988, shifting $500,000 from that project to 1988. 84.5 Director Lancaster seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. TOWNSHIP ROAD LITIGATION 84.6 The Mayor introduced a request from the City Attorney that the Board decide whether to confirm or rescind its previous action authorizing the execution of a street construction contract with Sweetser Construction. 84.7 City Attorney McCord reported that this case was tried on May 28 and the Court ruled that the plaintiff had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Board of Directors abused its discretion in awarding the street construction contract to Sweetser for the construction of a concrete street instead of to McClinton -Anchor for the construction of an Asphalt street. McCord said the Court did not dismiss the plaintiff's complaint but ordered the matter remanded to the City Board for consideration of certain deficiencies the Court found to be in the concrete specifications. He said, the Court was concerned that the deficiencies might require change orders and cost increases after the initial contract was executed, thereby negating - at least in part - any maintenance costs savings which might be realized by constructing the street with concrete instead of Asphalt., McCord reported that more precise concrete specifications were prepared and, submitted to Sweetser, who was the only concrete bidder, for a determination of whether the contract price would have to be increased, and that Sweetser responded by stating that the revised specifications were the company's standard construction practice and that there would be no increase in the construction contract. c1 June 18, 1986 Counsel for McClinton -Anchor, Tom Burke, stated that in September of 1985 185.1 the Board awarded the bid for this project to the high bidder and McClinton - Anchor, the low bidder, immediately challenged this action. Burke said he thought there was a legal question as to whether the City should be "monkeying with the contract documents after the bids are submitted, in order to give the contract to the high bidder." Burke said that, since the advertisement for bids was made almost a year ago, there has been a considerable decline in the price of asphalt. He said that his client would be willing to rebid the project and pass on the savings which can be achieved through the decrease in the price of asphalt. Burke said he did not think the Board could ignore the recent election and 185.2 commented that it was obvious from the press and from statements of others involved in the election, that there is a general concern within the community that public funds are not being prudently expended. He suggested this was the Board's first real opportunity to assure citizens that prudent shopping will be done in spending this money. Mayor Noland said that he and one other Director had voted for the asphalt 185.3 contract. He said he thought the Board voted in good faith and that if both sets of specifications were examined, there might have been deficiencies in both. He also noted that the specs had been written by engineers not employed by the City. Director Johnson stated she thought if a re -writing of the specs was in , 185.4 order, this would be at an additional cost to the citizens as well as having those specifications reviewed by a second engineering firm, not to mention the loss of time because of the loss of use of the road. The City Attorney quoted from what the Court said: 185.5 Now based upon what I've heard today on it I can't say that the City has abused its discretion with what they had at hand. They may have done things' differently though or at least they may have required more at the time they made the award and I certainly am inclined to send the matter back to the City and let them consider this information. 185.6 The Mayor asked if Sweetser's representative wished to comment. Sweetser 185.7 stated he felt the specifications were adequate and specified the street would be built to Portland Cement Association guidelines and to their street standards. He said there is only one standard and, although it may not have been spelled out in detail, anyone bidding the project in concrete would have been aware of it. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to reaffirm the decision 185.8 made last September. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-0-1, with June 18, 1986 86.1 Director Lancaster abstaining and Directors Bumpass and Orton absent. SOFTWARE BID WAIVER 86.2 The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding and authorization to purchase computer software for the Pollution Control Plant's Industrial Pretreatment Program. The Mayor reported the staff recommends the software be purchased from Transaction Systems, at a cost of $2,706.60, an amount within the budget. 86.3 The City. Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Noland, seconded by Hess, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 86.4 In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Deryl Burch'said the staff did not know of any other programs available and recommends this program because it is compatible with OMI's database home computer. 86.5 Johnson stated she thought it frustrating that the software would be purchased without having obtained bids for other compatible programs. Johnson commented that it was frustrating that the staff did not anticipate in advance. 86.6 Martin noted that if the bidding process would cause a delay and an increase in cost, those were bona fide reasons for a -waiver, but he -stated he wanted to be sure these reasons weren't "a boilerplate statement" that -has been tacked onto the request so the Board would grant approval. Martin asked, if the program is to be operational in January of 1987, would it not permit time to go out for bids. Burch responded that the program was highly technical and is not available in the area. Burch said in addition that no information is even available in the area. Martin remarked that the basis for waiving bids would then be that no other program is available, not that it would cause delays and an increase in expense. Burch said he was aware of approximately two or three programs along the same lines, but none of them were exactly compatible. 86.7 Mayor Noland asked Burch if he had checked with CH2M Hill to see if they knew of another available program. Burch responded that the matter had been discussed with Cliff Thompson who thought this program was the best, and who could only recommend one other program. Director Johnson asked that cost figures be provided on both programs recommended by Thompson. 86.8 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. It was decided to leave the ordinance on second reading until more information can be provided for the first Board meeting in July. June 18, 1986 BID AWARDS In regard to the award of Bid #702 for reinforced concrete pipe and corrugated metal pipe, Director Martin noted that in some cases the staff has recommended other than the low bid. Burch explained that, in cases where the recommendation was to award .to other than the low bidder, it was made either because of compatibility requirements or because in some cases the band did not match joints. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the staff's recommendations for the award of bids for Bid 1688 for liquid oxygen for the Pollution Control Plant, Bid, 1702 for reinforced concrete pipe and corrugated metal pipe, Bid #703 for street guardrail, and Bid #705 for asphalt overlay fabric. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. BID WAIVER/EXERCISE EQUIPMENT The City Attorney read an ordinance, for the first time, which would waive the requirements of competitive bidding to purchase exercise equipment from Heti Exercise Equipment Company, at a cost of $16,825. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a place the ordinance an its second reading passed, 5-0. The ordinance.was read for the seconded by Martin, made a motion to further ordinance on its third and final reading. passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the motion to suspend the rules and Upon roll call, the motion second time. Director Johnson, suspend the rules and place the Upon roll call, the motion third and final time. In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Public Safety Director Coates explained that a request for such an ordinance was made in February of this year (when the staff had only one quote) but was not approved, with the Board asking the staff to obtain additional quotes. Coates said that, although several quotes have now been obtained, the staff does not recommend the low quote but recommends the same quote as in February. Coates explained that Jimmy Culp, operator of the Family Health and Fitness Center, obtained the quotes and has made the recommendation that equipment be purchased from Heti because it is quality equipment. In answer to 'a question from Lancaster, Coates said the total price submitted by Heti is higher than their quote was in February because more equipment has been included in the package. In answer to a question from Lancaster, Coates noted that Culp was not a salesman for exercise equipment, and that he was presently working with City emergency service personnel on learning how to use the equipment, at no charge. In answer to a question from the Mayor, Coates said the exercise equipment 187.1 187.2 187.3 187.4 187.5 187.6 -a c. a -: June 18, 1986 88.1 would be available for use by all City employees. 88.2 Director Johnson asked what criteria would be used for the operation of the equipment. Coates explained the exercise room would be open to the employees 24 hours a day, with a key being available at the police dispatch station. 88.3 In answer to questions from Director Johnson, Culp clarified the types of equipment included in the quote from Heti. 88.4 A citizen in the audience commented that the University of Arkansas has experts in physical fitness and health and asked if these persons had been consulted by the City. He also commented that there was some danger in 24 -hour -per -day operation if people are using the equipment without super- vision. He said he thought the City offering these services to the employees would infringe on private businesses in the City who offer the same services for a fee. He asked if the City could spend less money by offering private health club memberships to the employees instead of purchasing this equipment. 88.5 Mayor Noland pointed out that, when this idea was first formulated, it was felt that having an exercise room located close to the Police Station and Central Fire Station would encourage greater use by those employees. Director Johnson said she thought it was the City's responsibility to have police officers and fire fighters who are physically fit. She added that this could lead to some criteria being established for physical fitness for both of those departments. Johnson agreed that there should be some responsibility for the safe use of the equipment. Coates explained a program is planned to acquaint the employees with the equipment, and to set them up on a program of safe use of the equipment. 88.6 Noland expressed appreciation to Culp for the work he had put forth on this matter. 88.7 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3194 APPEARS ON PAGE 17 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIV PENSION PLAN 88.8 The Mayor introduced a request for approval of a resolution authorizing Pollution Control Plant employees to continue participation in the City Money Purchase Pension Plan. The Mayor explained that Pollution Control Plant employees will be under the employment of Operations Management, Inc. for two years and this resolution would allow them to continue their. June 18, 1986 participation in the City's pension plan during this period. The Mayor 189.1 added that the employees would receive credit towards vesting during this period. Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the 189.2 resolution. • Director Johnson asked how this would affect persons newly employed during 189.3 the two-year period. Administrative Services Director Linebaugh stated it was his understanding those persons would be included because they would eventually become City employees. The Mayor asked that it be understood that the section for Employer Contri- 189.4 buttons and Leaves of Absence would be amended to provide that City of Fayetteville participants in the pension plan who are temporarily assigned to OMI for two years shall continue to participate in the City of Fayetteville Money Purchase Pension Plan, with the employer contribution of 6Z of compensation to be made to the Trust by OMI for the two year period. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 189.5 RESOLUTION NO. 67-86 APPEARS ON PAGE ,2/f OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXV II Director Johnson asked if OMI would pick up Workers' Compensation insurance 189.6 for these employees. Linebaugh said he would check into that question. OTHER BUSINESS PETITION RE ANDY FRIEND AUTOMOBILE The Mayor reported there had been a request to table the hearing on a 189.7 Petition regarding an automobile owned by Andy Friend, as the petitioner was not able to be present. WHITE HANGAR RENOVATION Deryl Burch reported there is a possibility the Hangar may have to be replaced, rather than just Burch said that, in talking with several roofing to obtain a quote, he has not had much luck and waiver. Burch asked that the staff be allowed to in order to meet a September 15 deadline. entire roof of the White the area over the lean-to. contractors in an attempt would like to obtain a bid obtain four or five quotes 189.8 June 18, 1986 90.1 Mayor Noland noted that, in the contract, advertisement will have to be made for the removal of the existing roof and a new roof. 90.2 The City Attorney read an ordinance for the first time which would waive the requirements for competitive bidding. Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made •a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. 90.3 Mayor Noland asked Burch to obtain quotes for presentation to the Board. 90.4 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0. ORDINANCE N0. 3195 APPEARS ON PAGE oZ l OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX/V TOWNSHIP ROAD WIDENING 90.5 City Manager Grimes reported that the Board Street Committee has recommended the passage of a Resolution requesting the Arkansas Department of Highways' and Transportation to give a high priority to four-laning Township Road from College Avenue to Gregg Avenue. The City Attorney added that the Resolution would include the installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Township Road and Gregg Avenue. 90.6 Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve the reso- lution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 68-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 02/7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XxVI\ MINUTES 90.7 The Minutes of the June 3, 1986 Board meeting were approved with the following correction: 168.4 In the last sentence, delete "proceed with the construction" and insert in its place "obtain the EPA permit for the discharge into Mud Creek." June 18, 1986 ADJOURNMENT With no further business; the meeting adjourned at about 9:00 p.m.