Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-01 Minutes1l MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was 191, held on Tuesday, July 1, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. P1 NF: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson 191.2 and Lancaster; City Manager Grimes, Department Directors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Directors Martin and Orton 191.3 CALL -TO -ORDER Mayor Noland called the meeting to order, with five Directors present. 191.4 The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. REPORT TO THE PUBLIC City Manager Grimes presented the monthly Report to the Public and Board. A chart was displayed reflecting progress of three programs underway in the Public Safety Department - Crime Prevention, Safety Program, and Stress Counseling. Grimes reported that, in the month of June, City building inspectors attended training seminars and that two police officers had graduated from the Police Academy and have now jointed the Fayetteville police force. Grimes reported six employee accidents occurred during the month of June, two of which were back injuries causing time lost on the job. A chart was displayed reflecting progress in the Administrative Services Department. Grimes reported the City's computer bid specifications are in the second draft stage and a committee will be formed of computer experts to review the specifications. Grimes reported that letters have been sent to those owing delinquent fines to the Municipal Court. Grimes reported that, as a result, $13,000 in old fines were collected immediately but that, for $152,000 worth of fines, the City received return mail from bad addresses. These, Grimes said, would be turned over to a collection agency -- with agencies being screened at this time. Grimes reported that water, sewer and sanitation bills now include the additional ten days allowed for payment. Grimes reported the new direct -dial phone system is in place and working well. 191. 191.6 A chart was displayed reflecting the status of Public Works projects 191.7 132 July 1, 1986 92.1 in the maintenance, engineering and traffic divisions, as well as the status of the City's sealing program for streets. Grimes reported that the issuance of building permits decreased by 20-25% in the month of June. Grimes reported the Wastewater Treatment Plant construction project to be currently on schedule, although there is some doubt that the contractor will be able to meet the final deadline; that the sludge management contract would be signed this week; and that Operations Management,' Inc. (OMI) is currently in town two weeks out of each month. Grimes reported that complaints about the Sanitation Department have dropped by about 25% in the past month, the main problem still being the special pickup day and getting the proper description of what will and will not be picked up on normal routes, but must be picked up on the special pickup day. Grimes reported that, at the Airport, the taxiway widening has begun and because of the possibility of reusing some base material, there is a possible savings of approxi- mately $30,000. Grimes reported the fuel farm to be nearly completed. Grimes reported the renovation of the White Hangar to be progressing, but that an entire roof replacement has been found to be necessary. Grimes reported the Parks and Recreation Department to be very busy, with their maintenance schedule being in full force and their facilities being heavily used. Grimes reported there were 43 water and sewer taps completed this month and 33 still in process. Grimes noted that, because of the tight budget, some courtesy services, such as helping citizens fill private swimming pools and locating private water and sewer lines, are not being provided as in the past. Grimes pointed out that the City is behind schedule on mowing of City property because of the extended rainy season and three leased mowing machines which have not yet been delivered. 192.2 Grimes reported that the State unemployment rate was 8.2% during the month of May, and was 4.2% in Washington County. 192.3 Director Johnson commented that several citizens are frustrated in attempting to leave out certain trash which is not picked up on the normal pickup day Burch responded that the pickup schedule is presently being reviewed, but that workers are instructed to leave non -household trash until Wednesday and not to pick it up on the normal pickup day. 192.4 In answer to a question from Johnson, Burch said City crews will be used for sealing work. 192.5 Johnson asked if the status reports could contain target dates for projects to be completed during the remainder of the year. 192.6 Director Bumpass asked when the Highway 265/Highway 45 intersection project is anticipated to be completed. Burch responded it was expected to be completed in close to 90 days July 1, 1986 REZONING/FAIRVIEW STREET The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning .8 of an acre of property 193.1 located south of Fairview Street between Buchanan and Harmon Avenues, down from R-3 "High Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Resi- dential". The Mayor reported the Planning Commission, on June 23, 1986, recommended approval by an 8-0 vote, that the Planning Consultant had recommended approval as well. The Mayor noted that this down -zoning had been initiated by the property owners, Hantz and Durst. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director 193.2 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 by a vote of 5-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak against the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed and, upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0, with Martin and Orton absent. ORDINANCE NO.C? APPEARS ON PAGE 021' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X)CJ 1/ SIGN APPEAL The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance from the Mountain Inn for a sign to be located at 21 South College Avenue. The Mayor explained the petitioner requests permission to erect an 18 -square -foot free-standing sign at a 0 setback from South College and a 16 1/2 foot setback from E. Mountain, at a height of 20 feet. Max Holcombe, General Manager of the Mountain Inn, explained that their intent was to have a sign to advertise various functions scheduled at the Mountain Inn, in an attempt to increase business in the downtown area He said they propose to erect the sign on an existing flower box and in such a way as to not block the view of traffic. Holcombe said the sign would be about three feet in height above the planter. In answer to a question from the Mayor, Holcombe said he discussed the sign with the City Sign Inspector who felt that, if it were installed as they propose, it would not be a safety hazard. Mayor Noland commented that it presented a problem having a sign located at a zero setback on a major thoroughfare. 193.3 193.4 193.5 193.6 19: X94.1 July 1, 1986 Director Lancaster asked the petitioner if he had considered installing the sign flat against the side of the building. Lancaster added that, at the time the City's Sign Ordinance went into effect, the Mountain Inn was required to remove a sign which had previously been located on the planter. Lancaster added that, although the petitioner requests a variance for a 20 -foot high sign, the explanation and pictures provided by the petitioner indicate the sign would only be approximately six feet in height. 194.2 In answer to a question from the City Attorney, the petitioner stated he had not discussed with the Sign Inspector the possibility of a projecting sign. The City Attorney suggested that the petitioner consider the installation of a projecting sign which could be double-faced, visible from north and south traffic, and accommodate their purpose. McCord suggested the request could be tabled while the petitioner pursues this possibility with the Sign Inspector. 194.3 Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to table the request until the next agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. WATER & SEWER RATE INCREASE .94.4 The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance to amend the rates charged by the City of Fayetteville for water and sewer bills. The Mayor explained that in November of 1985 a contract was approved with Black and Veatch Engineers for the performance of a comprehensive water rate study which was presented in detail to the Water and Sewer Committee on June 19, 1986. The Mayor noted the sewer rate was also reviewed in light of the new Wastewater Treatment Plant going on line. 194.5 Blaine Bickel, representing Black and Veatch, reviewed the recommended increases: WATER SEWER Initial increase: 5% 9/1/86 Initial increase: 10% 9/1/86 5% 9/1/87 10% 8/1/87 5% 9/1/88 5% 8/1/88 0% 9/1/89 5% 8/1/89 5% 9/1/90 194.6 Bickel explained the cost allocations and rate design were based on a 1988 test year and that the first three 5% increases compound to a 15.8% total overall, breaking down to a increase of 13.2% for inside -city customers and 24.9% for outside -city customers. 94.7 Bickel said the initial rate increase would raise bills as follows: 195 July 1, 1986 Inside -city customers 5,000 gals. per mo. .50 increase 195. $6.55 to $7.05 10,000 gals per mo. .75 increase $11.60 to $12.35 Bickel said that the firm also analyzed the financial position of 195.2 the sewer utility, having completed a comprehensive sewer rate study about three years ago. Bickel noted as a result of that study the Board adopted a three-step rate increase which included a 10% increase to take effect on August 1, 1987. Bickel noted the first two steps of that increase have already taken effect. Bickel pointed out that, since that increase was adopted, the completion date of the new plant was moved ahead to January 1, 1987,, and the initial year of operation andmaintenance expense .,(as estimated by CH2M Hill) has been revised upward by approximately, $495,000. Bickel explained that, when the increase was adopted, it was assumedthat the outstanding water and sewer revenue bonds would be refunded by the sales tax bonds, and because of that, the rate schedule did not have provision in it to pay debt service on the portion of the bonds allocated to the sewer utility. Subsequent to that, Bickel explained, the State Supreme Court disallowed the use of sales tax bonds to refund revenue bonds, and consequently there is approximately $260,000 per year in debt service allocated to the sewer ,_utility which must be recovered from annual revenues which weren't built into the rate schedules. Bickel said the growth in the number of sewer customers will partially offset this situation. Bickel said actual operation and maintenance expenses have been lower than projected. Bickel said, during 1987, under the current schedule of rates, the sewer utility would experience approximately a $488,000 deficit. Bickel said their recommendation is that the effective date for sewer rate increases which was approved for August 1, 1987, be changed to September 1, 1986. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director 195.3 Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. It was clarified for Director Hess that, if these rates do not go 195.4 into effect, it is estimated there will be a $488,000 deficit. It was also clarified that the sewer rate increase is to cover only operation and maintenance costs, with the cost of the plant being covered by the bond issue. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 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 and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 195.5 1916 July 1, 1986 96.1 Administrative Services Director Linebaugh noted that operating and maintenance costs are estimated to increase by $500,000. 196.2 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0. ORDINANCE NO.3<<'4 APPEARS ON PAGE 3/ BOOK xx i V FINANCE COMMITTEE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 196.3 Director Hess reported on the Board Finance Committee meeting of July 1, 1986. 196.4 196.5 • 196.6 ENTERPRISE ZONES Hess reported the committee discussed a request from Tyson Foods for Board approval of their participation in the Arkansas Enterprise Zone Program. Hess reported no action was taken but questions were left unanswered until the next Finance Committee meeting. PLEDGING REQUIREMENTS Hess reported the committee discussed a request from Mcllroy Bank for the City to allow loans as instruments for pledging in place of government securities. Hess reported the committee had no recommendation but that Scott Linebaugh will pursue this by meeting with some Board members of Mcllroy Bank. Linebaugh .said that meeting is scheduled for Monday, July 7 at 10:00 a.m. LIBRARY CEILING Hess reported it had been discovered the ceiling in the Fayetteville Public Library contains in excess of 1% asbestos, and that the committee considered three alternatives to eliminate exposure to the asbestos. Hess reported these were (1) enclosure of the material estimated to cost between $150,000 and $250,000; (2) encapsulation of the material estimated to cost between $200,000 and $250,000; or (3) removal of the material estimated to cost between $250,000 and $300,000. Hess said the committee recommended pursuit of the third alternative because there was not enough of a reduction in cost for the other alternatives to warrant them, and in light of the possibility that it may eventually become legally necessary, due to EPA regulations, to remove the material. 96.7 Director Bumpass commented that recently he learned there is asbestos in some of the City's water pipes and that health regulations allow these. Bumpass remarked that water goes to all the citizens whereas July 1, 1986 asbestos in the City Library exposes only a limited number of people. 197 Burch explained asbestos material in water lines are in a confined environment, on the inner lining where they cannot flake off -- whereas the asbestos in the ceiling is in the first and second layers and will fall off into the air. Burch said over 60% of the removal costs involve air—handling equipment and special requirements for workers to remove the material. Burch said the staff intended to seek out an engineer experienced in asbestos removal, obtain a better ideas as to costs, and bring more information back to the Board:' 197.2 Hess explained that, :if the removal is pursued, the Library would 197.3 have to be•.closed for approximately six weeks while books are removed, cleaned and replaced.' • Director Lancaster made'a motion that the Board authorize the staff 197.4 to pursue bids. :The motion vas seconded and passed, 5-0. In answer to a -question from Johnson, City Manager Grimes noted the 197.5 staff had been in communication with Library representatives and that a meeting is scheduled with'the Library staff and Library Board. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS Director Hess reported the committee did not have time to consider 197.6 budget adjustments as of March 31st but would consider them at their next meeting. WATER RATE STUDY CONTRACT MODIFICATION & BUDGET ADJUSTMENT Hess reported the committee considered a request for a contract modifi— 197.7 cation to the water rate study contract with Black and Veatch, and approval of a budget adjustment to cover an overrun of approximately $6,500. Hess said it was pointed out at the meeting that the overrun was not the fault of Black and Veatch but was caused by changes made when CH2M Hill moved up the opening date of the plant and raised operation and maintenance expenses by $500,000 per year, causing Black & Veatch to have to redo some schedules. Hess said another reason for the overrun was due to an error on the water bill tabulation given to Black & Veatch by city staff, as well as delays the City asked Black & Veatch to place on the study because of the reorganization which did not allow staff as much time to devote to Black & Veatch. Director Hess made a motion that the budget adjustment and contract 19'. modification be approved, as recommended by the Finance Committee. July 1, 1986 .98.1 In answer to a question from Johnson, Linebaugh said there was an offset available to cover this budget adjustment. 198.2 The motion was seconded by Johnson and passed, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO.Cel- (c APPEARS ON PAGE 2 0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX✓(' PERFORMANCE BOND REDUCTION 198.3 The Mayor introduced a request from Northwest Arkansas Waste Management, Inc. for a reduction in the amount of bond required by the City for performance of a sanitary landfill contract. The Mayor explained the bidding requirements for this contract specified the provision of a $250,000 performance bond. 198.4 The Mayor said the question has been raised as to whether the other bidder on this contract would object if the amount of bond is changed. City Manager Grimes stated he had contacted the other landfill company which submitted a bid and they have no problem with the City accepting a property bond. 98.5 198.6 Director Lancaster asked if the bond requirement is higher than that required by the City under a previous sanitary landfill contract. The City Attorney replied that the bond required under the previous contract was $50,000. In answer to a question from Lancaster, the City Attorney explained -"the-purpose of a performance bond is to protect the City from damages in the event the contractor does not comply with the terms of the contract -- he added that the exposure based upon the difference between the two bids submitted would not approach $250,000 but would be closer to $70-80,000. 198.7 Director Hess asked who had drafted the specifications. Public Works Director Burch stated it was his recommendation to raise the performance bond amount because the staff did not know how many bids would be submitted and did not know how much variation there would be between the bids. Burch told Lancaster the bond amount was not raised after the bids were let. Hess asked Burch if he still felt a $250,000 bond was necessary. Burch stated the staff had no idea how much of a bond would be necessary to protect the City from damages. 198.8 Director Johnsonasked if the proposal was to permit an $80,000 bond or to permit a property bond in lieu of cash. McCord said the bond is subject to his approval but the amount must be approved by the Board. McCord explained that Northwest had pursued the possibility • July 1, 1986 of a corporate bond and have been unable to secure one, and they propose 199 to provide a property bond. Kent Hirsch, Attorney for Northwest, said one insurance company they contacted had asked for cash in excess of twice the amount of the bond, and that they were unable to provide that much cash. Hirsch said they had considered the possibility of an irrevocable letter of credit. Hirsch noted they began service two weeks ago without a contract Hirsch pointed out the previous contract included a $50,000 performance bond based upon a $250,000 contract. Hirsch said the current contract is in the amount of $127,520. Hirsch stated the Highway Commission requires a 25% bond for construction contracts and he proposed the provision of a bond for 25% of the amount of the contract. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, McCord stated the difference between the two bids was $80,000. McCord said, because the City took bids, there is a standard upon which to assess any possible exposure. McCord said the potential exposure is approximately $80,000 which he stated was a reasonable figure to request for a performance bond. In answer to a question from the City Attorney, Hirsch stated he did not know if they could obtain an $80,000 irrevocable letter of credit. Hirsch stated the owners have granted their interest in equity for certain property, including the landfill itself. In answer to a question from Bumpass, Hirsch stated the contract is for one year. Mayor Noland suggested the City Attorney and Hirsch try to work something out. McCord recommended the Board set the amount of required bond and require that the contractor satisfy the staff in that, if it is a property bond, that the amount of equity is there, or preferably obtain an irrevocable letter of credit or a corporate bond. Bumpass remarked that Northwest had really underbid the other contractor and had saved the taxpayers a lot of money. Bumpass stated he thought the $80,000 figure was reasonable. McCord stated it appears that the equity for the property bond proposed approaches $80,000, but that this should be confirmed by the staff. Director Hess, seconded by Buwpass, made a motion the bond be set 199.6 at $80,000 and the City Attorney and Hirsch should negotiate as to what would properly be the value of the $80,000. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 199.2 199.3 199.4 199.5 FUTURE PARK The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the Parks and Recreation 199 Advisory Board that the City acquire 12.59 acres for a park, located east of Gregg Street and north of the future Drake Street extension. 200 July 1, 1986 00.1 The Mayor noted that the Board had viewed this site about a year ago at .the request of the Parks Board. The Mayor explained that, of the total acreage, 2.53 acres are proposed to be dedicated through the GreenSpace requirements, with another 6.9 acres which possibly may be dedicated as a credit toward future Green Space requirements, leaving a'balance of from 3.16 to 10.06acres which would have to be purchased. 200.2 Dale Ciark, Parks and Recreation Director, told the Board he had no idea what the cost would be to acquire the property. He said that some of the property was located in the flood plain. 200.3 Director Johnson commented that, last January when the Board' considered this.,item, nocost figures. had .been provided... She added: that the budget does not contain funding for this purchase. Johnson said she was not willing to make a commitment without additional information. 200.4 Clark explained that with no authorization to obtain an appraisal for the property, they aren't able to determine the cost of the land. 200.5 The City Attorney said it. appeared to him the request at this time would be for approval of funding for an appraisal. McCord suggested an appraisal would cost no more than $500.. 00.6. Director Bumpass commented that, until Drake .is extended to Gregg, this property would be very isolated from the public. Bumpass suggested the,eost of the street should.be. included in thecost of the park. 200.7 In answer to a question from the Mayor, Clark said the land proposed for the park would abut the Drake extension. 200.8 200.9 The Mayor stated that he thought a park was needed but questioned whether now was the time or that particular location was the place for a park. Director Hess asked, if the Board wishes to pursue negotiations for purchasing this land for a park, would the Board abrogate its right to ask -the developers to improve the street. McCord replied that he did not think this would be the case and he noted that he did not think this property was reflected as a park on the Master Plan. Hess asked if the City could require developers to build a street or a bridge. McCord said he thought the City could ask developers to at least bear a portion of that cost, depending on the size ofthe sub- division and the amount of traffic it generates. 200.10 Director Lancaster quoted from Board meeting minutes of January 21, 1986, when this issue was last discussed: 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, 201 July 1, 1986 she was not in favor of making a commitment. 201 Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion that the Board wait until either a generalized cost estimate is obtained, or until more information is available regarding other parks needs. Director Johnson recalled that at that time the Board asked the Parks 201.2 Board to ineet with Wade Bishop because there was some controversy as to the total acreage to be donated. Director Lancaster quoted from the January 21 minutes which stated: 201.3 .:.Wade Bishop responded that 5.65 acres of the total acreage under discussion were located in the flood plain. Lancaster said it bothered him that this land `could be donated to 201.4 the city, alleviating Bishop's need to participate in the cost of the road.. McCord -'said, `if the Board wants a cost estimate;'an appraisal'will 201.5 Be. required. - Lancaster asked if the Parks -Board had 'money in its budget for the cost Of an appraisal. The Mayor pointed out that, unless the Board is definitely interested 201. in proceeding, they probably shouldn't authorize an appraisal. Johnson suggested that this matter be tabled until the Board Retreat 201.7 when long—term goals will be discussed. DirectorLancaster suggested Dale Clark, in the meantime, make the 201.8 Parks Board well aware of the questions from the City Board. Johnson suggested approaching Bishop and Lindsey and asking them for 201.9 an estimate of the cost of the land, in lieu of having an appraisal. She also suggested Burch determine a cost estimate for the Drake extension and bridge. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to table the request. 201.10 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. AIRPORT COMMITTEE REPORT Director Lancaster reported the Airport Committee met on June 24. 201 11 O 2 202.1 202.2 July 1, 1986 CONTINENTAL OZARK FUEL FARM Lancaster reported the committee considered a request from Continental Ozark to install their own fuel farm on the west side of the Airport, behind the Fire Station and adjacent to Continental Ozark's hangar. Lancaster noted the 20 -year Master Plan requires that any additional fuel farms be located on the east side of the Airport. Lancaster said the committee rejected the request. The City Attorney pointed out that the Airport Committee did not recommend that the City deny CO the right to fuel its own aircraft, but merely recommended that any new fuel farm be located on the east side of the Airport in accordance with the Master Plan for Drake Field. McCord said that at the committee meeting Director Johnson noted that the site requested by CO would be needed by the City if the Airport Fire Station is ever expanded. 202.3 Jim Boyd, Counsel for CO, said they presently burn about 1,000 gallons per month of jet fuel and wishto use their own fuel to fuel their own plane. Boyd said the FAA can find no reasonable reason to refuse to permit them to fuel their own plane. Boyd pointed out that, although their request has been referred to as a request to install a fuel farm, they merely wish to install a fuel tank in a grassy area right by their hangar. Boyd said he understood the Master Plan to require that, if there is ever an additional Fixed Base Operator or fuel farm, it is designated for the east and north part of the Airport. Boyd said to require CO to locate their tank in that part of the Airport would probably triple their expenses and would require them to buy a truck and cross the runway each time they want to fuel their plane. Boyd said this, in effect, would deny them the right to fuel their own plane. 202.4 In answer to a question from Bumpass, Boyd said the tank they propose to use would be installed underground, and would hold 12,000 gallons. Boyd said CO currently has no other option but to buy their fuel from the F.B.O., and that they pay $1 more per gallon than they would pay if they bought their own fuel. 202.5 McCord noted he had advised the Board in a memorandum of the current applicable regulations as cited by Boyd. 202.6 02.7 Director Bumpass commented that the City paid an enormous sum of money to install a fuel farm and he noted that the size of the tank proposed by CO seemed to be awfully large. Boyd said possibly they could restrict the tank to one half that size but he noted that a 12,000 -gallon tank does not cost much more than a 6,000 -gallon tank. Lancaster said the size of the tank was not the question before the committee and the only issue considered by the committee was the request to place the tank on the west side of the airport. 203 July 1, 1986 McCord quoted from implementing regulations for the Federal Aviation 203 Act, regarding exclusive right, which he stated provide in part: Any unreasonable restriction imposed on the owners or .operators of aircraft regarding the servicing of their own aircraft and equipment may be construed as a violation of this policy. An owner of an aircraft should be permitted to fuel...his own aircraft. ...However, local airport regulations may include such restrictions on these self-service activities as are reasonably necessary for safety,: preservation of facilities, and protection of the public interest. McCord: said he thought the issue before the Board, from a legal standpoint, is whether prohibiting CO from having a fuel tank at this site would be an unreasonable restriction, or whether it is a restriction that is reasonably necessary for safety, preservation of facilities and protection of the public interest. Director Johnson pointed out the proposed location for the tank is directly in front of the fire station. Johnson said, should the fire station ever have to be expanded because of the new fire truck, this would be the area used for the expansion. Johnson said this is the reason she supported the recommendation to deny the request. Director Bumpass asked about the possibility of locating the tank north of the City's fuel farm. Boyd said at that location they could consider extending underground pipe to their hangar. Lancaster asked Boyd if he thought that was "getting a little bit ridiculous" to think that one airplane would burn enough fuel to justify that type of operation at the airport. Boyd asked if the Board had any other alternative•to offer CO. Director Hess said he thought CO should offer the alternatives and stated they had a right to request a more suitable location. Boyd asked if they could amend their request to state that, if they are denied the right to locate the tank in the requested location, they request permission to install it at the location of the City's fuel farm north of their hangar, and extend an underground pipe to their hangar. Hess stated he would prefer to have the Airport Committee investigate that request and present a recommendation before the Board. Airport Manager Dale Frederick noted that other tenants at the airport have expressed interest in installing fuel farm facilities for their aircraft. Frederick said the City has designated an area for any additional fuel farms because allowing tenants to place fuel farms wherever they wish would result in having fuel farms all over the airport. 203.2 203.3 203.4 203.5 203.6 203.7 "01 a July 1, 1986 04.1 Mayor Noland noted that Boyd had indicated they had made an attempt to lease a tank from Aero -Tech. Boyd said Frederick had requested they meet with Aero -Tech in an attempt to work out a deal to house fuel with Aero -Tech, and pay them per gallon. Boyd said there had been a contract, by phone, with Aero -Tech, in which they agreed to pay Aero -Tech $.10 per gallon. Boyd said he sent them an agreement which they would not sign. 204.2 Noland said, if the City there would have to be an plane other than their own. procedure. permitted agreement Frederick CO to install a new fuel tank, that they could not service any said he thought that was standard 204.3 Boyd said that Frederick had told him the principal reason he does not want CO to have their own tank is because they would take business away from Aero -Tech, the present Fixed Base Operator, and that it might encourage others to exercise their rights to fuel their own planes. Frederick said that he suggested to Boyd that, if he was really serious about going into the fueling business, he should consider a proposal to the City for a full-service FBO. Boyd said they did not wish to sell fuel to anyone else at the airport. 04.4 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to deny the request. 204.5 Director Bumpass stated he thought the law was clear in that the City cannot unreasonably abridge CO's rights to fuel their own plane out of their own fuel tank. Bumpass asked McCord if requiring them to cross the airport would be unreasonable under the law. McCord pointed out the regulations prohibit unreasonable restriction but provides that self-service activities as are reasonably necessary for safety, preservation of facilities, and protection of the public interest are permissible, even though they may restrict self -servicing. 204.6 Director Hess pointed out the Board would be voting on CO's request for installing a fuel tank at a designated site. 204.7 In answer to a question from Mayor Noland, Boyd stated he felt he had exhausted every possible avenue with Aero -Tech toward obtaining a tank in their fuel farm. 204.8 204.9 Mayor Noland stated that, if the request were granted, the City would have to stipulate that, at the time the airport fire station were ever expanded, the City would have to ask CO to move their fuel tank. Boyd stated the tank could have been installed closer to the building line and farther from the fire station except that, between the time of the request and the time of the hearing, a concrete roadway was hurriedly built in the most logical location for the tank. • • 20,_ July 1, 1986 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 205 REPUBLIC PARKING RATES Lancaster reported that Republic Parking System requested permission 205.2 to adjust their parking rates and submitted a rate structure. Lancaster reported the committee agreed to a .50 increase, from $2.50 to $3.00 for a 24-hour charge. Upon roll call, the •motion. passed, .:4-1,• with Bumpass voting in the 205.3 minority.. . AERO -TECH FUEL TANK Lancaster reported that Aero -Tech Services requested authorization 205.4 to install an additional fuelstoragetank at the Fuel Farm. Lancaster explained that the additional storage would allow the FB0 to negotiate with-aircarriers for the storage and enplanement of their own fuel. Barry Sinex, speaking for Aero -Tech Services, explained they had been 205.5 approached by some airlines regarding fueling their own aircraft, using their -own fuel. Sinex said it has become common in many cities for. some airlines to purchase their own fuel at ,a cheaper rate, and pay the FBO to pump the fuel to their aircraft. Sinex said this was a source of income for the FBO, and was advantageous for the airlines because it allows them to keep air fares low, since the price of fuel is lower, and is good for the City because more fuel is being pumped, meaning more revenue for the City. Sinex said the extra tank is needed because quality standards do not allow mixing the fuel currently stored with other fuel purchased by airlines .(only because it might be from different manufacturers). Mayor Noland asked why two tanks could not be purchased, allowing 205.6 Continental Ozark to use one tank for their fuel, pumping it out on the same basis as the other airlines. Sinex said Aero -Tech needs to maintain a certain amount of overhead and that they didn't feel it would be a good business practice. Sinex said they tried to explain to CO the amount of overhead and charges they required, and were not able to negotiate a mutually agreeable price. Sinex said Aero -Tech could not live with a $.10 per gallon figure. Director Bumpass commented that there had been a huge up -front expenditure for the fuel farm tanks. He pointed out that Continental Ozark was proposing to pay for their own fuel tank. Bumpass noted that there would be indirect financial benefits to the airport and the community from Aero-Tech's proposal, but he inquired whether rent and taxes from fuel flowage could pay off the investment in the fuel farm in a shorter period of time than 15 years. Sinex said at one time it 205.7 206 July 1, 1986 )6.1 was estimated that the increase in fuel flowage, from the installation of the tanks, would pay for itself in two years. 206.2 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to solicit bids for the installation of an additional fuel storage tank at the fuel farm. Upon. roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. SPRINKLER SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 206.3 Lancaster reported the committee considered a request for authorization to permit Dunk Automatic Sprinkler Co. of Springdale to prepare sprinkler system specifications for the White Hangar for a fee not to exceed $1100. 206.4 Public Works Director Burch stated that Dunk Co. was a recognized expert in the field. 206.5 Director Lancaster, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the request for authorization to permit Dunk Automatic Sprinkler Co.:to prepare sprinkler system specifications. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-0, with Bumpass absent at roll call. WATER LINE OVERSIZING 206.6 The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Works Director for authorization to participate in the costs of oversizing a water line to serve the Zero Mountain cold storage warehouse, west of Lime Kiln Road, at a cost of $4,305.43; and a request for approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $4,500. 206.7 Mayor Noland said, according to a letter from the City of Johnson, they do not object to Fayetteville serving this customer. 206.8 Director Lancaster questioned where funds would be obtained for this expense. He also commented that the site was not in the city's growth area and was in the city limits of Johnson. Lancaster said that, although he was not opposed to the request, he wished to hold it in abeyance until the next Water and Sewer Committee meeting. 206.9 Burch stated Zero Mountain had been told their request would have to be heard by the Water and Sewer Committee and the Board for approval. Burch said they decided to proceed with their construction project anyway, and are now in the process of doing the work. Burch said that, although he did not agree with their approach, he thought the city would get a lot for its money by paying this nominal oversizing fee. J 2U? July 1, 1986 Director Lancaster asked what warranted an 8" water line to the facility. 207 Burch explained the proposal is for an 8" line up to a certain point and a 6" line to the facility. Director Lancaster, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table the 207.2 request?until the -next Hater and Sewer Committee -meeting: - Director Hess asked how:quickly was action needed on the request. 207.3 Burch responded that construction is now underway for a 4" line at Zero Mountain's costs. Burch said they have offered the city the bpportunity:.to:..payforathe oversizing•-from 4" to-6",:.and.from 4" to 8". In response to questions. from Lancaster and Hess, Burch clarified 207.4 that, regardless of the Board's actions, the .City --of Fayetteville will provide water service -to --the facility. c Burch said the staff has determined the line should: -be no smaller than 6" where there is a.possibility of quite a few .future taps Burch told the Board that Zero Mountain's costs.will.be.between $18,000 and $23,000. Director Lancaster -stated he -had a problem with the City of Fayetteville 207.5 furnishing water outside --its -territory, into another .city;.`without any.actionifrom the Board.---. .,.:,._ Upon .roll call, the motion passed, 4-1, with Director Hess voting 207: iiv_the.minority.:; PLANT BAR SCREEN REPAIR The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Works Director for 207.7 prior approval, and an ordinance to waive the competitive bidding requirements, to proceed with repairs to a bar screen at the Pollution Control Plant. The Mayor noted this request was discussed at a Water and Sewer Committee meeting. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director 207.8 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, 5-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to 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 asked if anyone present wished to speak against the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed. In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Burch explained that one of two existing plant bar screens is presently inoperable but 207.9 20; o d July 1, 1986 08.1 there are no plans to repair it at this time. Burch said the waiver is requested in the event the second screen becomes inoperable and needs repair. Burch explained this equipment will be involved in the rehabilitation of plant equipment which will be reused in the new plant. 208.2 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Burch said this expense is not grant eligible and would be a maintenance expense until the rehabilitation contract takes effect. 208.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0. ORDINANCE NO.73 nS APPEARS ON PAGE -31-- OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(XIV POLICE UNIFORMS 208.4 Mayor Noland pointed out that a police officer was present wearing a new proposed uniform. 08.5 • Public Safety Director Coates stated it was proposed by the Police Department and staff to undertake a change -of uniform similar to that being modeled. Coates said it was felt this was a very professional uniform. He said the department has a uniform identity problem, in that Washington County officers appear the same as City officers. Coates said he felt it would mean a lot to the officers .to have their own identity. Coates said the proposal is to make the change by January 1, and that there would be no additional cost as they propose to use the uniform allowance left from this year plus next year's uniform allowance to pay for the new uniforms. 208.6 In answer to a question from Director Hess, Coates said an overwhelming majority, or virtually 100%, of the officers were in favor of the change in uniform, with 95% to 97% choosing a change to dark blue. 208.7 • Director Hess, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the change in uniform to dark blue, subject to type'of material to be decided upon at a later time. 208.8 It was pointed out by- a citizen in the audience that some materials are cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, and that the choice of a darker color will be hotter in the summer and cooler in the winter. Coates explained that tests will made of different materials in order to determine what material will be most comfortable and most durable. 08.9 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. • BID AWARDS WILSON PARK BUILDING REPAIR July 1, 1986 The. Mayor„introduced:.the award of- Bid 11706 for repair of buildings at: -Wilsons -Park: The -Mayor- reported,- the -sta€:f- recommended the award of bid to the only bidder, in the amount of $15,650, under the budgeted amount. 209 209.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve 209.2 the -award of•bid. Upon roll cali,.-the. motion -.passed, 5-0. BRAKE LATHE FOR CITY SHOP . The Mayor introduced the award of Bid 11701 for a heavy duty brake 209.3 lathe for the City Shop.. He reported the amount of bid, $5,068, was under budget. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the 209.4 bid to the low bidder. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0.. • WATER METER TEST BENCH The_ Mayoi.,introduced the award of Bid 11704 for a water meter test 209.5 bench. He reported the staff recommended the award of bid to the low bidder, in the amount of $4,097.60, under the budgeted amount. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the 209.6 award -Of -bid. . Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. PERSQJNEL COMMITTEE The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Personnel Committee which 209.7 met on June 27. Johnson reported the committee recommended the employment of an Animal Control Supervisor. Johnson said the reason for having this position is because of the inventory of drugs used in the Animal Control Division and because of Equal Employment Opportunity regulations which indicate there should be a supervisor in this position. Mayor Noland asked if funds were available for this position this year. Johnson said funds were in the budget because there was a two or three month gap in a position in that Division. Johnson added that this would represent. a $2,000 to $3,000 increase. 209.8 209.9 210 :10.1 July 1, 1986 Director Johnson,, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the recom- mendation of the committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 210.2 Johnson added that this employee will be responsible for a community awareness program regarding animal control problems, with there being measurable goals and objectives established initially. 210.3 210.4 OTHER BUSINESS HOLIDAY PAY CLAIM BY FIREFIGHTERS The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the City Attorney for Board approval of a settlement regarding a holiday pay claim by Fayetteville Firefighters. The City Attorney noted his recommendation was contained in the agenda and was self-explanatory, adding that the settlement is based upon the daily rate of pay being 1/10 of the bi-weekly paycheck.. ^10.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the recom- mendation of the City Attorney for the holiday pay claim by the Fire- fighters. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 210.6 [Clerk's note for the record: The settlement approved was for the firefighters to be compensated by the City for two years holiday pay based upon (1) eleven holidays per year and (2) each firefighter's daily rate of pay for the two year period from March, 1983 to March, 1985. Under the settlement the firefighters would be paid a total of approximately $80,000.] APPLEBY ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 210.7 Public Safety Director Burch reported that plans and specs are ready for improvements to Appleby Road. Burch requested approval to advertise for bids. 210.8 Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the request. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 910.9 ANDY FRIEND PETITION The City Attorney noted there had been a request from Attorney for. Andy Friend that hearing on his petition be tabled until the next meeting. 0 1 1 July 1, 1986 Director Hess commented that this was the second such request and 211: if the petitioner wished to place it on the agenda again, he did not want to hear it. ICMA—RC DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN The City Attorney introduced a request from the staff for passage 211.2 of 'a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute all documents related to the ICMA—RC Deferred Compensation Plan, in light of the fact that former Acting City Manager Murphy was authorized to execute these documents. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the reso- 211.3 lution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 9-0 5Q‘' APPEARS ON PAGE .72/ OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX VI] FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING Administrative Services Director Linebaugh, in Director Martin's absence, requested the Board schedule a Finance Committee meeting. It was decided to schedule this meeting for 2:00 p.m. on Monday, July 7. MINUTES 211; The minutes of the June 18, 1986 meeting were approved with the following 211.5 addition made by Director Johnson: 185.4 Add after "...cost to the citizens": as well as having those specifications reviewed by a second engineering firm" ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m. 211.6