Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-08-19 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, August 19, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin and Orton; City Manager Grimes, City Clerk Kennedy, Department Directors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh; members of the press and audience ABSENT: City Attorney McCord CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with six Directors present (Director Bumpass arriving after roll call). The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. TAVERN ORDINANCE ?63.1 The Mayor introduced further consideration of an ordinance amending the City Code to prohibit the admission of persons under 21 years of age into the bar area of a public tavern or private club serving alcoholic beverages for on -premise consumption; left on second reading at the August 5 meeting. :63.2 The Mayor explained that, since the August 5th meeting, another ordinance has been proposed which would make it unlawful for a minor to attempt to purchase any alcoholic beverage. :63.3 Director Orton asked. whether the second ordinance would make enforcement any easier. :63.4 City Prosecutor Terry Jones explained the second ordinance had been drafted pursuant to some public comments made at the last Board meeting by tavern owners. Jones said the second ordinance would allow owners/operators to detain persons suspected of being under age, .in order to obtain proper identification, and allows them to call the police and have an arrest made on the premises. Jones said this saves time and doesn't require the presence of a police officer on the premises when the attempt to purchase alcohol is made. 63.5 Bumpass asked how this ordinance would affect a situation where an adult buys alcohol and a minor who has not attempted to purchase the alcohol ends up with it. Jones where an adult gives alcohol to 10 days in jail on up, and up to August 19, 1986 said State statute prohibits conduct a minor, with punishment ranging from a $500 fine. Bumpass asked ifthere was an automatic $250 fine for an operator, under ABC regulations, if a minor is served alcohol on the premises. Jones stated the fine was $150—$250 for a first offense,: on up to one year in jail and up to a $500 fine. Bumpass said he had received feedback from some operators that a $25 minimum .fine proposed by the ordinance was not nearly as severe as the fine which can be imposed on the operator, and that the minimum should be raised in order for :Lt to be a true deterrent to minors. Jones explained a minimum fine was included in the ordinance onlybecause there have been some recent cases which suggest a criminal statute must have a. minimum and a maximum. Jones noted that the Board could increase the minimum if they wished to do so. 264 264.1 Director Martin expressed .concern about, what mitigating affect the 264.2 ordinance would have on owner/operators, in terms of their. responsibility to exercise utmost care in to whom they sell alcoholic beverages. Martin asked, when an owner/operator detains someone who has procured alcohol, :if it exonerated the owner/operator from culpability and liability. Jones said he thought it would and that several instances resulting in arrests would demonstrate an. owner's affirmative attitude towards stopping the problem. Martin asked if an owner is raided if this ordinance would allow him to blame the minor for the sale, and if this would not then relieve the owner of responsibility. Jones said he did not think so because, if it could be proven that the owner knew the person was a minor at the time of the sale, then the State statute which would penalize the owner would still be in effect. Jones said he did not think the ordinance would absolve the owner of any responsibility. Lancaster commented that he could not conceive of owners actually 264.3 detaining individuals who were simply making an attempt to buy alcohol. Bumpass asked if it was a felony to go to the State Revenue Office and 264.4 give false information about your date of birth in order to obtain a driver's license. Jones said it would be a felony to do that but it would probably not be a felony to give false information that would show up on your driver's license. Director Hess said he thought the general intent of .the ordinance was 264.5 to send a message to minors that the City does not approve of this behavior and would like .to prevent .it .or minimize it as much as possible. • Mayor Noland -remarked that the first ordinance which was left on second 264.6 reading at the last meeting is similar to one that has been in effect in Oklahoma for a couple of years. The Mayor asked if the Board wished 265 August 19, 1986 to wait until the City Attorney returns, and ask him to make a formal request of the cities of Norman and Stilwell to see whether or not their ordinance is working or had to be modified. Martin said he thought it important the City look at how well other cities'. ordinances are working. 265.1 A citizen in the audience who stated he was in the liquor business commented that the'second ordinance was thebest thing which the City has cbme'up with in a long time. He commented that right now: a minor has nothing 'to :lose. He said he .,thought the• ordinance would be a deterrent: 265.2 Director Bumpass suggested"there be a standard sign posted by :owners stating the fact that the ordinance exists.. 265.3 Director Johnson spoke in favor of the second ordinance. She suggested the minimum fine be raised from $25 and that the ordinance contain a provision that a notice be posted by retail dealers and club owners. Director Orton, with` Johnsof''tagreeing, suggested a $100 minimum. Bumpass expressed agreement. 265.4 Johnson suggested the second ordinance be left on first reading at this time, and be considered again at the next meeting. Director Orton agreed and suggested the City Attorney make the changes as suggested for the next meeting. 265.5 The City Manager read the ordinance, making it unlawful for a minor to attempt to purchase any alcoholic beverage, for the first time. 265.6 Director Martin noted that, at the last meeting, University of Arkansas Vice Chancellor Gohn presented his opinions regarding the first ordinance. Martin asked that he be invited to comment on the second ordinance. Gohn suggested the Board table the first: ordinance and consider both ordinances again at their next meeting. Gohn said it was possible that either or both ordinances may bef the. answer to the problem. He said he thought both had advantages although neither have a total solution. FINANCE COMMITTEE REPORT Use of CEC/HMR Tax Excess s., 265.7 Director Martin, Chairman of the Board Finance Committee, presented a report from the comiliittee's meeting of August 14. 265.8 As background, Martin explained the Board had tabled, on July 15, a request from the Advertising and Promotion Commissionto be allocated 1/2. the excess funds each year from CEC/HMR taxes. Martin said the August 19, 1986 • matter was referred to the Finance Committee, and at the August 14 committee meeting a presentation was made by the advertising firm of Blackwood and Martin of material they had presented to the Advertising and Promotion Commission about the proposed use of the funds. Martin said the staff was able to show the committee that the City could issue bonds which would finance the construction of the Arts Center with an allocation of 1/2 the excess funds, making the Advertising and Promotion Commission's request feasible. Martin reported that Director Johnson has indicated the Air Museum has a request for funds.to operate that facility, and that Dale Christy, Chamber President, has stated that project could receive high. priority under a special projects allocation. 266 266.1 Martin reported that the committee, with Orton dissenting, voted to 266.2 recommend that the Board approve a 50/50 split of the allocation of the excess HMR tax, the allocation to the, Advertising and Promotion Commission to be reviewed on an annual basis. Martin made a motion to approve the recommendation. Director Hess seconded the motion. Jim Scroggs, speaking from the audience, reminded the Board that, when the question of adopting the HMR tax was first presented to the citizens, ads were placed which emphasizedthe fact that surplus funds would be allocated for the construction of a performing arts center and that nothing was said in .the,: ads about money going for advertising purposes. He said he realized the Board later passed Resolution 15-77 which specified "a modest amount" for advertising. He said he voted for the tax so the money would go to a performing arts center and a continuing education center, not for advertising. He said he realized there was a need for advertising but thought a smaller amount than 1/2 would be appropriate. Director Martin pointed out that projections indicate that, over the life of the CEC bonds, an arts center could be built with the excess. Martin said he didn't see how the committee's recommendation in any sense violates the promise that the excess would be used to pay for a performing arts center. Scroggs said he thought it did in the sense that the amount of money being allocated for the performing arts center, if it were larger, would retire the bonds sooner and would cost the public less in the long run. Martin agreed that front -loading a bond issue would reduce interest expense. Martin said it was carefully considered that the funds requested by the Advertising and Promotion Commission were intended to be a catalyst to stimulate further tax growth, further development in the community and further tourist influx which would support the arts center. Martin said he thought the intent was to try and stretch the dollars available over the life of the bonds. Director Johnson said she did not think the arts center could get along on future city allocations and that, by using part of the money for 266.3 266.4 266.5 August 19, 1986 advertising and promotion, there will be promotion of the arts center which will encourage its growth and increase revenues. Johnson said she thought tourism was becoming a major industry in Arkansas. 267.1 Director Lancaster pointed out that, when the HMR tax was adopted, the City did not have the sales tax and it was said at the time that the Hilton Hotel and the CEC would not work without parking. Lancaster said money was taken from this same fund at that- time to build a parking deck. He said when the sales tax was adopted .4%: of it was earmarked to build an arts center in addition to the excess HMR tax. • • 267.2 Lancaster read from Resolution No. 15-77: "...That in the event the revenues from the -aforesaid -tax. are in excess of the. amount necessary to meet the annual debt service on revenue bonds _issued for the construction of the said continuing education facility, plus a modest amount for advertising, the .Board of Directors is in favor of using said excess revenues for the plan and construction of a. performing arts center..." -Lancaster said, although there is disagreement over what is a•modest amount, -he feels it is an investment to make the HMR tax grow larger than what it has been. 267.3 Orton expre's'sed concern -over, the: ;issuethat voters were led to believe a major part of the excess tax would go for an arts center. She said she did not think the Finance.Committee recommendation is keeping faith with what the voters were told. Orton noted that three current City Directors were serving on thle'City Board at the time the resolution and the HMR tax was adopted. Orton added that, if the economic situation is not as predicted, it may not be true that there will be sufficient funds in the excess to pay off the bonds. Orton said, in that case, the difference would have to be made up from the General Fund. Noland pointed out that the advertising allocation is a one—year deal, to be reviewed annually. Director Hess said the annual review of the advertising allocation means a future Board is not committed to making any allocation. 267.4 Director Hess asked if there would be a prepayment penalty on the bonds. Linebaugh said on most bond issues there is a period of time before you can have a prepayment and often a penalty is'built in. 267.5 Director Bumpass said he thought the Board was overlooking the point that, because the tax was adopted and the CEC and Hilton were built, people are attracted to the City, spend money here, and the City 'benefits from all the taxes.. Bumpass pointed out that cities such as Eureka Springs and Hot Springs spend a great deal more than Fayetteville on advertising, so that "modest" was a term that could be used relative to other cities. Bumpass said he thought revenues derived from advertising would far exceed the expenditure. 267.6 Orton said she did not think the debate was how much the community should grow or how many tourists are wanted here. She pointed out that August 19, 1986 Eureka. Springs is a big tourist town in the summer with a high unemployment rate in the winter. She added that the advertising agency, Blackwood and.Martin, which claims that an average tourist in Fayetteville spends $300 per day, uses inflated figures. Mayor Noland pointed out that the important thing is that both the Arts Center and the Advertising and Promotion requests can be accommodated. Director Lancaster remarked that the City has committed itself to build an Arts Center but that, until all factionsstop arguing amongst themselves and all work together, the Arts Center will never be built. Orton stated that several people have commented to her that "we have to go along with the Chamber of Commerce" by allocating to them 50% of the excess funds, or they won't support the Arts Center. Orton said she felt strongly the Chamber would still support the Arts Center whether they receive 50% or not. Frank Sharp, Chairman of the City Arts Center Board, stated he was gratified by all the support which has been received from the City Board. He said the Arts Center Board didn't ask for any specific percentage of the HMR excess but simply asked for enough money to match the University money and he stated that it appears this has been done. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Orton voting in the minority. City Manager Grimes introduced two resolutions draftedby the City Attorney which reflect the Finance Committee's recommendation. Director Bumpass read a resolution appropriating to the Fayetteville Advertising and Promotion.Commission in fiscal year 1987 the sum of $145,000 from surplus monies in the pledged revenue fund under the trust indenture for the Continuing Education Center tourism revenue bonds to advertise and promote the City of Fayetteville. Director Bumpass, seconded by•Hess, made a motion. to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Orton voting in the minority. 268 268.1 268.2 268.3 268.4 268.5 268.6 268.7 268.8 RESOLUTION' NO. 82-86 APPEARS ON PAGE A q OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK 1(Kkf l' Director Bumpass read a resolution expressing the intent of the 268.9 Fayetteville Board of Directors to pledge a portion of the City's share of the 1% county sales and use tax to secure the payment of Amendment 62 capital improvement bonds issued to finance the City's share of an Arts Center to be jointly owned by the City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas. August 19, 1986 269.1 Director Sumpass, seconded by Hess, made a notion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 83 -86 -APPEARS -ON PAGE ;27"0... OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK OI Humane Society Request 269.2 Director Martin reported the Fayetteville Humane Society presented a 'request for-financing-the'conatruction of a new animal shelter proposed to be located in Finger Park, estimated to cost $243,000 Martin said the Finance Committee reviewed this request as well as a request for a $90,000 annual operating budget. 269.3 Martin noted that, because the City's solid waste project.. could dictate the relocation of the existing shelter in and around the solid waste facility, and because of the upcoming difficult budgeting process, the committee requested this matter be further considered by the Public Safety Director in the upcoming budget. 269.4 Director Lancaster pointed out that the Board has already allocated $75,000 for needed renovation to the existing animal shelter. Lancaster said only $5,000 of that allocation has been used up to this point. He questioned what had happened to all the problems at the shelter which needed to be addressed and why the money hadn't been used to address these problems. 269.5 Martin pointed out that, if there is a chance that the shelter will have to be moved, substantial investments in improvements should not be made at this time. 269.6 Public Safety Director Coates said he had been assured by the Public Works Director that the existing shelter is not in any danger of being located at the site of the solid waste facility. Coates asked for direction froth the Board as to -Whether the building -should be -renovated or whether an appropriation can be made for a new building. Director Martin" asked Coates to work jointly -with -the Humane, :Society •to—see what the most practicable solution is to the problem, and to advise the Board of the alternatives and the staff's recommendation: -- 269.7 Director Lancaster said he thought the Board had provided some direction to the staff when it allocated $75,000 to upgrade the facility. Coates responded that he had been told not to spend the money because of the possible proposal from the Humane Society and that this was the reason only a limited amount of funds have been spent. Coates said he thought all the negative things which havebeen brought to light about the shelter can be addressed through the current funding. August 19, 1986 Dick Johnson, Humane Society Board member, stated that the proposal the Humane Society presented to the Finance Committee is more than a renovation and is a concept to possibly solve the animal problems in Fayetteville Johnson said the current facility would have to be elevated to solve the water problems, the location is out of the public eye and very difficult to get to. Johnson said he did not think the Society's proposal was out of line with what -is being done in other parts of the country. Johnson said he didn't believe they can make the present facility work. Martin noted that the staff would have to work with the Humane Society on the question.of costs -and benefits. SUBDIVISION APPEAL The Mayor introduced an appeal by Director Orton from a decision of the City Planning Commission to approve the preliminary plat for Glen Oaks Subdivision. City Manager Grimes reported the City's Traffic Superintendent studied the site and reported there to be 250 feet between the center line of Stubblefield Road and the center line of Glen Oaks Drive. Grimes said this complies quite well with the City's subdivision requirements and the Traffic Superintendent had no problem with the sight distance at the intersection of Glen Oaks and Old Missouri Road. Director Bumpass said he thought the street just to the north of Apple Tree Inn has always been intended to be extended through to the Strawberry Subdivision and he would be in favor of this plan. Grimes said that this was not included in the plan at this time. Grimes said he was the one who called this to the attention of the Board because he was concerned about there being street stubs in two different developments which were not planned to be connected. Mayor Noland asked if there was a tie-in between this subdivision and the development to the east. Orton said a street which was to be a through -street has now become a cul-de-sac. Orton said her concern is that the proposed entrance to the Glen Oaks Subdivision, at Glen Oaks Drive and Old Missouri Road, just south of Stubblefield Road, is at a dangerous intersection, with their being additional traffic from another development close by. Orton said the other concern is a street going by Apple Tree Inn which stops right at the boundary of the development, and which was planned to be a through street. Director Martin noted that Errol Street had an almost impossible line of site to the north. He asked the City Manager if the reason Errol 2'i 0 270.1 270.2 270.3 270.4 270:5 270.6 • 270.7 270.8 271 August 19, 1986 Street was in its present location was because the City was able to obtain joint financing with Appletree Inn to helpconstruct the street. Martin said in this case there was no long range planning since a future development . such . as ,Glen , Oaks Subdivision. should,. not be using Errol Street'; with n� line of -sight` to the north, as a main point of egress. Martin said he thought Errol Street was in the wrong location for this subdivision. Jim'Lindsey agreed that Errol Street had a terrible line of sight but noted that another reason not to extend it is the fact that it does not line up with the other Errol Street. Lindsey added that he would not develop the subdivision if the City asked him to close Glen Oaks Drive and use Errol Street as an entrance. The Mayor told Lindsey that, after the Board viewed the site, they observed that Errol Street had very poor visibility to the north and it is the impression of the Traffic Superintendent that Glen Oaks Drive has a good line of sight to the north. 271.1 Lindsey added that he thought it would be dehumanizing to make a major entrance to a subdivision right by a nursing home when the nursing home doesnot.. have a fence toblock the direct view of _ the„ rooms in the nursing home. • 271.2 The Mayor noted that, when the second phase develop, there ultimately will be four entrances to the subdivision. 271.3 Director Bumpass suggested now might be the time to change the routing of Stubblefield Road to line up with the intersection of Glen Oaks, while the land in the area is undeveloped..: Lindseysaidhe thought that would be an ideal circumstance. Orton asked the staff to look into this suggestion. 271.4 Mayor -Noland asked Director Orton if she wished, to_propose any action to the Board regarding the --subdivision.- Orton stated she proposed no action. She commented that the intersection was not a good place but it looked as though that -was -what it would have to be. She asked Lindsey to assure that he will make the intersection as safe as possible. Lindsey said -he -would provide a very wide radius. REZONING/JOYCE ROAD 271.5 The Mayor introduced an ordinance.. rezoning .46 acre located north of .Joyce Road, approximately 700 feet west of Highway 265, from A-1 -"Agricultural"-.to R-O."Residential-Office". .,,The_ Mayor reported the Planning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. He added that the Planning Consultantalso recommended approval. - 271.6 The City Manager 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 ordinance was read Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a rules and place the ordinance on its roll call., the motion passed, 7-0. third time. August 19, 1986 for the second time. Director motion to further suspend the third and final reading. Upon The ordinance was read for the The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3204 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK XX g ✓ SIGN" APPEAL OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance from Kelsey's Texaco for a sign proposed to be located at 101 W. Dickson Street. The Mayor explained the petitioner requests permission to install a 42 -square -foot freestanding sign at a 0 setback at a height of 17 feet. Dave Kelsey explained they wish to install the sign on the site of the original Texaco sign which was removed several years ago. Director Orton asked Kelsey to demonstrate a reason why he could not install a sign which would meet the regulations of the Sign Ordinance. Orton asked Kelsey if the staff had explained to him that he may install a wall sign on the building. .Kelsey said Texaco does not offer a wall sign and his existing canopy will not hold the standard Texaco sign. Director Martin stated he had driven by the location and noted that there was a very good line of sight, making it possible to have a sign which could be set back the required distance. Martin said for the City to allow a 0 setback for Kelsey would not be fair to other businesses which are not permitted a 0 setback. Director Orton asked Kelsey to work with the City staff to determine where he can locate a sign of this size. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to deny the appeal. Upon roll call, the motion. passed, 7-0. 2 72. 272.1 272.2 272.3 272.4 272.5 272.6 272.7 73 BARBER& BEAUTY SHOPS August 19, 1986 273.1 The Mayor introduced an ordinance amending the City Code 'to allow Barber and Beauty shops with six or fewer chairs in Use Unit 12. 273.2 The ordinance was read by the, City Manager for the first time. Director Martin, seconded by Orton, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on second reading. Upon roll call; the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Martin, seconded by Orton, 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. The ordinance was read for the third time. 273.3 The Mayor reported the Planning Commission considered the ordinance in a public hearing on August 11 and recommended its approval by a 6-0 vote. 273:4 The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak against the ordinance. No public opposition was expressed and the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE /NO. 3205 APPEARS ON PAGE '`I 7 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK �{)(j y • There was a break at about 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at about 9:40 p.m. STREET COMMITTEE REPORT 273.5 Director Orton, Chairperson of the Board Street Committee, presented a report on.the committee's August.12 meeting. Sweetbrier Drive Median 273.6 Director Orton reported there were a number of area residents concerned about the upkeep of the Sweetbrier Drive median. Orton noted the committee considered the question of whether it should be blacktopped so there would be no upkeep necessary or should a way be planned to keep it looking attractive. Orton reported everyone there agreed it would be preferable to keep it attractive and there has been an agreement reached that the neighborhood along Sweetbriar would bring a written agreement to the City within thirty days containing their plan for maintaining the median. Orton explained the City's horticulturist, with a neighborhood committee, would plan for low maintenance plantings • August 19, 1986 and, in the fall, the City would plant the median, leaving it up to the neighborhood to maintain. Director Bumpass reported the committee also requested the agreement be submitted to the City Attorney and then presented to the Board. Ozark Trail Orton reported that the committee recommended Fayetteville and Farmington share (50-50) in the ,cost of placing slurry seal on Ozark Trail, which is located in both Fayetteville and Farmington. Orton noted the cost would amount to $4,422.50. Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion that Fayetteville share the cost _with_Farmington on the Ozark Trail project. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Armstrong Avenue Orton reported that Washington County is chip -sealing Black Oak Road and there is a gravel section between the end of Armstrong Avenue and where the county is beginning its work which was considered by the committee. Orton reported the staff presented three alternatives and the committee recommended the gravel be upgraded (at a cost of $1200) and that more expensive maintenance not be done until after the Black Oak bridge is built in the near future. Orton noted the City has a Bill of Assurance for sharing costs with some industry along the street. North Street Improvements Orton reported the committee recommends the Highway Department proceed with their plans for North Street from the railroad tracks to Gregg Street. Orton reported the City is insisting. the Highway Department meet with the property owners along North Street to come to an agreement on a good way of handling the entrances and exits. Bumpass asked the City Manager if the Highway Department would be condemning the required right-of-way on the south side of the project. Grimes said he was not sure that right-of-way acquisition had been worked out yet. Sealing Program Orton reported the committee recommended the deletion of the City's sealing program and to spend the funds for other projects. Orton explained there have been problems with getting a consistency in the 274 274.1 274.2 274.3 274.4 274.5 274.6 274.7 27'5 • August 19, 1986 oil that is used -and the staff recommended discontinuing the program. Orton listed other projects which are recommended in place of the sealing program: Apply maintenance asphalt on Center Street from Gregg to Duncan; Repair Rock Street from Willow east 400 feet; Repairs on Leverett south of Pizza Hut Delivery; Repair North Street tracks; • Repair Duncan and Treadwell 275.1 Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to delete the Slurry Seal Program and, in its place, add other projects as. noted. 275.2 In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Burch explained the staff,: -.)would look:, -onto the possibility ;sofanother municipality purchasing the City's slurry seal equipment. 275.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 741. Other Street Committee Business 275.4 Director Orton added that the committee addressed a number of letters and requests concerning street and drainage problems and asked the staff to look further into these matters and report back to the Board regarding cost estimates. Orton reported these included sidewalks along Mt. Comfort, turn lane installation and removal of the median at Sycamore and Highway 471, Old Wire Road at Overcrest drainage problems, drainage problems -on Rock Street at Locust, dangerous conditions when Ash Street is wet, gravel on streets after a heavy rain, and shrubbery blocking views of traffic on corners. APPLEBY ROAD 275.5 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid and approval of a Resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a construction contract for Appleby Road reconstruction from the area east of the new bridge•extending 570 feet. The Mayor reported the work would include flattening the hill and the grade to improve visibility. The Mayor noted the low bidder was McClinton -Anchor, bidding $82;185.60. He reported the_staff :requests the funding be taken from the 1986 North Street project budget which will not be done this year. 275.6 Director Martin, secondednbyr:Orton, made a motion to award the bid. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 84-86 APPEARS ON PAGE )7,? OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Xy I 1 August 19, 1986 AIRPORT' TAXIWAY -AMENDMENT The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an amendment to an agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers for engineering services for a taxiway extension project at the Airport. The Mayor explained the engineers request full-time resident construction observation for 11 additional days, at an increased cost of $2,468, and that the Public Works Director reports no budget adjustment to be needed and recommends approval. 276 276.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the, 276.2 resolution. Director Martin noted that Items 9 through 14 on the agenda pertain to the Airport and that usually there is a recommendation from the Airport Committee. Airport Manager Dale Frederick agreed with Director Martin but explained that the staff had been unable to schedule a committee meeting and felt time was of the essence. Director Johnson asked that the engineers explain why 11 additional days are needed. Engineer John Quinn explained the original contract provided for '65 man -days of construction observation but, because of poor weather, the contractor had a construction period in excess of 65 days. Quinn explained that the FAA requires there be a full-time inspector while the contractor is working. Martin asked if there would be a penalty for the contractor because of the delay. Quinn said there would not be a penalty because of a difference in the definition of "a working day" for the contractor. He said that previously they worked on a calendar -day basis with the contractor but FAA hasrequested a change to a "working ,day" requirement as opposed to a "calendar day" to take into consideration inclement weather. Quinn said the FAA definition for "working day" is any time the contractor is able to work six hours or more on a major item of scheduled work which required the inspector to be present. In answer to a question from Director Orton, Quinn said an inspector was present on the job site all day. In answer to a question from Director Martin, Quinn said the City is not being asked to pay for a full day when an inspector is on the site only for part of a day. Quinn added that, according to construction logs, an inspector was actually on the job site for about 25 additional calendar days, but they ask only for 11 days because that is what it takes for the construction observation phase only. Dale Frederick noted that, if the Board approves the request, it will have to be contingent upon approval by the FAA which will conduct its own investigation to determine whether they will award 90% funding of the $2,468. 276.3 276.4 276.5 276:6 276.7 277 August 19, 1986 277.1 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting in the minority. RESOLUTION NO. 85-86 APPEARS ON PAGE ;7” OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK $ % j l l GREEN HANGAR -SUBLEASE 277.2 The Mayor introduced consideration of approval of a three-year sublease agreement between Air Midwest, Inc. and Aero Tech Services, Inc. for space in the Green Hangar at the Airport, at a cost of $1,182.50 per month. - 277.3 Dale Frederick explained this sublease arrangement came about because Aero Tech was vacated from the White Hangar in order to renovate it for museum purposes, leaving some larger aircraft in need of additional space. .Frederick explained that Aero Tech would pay $1,182.50 to Air Midwest, and Air Midwest then pays the City about $100 less than that amount per month (since Air Midwest will be charging Aero Tech about $100 per month for administrative fees). 277.4 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve a three- year sublease between Air Midwest and Aero Tech. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting in the minority. AIRWAYS FREIGHT LEASE 277.5 The Mayor -introduced a resolution authorizing.. the Mayor.andCity Clerk to execute renewal of a lease with Airways Freight for a portion of the Airport premises, with monthly rent to be increased from $250 to $265 per month. - 277.6 Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve renewal of the lease. 277.7 In answer to a question from Johnson, Dale Frederick explained the staff recommended a small increase for real estate only. He noted that the tenant built the structure they occupy. He said there had been no increase last year and Airways Freight is in agreement with the increase. Frederick said he felt that, if there had been a substantial increase, they might have moved their facility from the Airport. 277.8 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting in the minority. August 19, 1986 RESOLUTION NO. 86-86 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK AIRPORTLEASE RENEWALS The Mayor introduced consideration of resolutions authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute renewal of leases for advertising display space (remaining at $80/month) in the Airport,Tetminal Building with Best Western -The Inn, the Hilton Hotel, and Northwest Air;. and renewal of leases for direct telephone space (remaining at $20/month) with Best Western -The Inn and the Hilton Hotel. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve renewal of the leases. Director Hess asked why charges remain the same. Frederick explained that, three years ago when the leases were first entered into, the advertising didn't sell as well as expected and he feels this is a reasonable amount of revenue for the spaces. Frederick said he felt if the charges were increased it might decrease the amount of rentals. Director Hess asked how many more people Frederick expected to obtain rentals from in the next year. Hess said he thought the cost of operating the Airport increases and therefore most of the revenue- producing aspects of the Airport should increase correspondingly to the expenses Director Martin commented that his objections to the last few airport items relate to the fact that no rationale or justification has been provided as a basis for whether costs are being covered. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Martin voting "no". RESOLUTION NO. 87-86 APPEARS ON PAGE /7 9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK J(XV l l BID AWARDS Piercing Tool The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid for an underground piercing tool, reporting that two bids were received and the low bidder was ConMark Company, bidding $6,792.24. The Mayor stated the staff reports the bid to be under -budget. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid to the low bidder. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 2 Tia 278.1 278.2 278.3 278.4 278.5 278.6 278.7 ?70 U August 19, 1986 Mud Creek Water Line 279.1 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid for Mud Creek water line crossings. He reported the City Engineer recommends the award of bid to the only bidder, Don Mitchell, Inc., bidding $104,470. The Mayor noted the bid was $15,000 over the original estimate and the City Engineer reports funding for the project to be in the 1987 budget. 279.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to award the bid to Don Mitchell, Inc. 279.3 Director Bumpass, noting that "six sets of plans were sent out to contractors, asked Deryl Burch why he thought there had been no other bidders. Burch said he had received no feedback as to why no other bids had been received. Bumpass asked about the possibility of re- bidding the project and Burch replied that, if the project is to be completed this fall, it must be done during dry weather. 279.4 In answer to a question from Director Hess, Burch said he did not know exactly from which accounts this expense will be taken but there are enough underruns to pay for the project. 279.5 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Bumpass voting in the minority. PAY PLAN ADJUSTMENT 279.6 The Mayor introduced a request, from Director Hess for reconsideration of a recommendation for a Pay Plan adjustment considered at the August 5 meeting. The Mayor noted the vote at that time was 3-3-1. 279.7 Hess explained he voted on August 5 not to recommend the Pay Plan adjustment because of what he felt were shortages next year in the budget and also because he felt the Board's philosophy since he has been on the Board has been to require budget offsets for all increases. Hess said he asked Scott Linebaugh to find the necessary amount of money to fund this through the end of this year. 279.8 Linebaugh reported approximately $60,000 would be needed this year and approximately $70,000 has been found in the budget from the following sources: (1) about $30,000 for computer leases in General Fund will not be spent because computer lease payments will not begin until 1987; (2) about $10,000 is available from hiring contingency funds to maintain the Police Department at full staff, which has not been used;, and (3) about $30,000 is available in Public Works salary accounts from unfilled positions. Linebaugh projected the cost for the adjustments to be $77,000 in 1988, $80,000 in 1989, $76,000 in 1990, and August 19, 1986 $80,000 in 1987, $79,000 in 1991. 289 280.1 Bumpass asked if the staff could set a policy of not hiring anyone for 280.2 the rest of the year in order to pay for the adjustments. Bumpass noted there is a $1.5 million shortfall projected for next year and he said he thought it was fair to assume that amount will be greater in 1988. Director- Johnson noted that general revenue sharing is just about gone, meaning another $1 million shortfall. Director Martin stated his'pbint has been and continues to be that a Pay Plan, in order to achieve equity, needs to treat all employees the same. Martin said 'nextyear if there is a shortfall the City can't implement step raises or cost -of -living raises and all employees will be affected. He said, in the interest of fairness and employee morale, the City owes it to the employees to place them in the pay step where they belong. He added that the way the City implemented the Pay Plan had the effect of treating different employees differently. Director Johnson stated she had no problem with adopting, as a high priority, that employees be placed in their proper step before cost -of - living increases and before step increases, but she preferred to look at this in light of the total budget picture next year. Bumpass said he would prefer either that approach or to have the staff trim the salary account to pay for the adjustments. Director Hess made a motion to stipulated that a budget adjustment will be incumbent upon the staff to for next year. implement Alternative #1. Hess has been found for this year and it find money somewhere in the budget Director Lancaster said he did not think it should become a problem of the staff to come up with money to run the city, that it was the job of the Board to decide where the money will come from, and how much. Director Orton agreed, commenting that perhaps this would mean there will be one less street constructed, or some other project eliminated. Director Hess stated it was his intent that the adjustments be made as soon as they can be implemented. Director Martin seconded the motion. Fire Chief Mickey Jackson asked Director Hess if his motion included a mandated hiring freeze. Hess said no, that was merely a suggestion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-2-1, with Directors Bumpass and Johnson voting in the minority, and Director Lancaster abstaining. 280.3 280.4 280.5 280.6 280.7 280.8 280.9 280.10 • 281 281.1 Director Bumpass stated he voted "no" because the are not coming out of salary accounts. Director voted "no" because there is no place for it to come OTHER BUSINESS August 19, 1986 budget adjustments Johnson stated she from next year. Settlement Offer - Miller v. City 281.2 The Mayor suggested„a_decisionon a settlement offer in Miller; v: City be deferred until the City Attorney can be present. Municipal Court Collections 281.3 Administrative Services Director Linebaugh reported on response from criminal summons that were issued by the City on July 13, 1986: 12 fines paid in full 7 assigned to do public service 8 have had terms reset 16 set for retrial 281.4 Linebaugh reported the staff met with the Municipal Judge to discuss the problems and found some things that can be mutually done to improve results. Linebaugh said at this time the agreement is to continue to work on the problems. Linebaugh reported that aged accounts receivable have improved a little. Linebaugh reported the Judge has agreed to work with the collection agencies, in that as soon as accounts are turned over to the collection agencies, he will not allow any plea bargaining. Request from Commissioner Madison 281.5 Mayor Noland introduced a request from Planning Commissioner Sue Madison that the Board consider an absence of approximately four months from Planning Commission meetings as "extraordinary circumstances" since Planning Commission by-laws state that except in case of illness or extraordinary circumstances, any member absent for three consecutive meetings shall tender a resignation. 281.6 a Director Martin noted the request was a waiver of Planning Commission bylaws and he was not sure the Board was in a position to grant such a waiver. Director Johnson said she thought the policy that a commissioner miss no more than three meetings was Board policy more than it was Planning Commission bylaws. • August 19, 1986 Director Orton noted this commissioner is expressing a willingness to return for meetings in order to meet the criteria. Director Martin stated he hated for anyone to go to that kind of expense just to comply with minimum standards. Martin said one of the problems is that the Planning Commission has some hefty agendas and quite often attendance is critical. The Mayor said the full Board could consider the request if any Board members wished to implement action. Director Johnson asked if three consecutive missed meetings should be considered a resignation in the absence of any Board action. The Mayor said this was his understanding.' " Board Retreat Agenda Director Martin complimented the staff on the draft of the Board Retreat agenda, noting it appeared to be an excellent planning session. Director Johnson said the agenda appears to be going at the establishment of objectives in a backwards manner, if the Board does not establish long-range objectives first. Johnson said she thought the definition of "goals and objectives" also needed to be established. Director Orton said she thought the establishment of long term goals would necessitate some public meetings over a period of months. Orton said she thought the Retreat should address short-term goals. Orton said she hoped plans could be made for having public input into long- term goals for Fayetteville. Johnson said she thought they were talking about two different things - a strategic objective for the City which would involve the public - and then five-year goals for the City such as how to approach a street improvement project or what kind of a relationship the Board wants to have with the employees - with short term goals being quantifiable goals for individual departments. Director Johnson asked if top level supervisors (not just department directors) should be invited to the Retreat to determine their vision for the next several years. Hess disagreed, commenting that those supervisors should communicate their views to the department directors who then report to the City Manager and/or the Board. Director Bumpass asked if a request, for example, from the Fire Chief, for a new truck or a new fire station, would be addressed by the Board in the forum of the Board Retreat. The Mayor said he thought the Fire Chief would have to convince the Board how the new truck or the new station would help him achieve his quantifiable goals. Hess said he thought requests from the Fire Chief should be relayed to the Public 282.1 282.2 282.3 282.4 282.5 282.6 282.7 282.8 282.9 283 August 19, 1986 Safety Director who could then_. include. the request in a budget to be presented to the Board. Hess said, if this process is not used, the Board is getting involved in the same type of process it has been trying to extricate itself from -- that of getting involved in daily administrative functions. 283.1 Director Martin stated he would like the next level of management to be present to at least observe the planning and be available to assist the department directors if necessary: Mayor Noland agreed but stated he thought the decision should be up to the department directors. 283.2 Director Johnson asked at what point the Board would review the future financial picture. Martin asked Linebaugh to provide an _overview of where money has been spent in the last three to five years, by general categories, and to provide a projection of total requirements and total revenue available. Johnson asked that this be broken out by salaries also. 283.3 Martin asked to see some advocacy from department directors on their responsibilities. Old Missouri Road -Mud Creek Bridge Project 283.4 Deryl Burch presented revised cost estimates received from the State Highway Departmenton the City's share. of .costs for the Old Missouri Road -Mud Creek Bridge project. Burch said approximately $68,000 had been budgeted and the City's share will be $102,400. Burch said the Highway Department requests the funds by September 4 when bids are opened. Burch explained the increased costs are due mainly to extra yardage brought about by raising the elevation approximately 2 feet and changing the alignment on the curb for safety reasons. Burch said the staff anticipates taking money from the Poplar Street bridge project which will not be done, this year 283.5 Director Martin, seconded by Hess, made a motion to authorize the funding as stated with a corresponding budget adjustment. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. • ` Arts Center Public Hearing 283.6 Director Orton reported the Arts Center Board is approaching agreement with the University and, in light of there being an election soon, she felt the joint Arts committee should hold a public hearing on the agreement, after which the agreement would be presented to the City Board. Orton said Arts Center Board Chairman Frank Sharp told her he thought it was a good idea. August 19, 1986 The Mayor asked if the City Board should offer its input prior to the public hearing. Orton said she thought input was invited from the City Board at the joint meeting held on August 13 and Board members should contact Steve Adams with their input. Director Bumpass stated he would like an opportunity to address the City Board regarding his feelings on the proposed organization of the Arts Council which will manage the facility. He said he thought that City employees and/or the Mayor should serve on that Board. Orton noted that the latest draft of the Arts Council Bylaws was included in the agenda, but that the Arts Board would be meeting again and she was sure there will be yet another draft. Director Martin asked Orton if her intent was for the public hearing to be informational only or if it would be an opportunity for the public to make changes to the agreement. Orton said she thought copies of the agreement should be available for the public to read at the Library, the University and at City Hall so that they know what is contained in the Agreement, and so that they can attend a public hearing and make comments or provide input. Director Martin said he had no objection to a public hearing if it can be constructive rather than destructive. Martin said he thought it was essential to get information to the public regarding the final agreement but he thought at this point the agreement had been pretty well thought out. Director Orton said, in light of an upcoming election, it was important that the public_ feel confidence in the issue before them. Martin said he could support this because a lot of time has been spent which has resulted in a well thought out proposal. He added that he would be surprised to see the public having any problem with the agreement. - Mayor Noland remarked that maybe Chairman Sharp, in his activities with the Arts Center, would be coming up with such a hearing. Tree Ordinance Public Hearing Director Orton made a motion that the City Board request that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing on the Tree Ordinance. Director Johnson stated she wished to speak against the motion and speak in favor of the City Board meeting with the Planning Commission and the Board trying to do something about divisiveness which exists between members of the Planning Commission. Director Hess seconded the notion. Hess stated he did not like the manner in which a vote was called by the Planning Commission to drop the tree ordinance. He said, if Board members who were in opposition to something he favored were not able to attend a meeting, he would not 281 284.1 284.2 284.3 284.4 284.5 284.6 284.7 284.8 85 August 49, 1986 • attempt to call a vote, in order to effect passage. Hess said he thought this was unjust. Hess said although- he was in favor of the ordinance, he hoped the issue could at least be opened up to a public hearing. 285.1 Director .Martin stated the Planning Commission minutes reflect that members of the public, both pro and con, have attended Planning Commission meetings and had spoken for and against the ordinance. Martin said the Northwest Arkansas Times had publicized meetings of tree ordinance committee meetings, inviting the public to attend and make comment. Martin pointed out that the matter was raised for discussion, as an agenda item, by the Chairman of the Commission who had voted in favor of the ordinance. Martin stated there was no request that the item be tabled and, in fact, there was a strong plea at a previous commission meeting that a vote be taken, but commissioners who objected said they didn't have information on the cost of compliance. Martin said Jacks asked for this information to be available at the last meeting and it was circulated prior to the meeting. Martin said the theory that there had been a conspiracy or some indiscretion just didn't survive the light of the facts. 285.2 Orton said she felt the public was waiting for the Planning Commission to come up with a final draft of an ordinance. Orton added that the Chairman of the Landscape Committee had not been able to attend the last Planning Commission meeting because she had a sick child. 285.3 Hess remarked that the.ordinance had been discussed for months and a vote could have been taken any time during those months. ' He said it seemed coincidental to him that the vote was taken when three of the known proponents were not present. 285.4 Director Martin remarked that the public looks to the Board and the commissions to work out problems and the last thing he would do to the public is ask them to decide an issue when a board or commission is divided. Director Hess stated he did not think that was germane to the issue which he thought was that a vote was taken when three of the proponents were not present. Hess said he did not consider that to be ethical. 285.5 Director Lancaster stated he believed minutes would reflect that the Board never said it wanted a tree ordinance but simply asked the Planning Commission to study the issue He noted that, at this point, the commission had not brought a tree ordinance before the Board, but had voted it down. Hess said his point was that it was voted down in what he considered to be an unjust situation. 285.6 Director Johnson said she thought the Board either should give direction to the Commission and tell them what to do, or stay out of their business. She said if the Commission decides it wants to • August 19, 1986 reconsider the ordinance and schedule it for a public hearing, it is their responsibility to do so. Director Hess asked if a Board member could ask the Planning Commission to reconsider an ordinance. There was some discussion among the Directors on this question but it was not clarified as to whether, or how, this could be done. The Mayor asked Director Martin if, in his opinion, he felt there had been a public hearing on the tree ordinance by the Planning Commission. Martin responded that a public hearing had not "technically" been held. Martin said he thought public hearings were appropriate in a situation such as -the arts center where there is a well—developed concept with broad support, but that otherwise a public hearing is going to sow dissension. Martinadded that he thought Planning Commission minutes reflect that on numerous occasions the issue was advertised and the public addressed the Planning Commission both pro and con. He said he thought what was being denied in a "public hearing" was an opportunity to try to generate some more support for an ordinance which generally does not have very much support in the community. Hess disagreed, stating there obviously were different factions involved. Martin remarked that he was not a "tree buster" but his point was, if you look at the community in general, the commercial developments have been very responsible about landscaping their properties and he saw no reason to pass the ordinance. He noted the Public Works Director had conservatively estimated the minimum cost of administering the ordinance would be about $20,000 per year. Martin remarked that the City could plant between 75-90 trees, install sprinkler systems and fertilize them every year for the cost of hiring a tree policeman. Martin suggested this be done as opposed to hiring someone to enforce an ordinance which he thought would run people out of the community. Mayor Noland commented that he did not know whether he would vote for the tree ordinance in its present form. He stated that, although he thought there had been considerable public input on the matter, he would like to be sure there is a Planning Commission public hearing just as there is when considering any other ordinance. Director Martin stated the Planning Commission does not hold a public hearing on every item which comes before them. Noland commented that the Planning Commission holds a public hearing on any ordinance under consideration by them. Martin stated this is only done in the case of an ordinance which is proposed to be adopted, remarking that the tree ordinance is not proposed to be adopted. Noland disagreed, commenting that if the ordinance had not been proposed to be adopted it would not have been on the agenda. Johnson commented that they Planning Commission holds a public hearing after voting to adopt an ordinance. 28€ 286.1 286.2 286.3 286.4 August 19, 1986 287.1 The Mayor asked for a vote on the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-3, with Directors Orton, Hess, Noland and Bumpass voting "yes", and Directors Johnson, Lancaster and Martin voting "no". 287.2 William Giese, speaking from the audience, noted that he lived on Zion Road and has been disgusted ever since the City cut down a 150 -year-old Maple tree. He said his street had been backfilled with dirt instead of SB2 and consequently, every time it rains, he gets a lake in front of his driveway. He said recently several citizens around Zion Road had been reminded they were not in compliance with different ordinances. Giese claimed that members of the League of Women Voters, lawyers and politicians are exempt from the ordinances. Giese distributed photographs to Directors which he stated depicted property which has been owned by a former Board member for 13 years and which he stated constituted a neighborhood nuisance, and property to the west of him which he stated was in similar condition and was owned by an attorney. Giese stated he could not help but think this was selective law enforcement: Giese asked the Board what good was a tree ordinance going to do if the City doesn't comply with the ordinances it already has. Highway 471 and Millsap Road - Additional Lane 287.3 Mayor Noland announced that the City had received information last week from the Arkansas 'State Highway and Transportation Department that there will be an additional lane construction on Highway 471 at Millsap Road for northbound traffic, and that the intersection will be signalized. Workers Compensation Insurance Discount 287.4 Director Johnson announced she had attended a Workers Compensation Trust Board meeting. She said the City should be commended for receiving a discount on its premium this year. She explained there had been a 60% or less loss rate and the City received a 15% discount and a volume discount of another 9%, meaning instead of paying $214,000 for Workers Compensation insurance, the City only has to pay $163,000. Board/Planning Commission Meeting 287.5 Director Johnson requested the Board schedule a meeting with the Planning Commission at the convenience of both bodies, to thrash out some issues before the Planning Commission and to address what looks to her like a polarization of the Commission. 287.6 Director Martin .suggested this take place after the Retreat. He suggested there he some discussion at the Retreat regarding the Board's August 19, 1986 relationship with citizen commissions. Other Directors expressed agreement with Martin on this topic for discussioh. Johnson suggested a'date for the joint meeting 'beset at'th'e Retreat. Enterprise Zones Approved Director Hess noted that three enterprise zones had been approved. Hess congratulated Administrative Intern Kevin Crosson on his work in this regard. MINUTES 28 288.1 The Minutes of the August 5 meeting were approved with the following 288.2 corrections and additions: 234.5 Director Johnson asked that the following be added at The end of the paragraph: "Dire`ctor Johnson requested information on Spruce Street and the realignment of Sycamore at 'Highway 471. It was replied that these would be discussed at a Street Committee meeting." ' .. 238.2 In the third sentence, "pool"should be "pole" 239.5 In the last sentence, "this" should be "that" 250.5 "suite" should be "suit" ADJOURNMENT With no furtherbusiness befbre'th'e Board, 'the meeting was'ad jburned at 288.3 about 11:37 p.m.