Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-09-16 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, September 16, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT. Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Martin, Orton and Hess; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney McCord, DepartmentDirectors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Director Lancaster ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with five Directors present at roll call. The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. POLICE CHIEF APPOINTED. 335.1 City Manager Grimes introduced Richard Watson as the city's new 'Chief of Police. Grimes announced that Watson had been promoted after participating in a 12 -hour assessment center session. Grimes said Watson had been employed with the Police Department for 20 years, and has been Assistant Police Chief since last April. -. ARTS CENTER COOPERATION AGREEMENT 335.2 The Mayor introduced consideration of a resolution authorizing City Board approval of the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas, for the Arts Center. 335.3 Win Thompson, speaking for the University of Arkansas, reported that the University Board of Trustees met in Little Rock on September 12 and not only approved the agreement but gave very strong support to continuing as in the past months to work an arrangement out between the City and the University. 335.4 Frank Sharp, Chairman of the City Arts Center Board, remarked that there had been seven drafts of the documents before they were finalized. Sharp commented that the Center would serve the arts in the community, and the University. Sharp laid for this idea twenty years ago, it over the years. Sharp expressed approve the documents and that the vot the' use of funds and the bond issue. September 16, 1986 noted that foundations had been with a lot of people working for hope that the City Board would ers, on October 7, would approve Sharp thanked everyone in the and staff for their help. Mayor Noland thanked Frank Sharp and the committee for their efforts. 'Director Bumpass reported on a meeting with Rick Mayes of "Pride in Dickson Street", a merchants association. Bumpass said, in efforts to form a' Parking Improvement District to obtain 500 parking spaces' for the Center, seven parking lots are being given preliminary consideration which could provide over 1,000 new parking spaces in the improvement district. Bumpass said the improvement district would finance the parking lots. Bumpass noted that many large property owners on Dickson Street favor the district. Bumpass said he thought the establishment of the district and the parking lots would be a first step towards a dramatic renovation of the street itself, and could make the area a viable economic center. Bumpass pointed out that neither the improvement district, the parking lots, nor the construction of the Arts Center require any increase in taxes. community, and thanked the City Board Director Johnson pointed out. that' two or three of the lots under consideration for parking would be across the street from the location of the Center. The City Attorney read the following Resolution: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING -THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE ' AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF AN ARTS CENTER. BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas that the Mayor and City Clerk are authorized and directed to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with the Board of Tzustees of the University' of Arkansas for the construction and operation of an arts center. A copy of the Agreement authorized for execution hereby is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and made a part hereof. PASSED AND APPROVED this 15th day of September, 1986. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the Resolution. Director Orton asked for a definition of the term "natural citizen" used on page 2 of the Arts Foundation and Arts Council By-laws. The City Attorney explained that meant a citizen as opposed to a • ?36 336.1 336.2 336.3 336.4 336.5 September 16, 1986 corporation. Director Orton noted that, in both sets of By-laws, there are three different paragraphs referring to removal of officers and employees. Orton said she envisioned the Executive Director being responsible for hiring the staff. Orton asked if this meant that either Board could fire the employees. The City Attorney said he thought the wording allowed the power to remove employees to be delegated to the Executive Director. Orton pointed out that provision was not contained in the By-laws. Orton asked about the meaning of the term "subordinate officers". McCord said that term may or may not apply depending on the ultimate management structure which is used. He said these were general provisions which contain standard language used in corporate By-laws. McCord said he had no problem with the wording and did not think it would create any operational problems. McCord pointed out that the By-laws do not establish requirements but simply authorize certain powers if a particular structure is created. McCord. explained that the Executive Director would be employed by the Arts Council Corporation only. He pointed out that one Board would not have the authority to fire employees hired by the other Board. 337.1 The City Attorney noted that the seven drafts of the documents had been scrutinized by the joint committee, by Legal Counsel for the University, and by him. McCord informed the Board that it had the prerogative to make changes but it would require the documents go back to the University Board of Trustees for their final approval, which would delay the process as the Trustees meet on a quarterly basis. 337.2 Director Orton said the wording sounded like the Boards had the authority to fire employees hired by the Manager and would not be hiring a Manager who has the responsibility for the employees. McCord said he thought what would happen was, if a Board felt a particular employee was not functioning in a proper manner, the Board would go to the Executive Director and request appropriate action be taken. Orton pointed out that such provision was not contained in the By-laws. McCord agreed, but noted that he was comfortable the By-laws were flexible and would allow for proper functioning. 337.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, with Director Lancaster absent. RESOLUTION NO. 95-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 33 D OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XX V H MISSION STATEMENT 337.4 The Mayor introduced approval of a Mission Statement for the City of Fayetteville. Director Johnson noted this statement was a product of the Board Retreat and she read the following: To have a government. attractive, September 16, 1986 forward thinking, credible and responsive To provide for our citizens a safe, healthy, stimulating community in which to live and work by delivering the highest quality municipal services while seeking maximum value for dollars expended. To have organized and sound deliberations, to identify emerging and vital issues, and to develop reasoned policies with ample opportunity for public awareness and involvement. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to accept Mission Statement as presented. the Mayor Noland commented that the statement had been a product of the entire Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. SIGN APPEAL The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance (tabled from the September 2 meeting) for two existing wall signs located at 1417 West Sixth Street. The Mayor explained the petitioner wishes to retain two existing signs advertising the business on the same wall. The Mayor explained the ordinance states wall signs shall be limited to one per business on each wall with a limit of four wall signs per business per building, unless the Board determines that strict enforcementwould be unreasonable. Curtis Hogue spoke on behalf of the petitioner, Greenwood Food Stores, owner of Spe Dee Marts in Northwest Arkansas. Hogue explained that, although a freestanding sign is permitted on the property, Greenwood Food Stores has decided to use that option to advertise their Union 76 logo. Hogue said it was also decided the appearance of the store would look less cluttered if the sign was kept strictly on one side of the building and not on the canopy. Hogue said he spoke with the City's Sign Inspector over the phone and was told that, if the two signs were connected, it may make a difference. Hogue claimed there were numerous signs in the City which were not connected. Hogue said he did not 'think the signs were obtrusive and were in the overall plan for all the Spe-Dee Mart stores. Director Orton explained to Hogue that the Board had to determine there was a hardship in order to grant a variance. Orton pointed out that both signs say the same thing. Hogue said the round sign was lighted and used for nighttime advertising. Director Orton pointed out that the City's Sign Ordinance was in effect during the planning process for the Spe-Dee Mart signs. Hogue stated :?38 338.1 338.2 338.3 338.4 338.5 338.6 338.7 .7c ki September 16, 1986 that Greenwood Food Stores contracted with someone who was aware of the ordinance and thought that the sign contractor would keep them in conformance with the City's:ordinance. .. . 339.1 Director Bumpass: asked Hogue if -he-was-.in:a position.to offer. to give up signs they are legally•entitled.to have, in order to be:.granted a variance. Hogue, said: they would: agree not to. install signs. on the other three ' walls, . : or - on the- canopy... - .In answer to .another , question from Bumpass, Hogue said •he did.not.-think 'the company would suffer an economic hardship if it is not granted a variance, although there would be additional outlay for the store to change what it has done at this time. :.. ,. 339.2 .'Director Martin noted that the portion of the wall on which the round sign has been placed seems to protrude slightly from the rest of that wall. Martin said he observed other buildings in the city where there are similar situations, with more than one sign on the wall..., Martin asked if these other situations were in violation of the ordinance or could be precedents for this case. City Manager Grimes said he thought some of these were not in violation of the ordinance but, in the case of some large stores, these were signs used nationwide. 339.3 -• Director-Bumpass.said he thought some consideration..- should be..given to the -fact that there could- be signs on .the. canopy.which:the company..has elected not to have. 339.4 —••Director -Orton asked how responsible..the. City.is: when. a. contractor,.who should know about,the- ordinance—does—not—follow .the.. ordinance.:. City Attorney McCord pointed out the issue had been raised as to whether there is a violation of the Sign Ordinance or whether.it is,a,matter of interpretation whether the protruding portion of the building is a --separate--wall.-Director-Bumpass suggested.that.question be referred to the staff for a•recommendation. ... ,., 339.5 •t Director: Hess. said -he- did not seea,_ :hardship andt did not want to,.set a precedent where future -petitioners- could claim, that a..variance„was granted in this case when. there was no: hardship.,.Hess.said.he thought that would weaken the Sign Ordinance. Hess said he would prefer to have the •proper interpretation. made- regarding. the. wall. .question as opposed to granting a variance. 339.6 Director Martin said he thought a precedent had already been set in the cases of major firms with large facilities who have the same situation with one wall, a portion of which is protruding from the rest of the wall. Martin said the Board should give consideration to the case before denying the. request .and leaving numerous other similar signs standing... September 16, 1986 Mayor Noland asked for information as to how far out the area (upon which the round sign was installed) extends. The Mayor suggested the request be tabled for two weeks. Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a motion to table the request. Director Johnson asked if the signs do not occupy 20% of the total wall space whether they could be considered as one sign. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-1, with Director Orton voting in the minority. WEDINGTON AREA DRAINAGE The Mayor introduced a resolution which would require two property owners to install necessary drainage improvements in connection with the wedington area drainage project. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the resolution. It was confirmed that, if these two property owners do not participate, the entire project can still proceed. The City Manager explained that the project was included in the budget this year, although a study was done about three years ago. Grimes added that detailed engineering is just now being completed. Upon roll call, .the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. N'Sl APPEARS ON PAGE 37 / OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK? XV PROPERTY CLEANUP The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of unsafe structures located at 960 Cato Springs Road, 621 McClinton Street, 1220 S. West Avenue, and 1323 S. School Avenue. The Mayor announced a letter had been received today from the property owner for 1220 S. West Avenue stating they do not have clear title to the property. The Mayor asked if the Board wished to discuss removing this property from the ordinance. Director Bumpass stated the Board viewed all the property and he felt, regardless of who owns the 10 340.1 340.2 340.3 340.4 340.5 340.6 340.7 340.8 340.9 340.10 340.11 341.1 September 16, 1986 property, all of it neededto be "razed. Bumpass asked that"'the ordinance be read including all the properties. The City Bumpass, place the Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director :,. Seconded by Orton; inad`e' a" motion fo' sus'pend 'the 'rules and ordinance on its second reading. 341.2 Director Johnson questi.`onerwhethnotifica'tion`h'ad'been'received' by the property owner, 'R. L. Vaughan/ for the propdtty'on iS. School Avenue. Property Inspector Steve Johnson explained Vaughan had not received the letter because the add'res% provided by the Courthouse'was not his residence. Steve Johnson said notice was'posted- on' the property and seen by Vaughan. 341.3 341.4 Director Johnson observed that the return receipt for property owner Louis Frederick had been signed by Victor Schwartz'. Johnson asked if Mr. Frederick had received a letter. Steve Johnson said he thought the signer was some relation to Mr. Frederick. He confirmed that the address was the last known mailing address for the property owner. Director Hess asked if there were any legal problems for the City to try to raze a house to which *there is not proper title. McCord said his understanding was that the property owner in question"'at' l'e'ast' had "color title" if not clear title. McCord said his position was that, l if )th'e 'property is apubli.c nuisance, it'doe's' not matter Whohas title, since the City has the right to abate'the-condition. -. ' -'•' 341.5 Director Martin 'suggested leaving the ordinance oh second reading might give the property owners one more chance' offull'notioe of the -City's serious intent to raze the properties. 341.6 Director Bumpass pointed out°most•of'' he notification'iif these'cases was done in June or July and he commented the property owners had been given a long time to respond. Bumpass said he would 'nbt mind leaving the ordinance on second reading if the property owners will'' be contacted again. Director Johnson asked that the property owners be sent a copy of the ordinance and to determine the relationship between Schwartz and Frederick. 341.7 Upon roll call, the motion to move the ordinance to second reading passed, 6-0. The City Attorney-read"t1e'ordinande'for the sedOnd'time. 341.8 Director Bumpass asked Grimd"to provide' a status'report'on property at 341.9 Rollston and Watson. Director Hess asked if the staff was expected to contact each property owner notifying them that the City is about to proceed with the razing of each structure. The Mayor stated that was his understaridiiig: 341.10 The ordinance was left on second reading September 16, 1986 NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Nominating Committee meeting of September 16, 1986. Johnson reported the committee recommends the appointment .of James McGinty and Oscar Titus to terms on the Electrical Licensing Board ending October 1, 1988; and recommends the appointment of Jacqueline Salamo for a. term on the Industrial Park Committee ending April 1, 1988. Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the recommendation of the. Nominating Committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Johnson reported 24 applications have been received for a vacancy on the City Planning Commission, that hopefully a recommendation will be made soon. ENGINEERING SERVICES The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the execution of an amendment to the City's Basic Agreement with CH2M Hill, to provide engineering services to redesign the sludge and effluent force mains off Wyman Road. The Mayor reported the redesign cost would be $3900, with the construction company offering a preliminary credit of $6500, resulting in a net credit of about $2600. Director Orton asked why it was costing less for construction. Public Works Director Burch explained Washington County has expressed an interest in widening their portion of the road, meaning the line can be moved over entirely on City property. Orton pointed out that not having to buy right-of-waydoes not affect the cost to the contractor. Orton asked why the contractor's price is so much less now than it was previously. Burch explained the construction procedure would have been different for laying the line in the right-of-way, as well as there being a difference in compaction requirements, and having to maintain traffic during construction. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 97-86 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK X X J I 73 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION 342.1 342.2 342.3 342.4 342.5 342.6 342.7 BID AWARD September 16, 1986 343.1 The Mayor introduced the award of Bid #716 for equipment filters for the Public works Department. The Mayor reported there were at least three bidders and the staff' recommends the award of bid to the overall low bidder, T -N -T Auto Parts. - 343.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to award the bid to T -N -T Auto Parts, the overall low bidder. Upon roll call, the -motion passed, 6-0. OTHER BUSINESS • • CITY V. BROCCARD • 343.3 The Mayor reported the City Attorney had received a letter from F. H. Martin, Attorney for Broccard, in regards to Broccard's 10 acres near the Mud Creek discharge point. The Mayor reported the water and Sewer Committee discussed the matter with Martin and agreed that the purchase price on the 10 acres, plus removal of any claim for damages to a pond, would be for the full amount of $90,000. 343.4 Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the settlement on' the basis stated in the letter. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-2, with Directors Bumpass and Hess voting in the minority. SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS VIOL'ATION• - 343.5 In reference to a violation of subdivision 'regulations, the Mayor asked the City Attorney what appropriate action might be taken by the Board. McCord explained that, in the past, the Board has instructed him to file an injunctive relief'to prevent the land owner from conveying additional parcels without complying with the subdivision regulations. McCord said he would be glad to visit with .the County 'Recorder regarding reimplementing the enforcement of the statutory requirement 'of 'deed ajiproVal-before lot splits .are recorded without' City approval. McCord said the Recorder was' cooperative•in-the paston this -matter. 343.6 --In'answer to a question from the Mayor, McCord -noted there was additional land for further lot splits. The City Manager explained the property was located in the growth area. McCord said if the property is outside the city limits, but in the growth area, there is a statutory requirement that the property owner comply with the City's subdivision regulations, although there is no requirement that the County Recorder have City approval before a deed can be recorded. September 16, 1986 Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to instruct the City Attorney to file injunctive relief on this subdivision for violation of subdivision regulations brought to the Board's attention. Director Martin asked for a staff recommendation. The City Manager stated the staff feels the action is necessary. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Director Hess asked the City Attorney to write a letter to the Washington County Recorder. ANDY FRIEND PETITION The Mayor introduced a request from Attorney for Andy Friend. The Mayor explained a petition filed by Andy Friend has been on the agenda three times and that he told the Attorney the Board did not wish to place it on the'agenda again'until they'were sure all parties concerned could be present at the meeting. The Mayor asked the Board if they wished to have this petition placed on the agenda again. The City Attorney explained,' in answer to a'quest'ion frdth Director Orton, that the petitioner was making'a claim against the 'City in regards to an automobile which was impounded and ultimately sold by a storage company. The City Attorney remarked that on three occasions either the petitioner or the attorney failed to appear. The City Attorney said he recalled the Board's attitude was that they did not wish to see the petition again. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion that the petition be placed on the agenda under Other Business, and that the Board not be given all the substantiating material again. Director Hess said the Board would need to have the substantiating material. Director Hess said, if the parties do not show up this time, he did not want to hear from them ever again. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. Director Martin asked 'that the staff summarize the case, commenting that "this is not a Court". Martin asked that the 'staff' at' least review for the Board the background of the case and perhaps' contact the petitioner and tell them why the staff feels the Board either should or shouldn't give them relief. ') 4 }.1 r1 344.1 344.2 344.3 344.4 344.5 344.6 344.7 344.8 344.9 344.10 3'2 NPDES PROGRAM September 16, 1986 345.1 The Mayor introduced a resolution which would support an application by the State of Arkansas to administer the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Program, part of the Clean Water Act. The Mayor said he thought it might be to Fayetteville's advantage to support the DPCE's attempt to administer these programs. 345.2 Director Orton, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the.motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 99-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 3 % F OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXJII ENTERPRISE ZONE REQUEST 345.3 City Manager- Grimes introduced a request from Tyson Foods for passage of a resolution which would endorse their participation in the Arkansas Enterprise Zone Program. • 345.4 Director Bumpass, seconded by Bess, made a motion to approve the resolution to allow the City to certify endorsement of Tyson Foods' participation in the Enterprise Zone Program.. 345.5 Kevin Crosson, Administrative Intern, explained that, although the Board approved the City's application for the Enterprise Zone Program itself, Tyson now must request City endorsement of their participation. 345.6 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 98-86 APPEARS ON PAGEft.f OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ?() 1 I SELECTION OF UNDERWRITER & BOND COUNSEL FOR ARTS CENTER BOND. ISSUE 345.7 The Mayor told the Board, if a selection is made now of the Underwriter and Bond Counsel for the Arts Center bond issue, certain .preliminary work can proceed on the bond issue before the October 7 election. The Mayor asked that the Board decide either to waive the selection procedure and selectA. G. Edwards and .The Rose Law Firm, or proceed with Requests for Proposals from other firms. 345.8 Director Bumpass said he thought they had done a good job in the past but that he personally preferred the City go out for Requests for Proposals. Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, made a motion to go through the standard professional selection policy and Requests for Proposals on the underwriting and legal counsel for the Arts Center Project. Director Hess asked how quickly this process cou Administrative Services Director Linebaugh explained could take 4-6 weeks. Hess asked if this would ability to proceed with the bonds. Linebaugh said process. McCord said the City was not under a time as federal tax laws are concerned. September 16, 1986 ld be completed. the entire process hamper the City's it would delay the constraint as far Director Martin commented that the City of Fayetteville is trying to finance the Arts Center as cheaply as possible and that, in his opinion, this means going out for Requests for Proposals. The Mayor argued that, since a Local Bank Committee looked at RFP's several years ago, and recommended A. G. Edwards and The Rose Law Firm as the best at that time, he didn't know that anything had particularly changed since that time. Upon roll call, the motion failed, 2-4, with Directors Bumpass and Martin voting 'yes' and Directors Johnson, Orton, Hess and Poland voting 'no'. Director Johnson asked if the firms could provide the Board with an estimate of their fees. McCord said this information was included in a recent memorandum, with A. G. Edwards estimating a fee not -to -exceed 2%, and The Rose Law Firm estimating a fee not -to -exceed $22,000 plus out-of-pocket expenses. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion the City contract with A. G. Edwards and The Rose Law Firm and waive the professional selection policy for the underwriter and bond counsel for the Arts Center bond issue. Director Martin asked what would happen if expenses are incurred, and the voters elect to disapprove the bond issue. McCord said there would be no liability on the part of the City, although the firms would do some preliminary work. Director Bumpass commented that one reason why the City adopted the professional selection policy is because of the fact that the customary way of entering into contracts, even though the City was dealing with good professional people, was done on a personal basis and left the City open for criticism and, in his opinion, led to some bad selections. Bumpass said the investment banking firms were as guilty as anyone in feeling too comfortable in getting contracts without regard to competition. Bumpass said it seemed the City, with regularity, was going around its policy with the investment bankers. The Mayor said, if he had not been satisfied with the performance of the two firms, he would be willing to find someone else. 34f 346.1 346.2 346.3 346.4 346.5 346.6 346.7 346.8 346.9 3 4 r/ 347.1 September 16, 1986 Director Hess pointed. out that the City Manager and Director of Administrative Services have recommended that in this instance the policy be waived. 347.2 Director Orton agreed with Bumpass. She said she thought the selection policy was good and should be used next time. Orton said she was in favor of the waiver this time because of time constraints. 347.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-2, with Directors Johnson, Orton, Hess and Noland voting 'yes' and Directors Bumpass and Martin voting 'no'. • COUNTERCLAIM/CUMMINGS V. CITY 347.4 Director Bumpass said he did not remember ever voting to file a Counterclaim against the taxpayer: who raised the.question of the. Solid Waste Project to a vote of the people. • Bumpass asked. for.. the .reason behind the Counterclaim, and if the Board wished to move to dismiss the Counterclaim. Bumpass also asked if there was an offer of settlement sent to the Board indicating the suit would be dismissed• if the. City would call an election on the bonds. Bumpass said his position has always been to call an election. - .. 347.5 The City Attorney explained that, before the Counterclaimwas filed, he visited with the City Manager and discussed the matter with bond :.-counsel, 'special, tax.. counsel and..underwriter's.. counsel.. McCord. said •- the•decision'to.file the Counterclaim. was made -with..the concurrence of •the City Manager, -the-thinking being. that this was a..legal strategy, to defend the lawsuit to the best of their ability. McCordsaid. they felt the lawsuit was without merit and the Counterclaim was appropriate. McCord said if the Board disagrees and wishes to.vote,to dismiss the Counterclaim, he would follow their direction. ...McCordsaid the allegation in the Complaint is that the Authority has attempted to avoid an election. McCord said that was incorrect and there were several valid reasons for not calling the election. McCord pointed out the County, City of Fayetteville and City of West Fork are all.members of the Authority, raising the question of who would vote. McCord asked if other cities in •the .County. who .arenot participating in the Authority should have the right to vote. McCord saidno bond counsel would -sign off on an Authority issue if only,the City of Fayetteville voted.- -He .added that,•' if the- bond. issue. is changed to a .Fayetteville issue, it would come -under new rules•of tax reform legislation pending in Congress, meaning it could cost several million, dollars in investment earnings. 347.6 Director. Orton' -said she -thought the Counterclaim:was .a..good-,strategy. Director Orton,'seconded by Hess, made a motion_that the Board approve the strategy being used by the City Attorney in this lawsuit. Director Hess said he thought the City Attorney had acted in the right manner September 16, 1986 and he did not think it was necessary to have brought the Counterclaim before the Board. Director Bumpass said he disapproves of the policy trying to call an election on a bond issue. Upon roll call, the minority. MINUTES The minutes of distributed. of suing a taxpayer 348.1 motion passed, 5-1, with Bumpass voting in the 348.2 an August 28 special Board meeting were approved as 348.3 The minutes of the September 2 meeting were approved with the following corrections: 294.4 "Science and Engineering. Building" should be "Science Engineering Building" 295.1 After "cost estimates" add "on more vandal -proof facilities" 295.6 After "amendment" change "to Section 4 of the ordinance, to replace the second paragraph with the following:" to "increasing the first offense fine to $100 minimum and requiring posted notification as follows" 300.5 Change "to this area" to "to the subdivision" Change "from the main sewer line into the lots" to "within the subdivision" 301.2 Delete "with $40,000 to be spent on the internal lines into the development." and insert in its place "The additional amount to be spent on the internal lines into the development must be appropriated." 301.6 Change "is to cover" to "is to bring us closer to covering" 302.2 Change "Other Business" to "Other Business of the Airport Committee meeting" BOARD OF DIRECTORS ELECTION Director positions Orton announced that there will be an election for four on the City Board of Directors on November 4, and she 348.4 348.5 349.1 September 16, 1986 announced that anyone interested, in filinga petition may pick one up in the City Clerk's office. Orton said petitions must be filed by 5:00 p.m. on September 25. • AIR:SHOW CONGRATULATIONS• I.J Director Martin extended congratulations to everyone Air Show for their work. ADJOURNMENT 1 / 1• involved in the 349.2 With no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 9:25 p.m.