Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-10-07 Minutes35`1 357.1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, October 7, 1986 in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas PRESENT: Mayor Noland, Directors Johnson, Lancaster, Martin, Orton Hess and Bumpass; City Manager Grimes, City Clerk Kennedy, Department Directors Coates and Linebaugh; members of the press and audience. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called the order by Mayor Noland with six Directors present. Director Bumpass arrived shortly after roll call. The Mayor asked for a moment of respectful silence. REPORT TO THE PUBLIC City Manager Grimes presented the monthly Report to the Public and Board for the month of September. Worker Injuries 357.2 Grimes reported there were six injuries to City employees in September, four in Public Works, one in the Police Department, and one in Administrative Services. Grimes reported a session will be scheduled to analyze injuries and train employees in avoidance of injuries. Public Safety Department 357.3 Grimes reported the Public Safety Director attended a four-day emergency planning course in Little Rock, and the Inspection Department hosted a two-day Building Inspection class which drew participants from all over the State. Grimes noted Police and Fire Department stress counseling sessions are back on schedule. Grimes reported CPR classes are in process at this time, being presented by the State Department of Labor. Grimes reported all departments are continuing to develop fire and storm plans for all city employee locations and during October there will be an emergency -preparedness demonstration at the Airport with a simulated crash exercise. Administrative Services Department 357.4 Grimes reported budget forms for 1987 go out to departments tomorrow and will be due back in on October 24. Grimes reported the calender October 7,1986 "Report to the People" is on schedule. He reported journalist Patricia May had been hired to coordinate and write the Report. He noted work has begun and the city's water customers may anticipate receiving the calendar about December 20. Public Works Department Grimes reported most public works projects are moving along pretty well, although a few of them have been delayed somewhat by rain. A status report on engineering and maintenance projects was distributed. At the request of the Mayor, Grimes explained that the contractor for the Gregg Street project actually works for the State Highway Department, as this is an urban systems projects 75% federally funded through the State Highway Department. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Grimes said he anticipated the work on the intersection of Highways 265 and 45 would be completed by the end of the year, good weather permitting. Director Johnson asked for an explanation regarding renovation of Walker Park restrooms. The City Manager explained the staff is attempting to use a material for the restrooms which will minimize vandalism. Director Johnson said she hoped the restrooms would not be renovated this time of year, noting that citizens would not be using Walker Park all winter. Grimes explained that the staff would prefer to do the work during the months when there is no public usage. Radio System Grimes reported the staff met with Motorola and feels the "blank spots" are being eliminated by placing longer antennas on top of mobile units and adding parts to the cable which had been left out. Grimes said there will still be "blank spots" with portable units, but employees can learn to use a separate channel to communicate in these areas. Grimes said only about $100,000 had been paid on account so far for the radio system. Continuing Education Center Grimes reported on data relating to the usage of the Continuing Education Center in 1984-1986. Grimes noted that the City of Fayetteville receives 2/3 of State sales tax collected, resulting in a turnback received in the second quarter of this year of $79,246.55. Grimes said these funds would apply towards payment for the Center. 358.1 358.2 358.3 358.4 358.5 October 7,1986 PROPERTY CLEANUP 359.1 The Mayor introduced further consideration of an ordinance, left on second reading on September 16, to order the abatement of unsightly conditions and order the razing and removal of unsafe structures located at 960 Cato Springs Road, 621 McClinton Street, 1220 South West Avenue and 1323 South School Avenue. 359.2 359.3 359.4 359.5 359.6 The ordinance was read for the third time by the City Manager. The Mayor reported that, since the September 16 meeting, the City Attorney had sent additional notification, by certified mail, to the property owners of record. Joe Reed addressed the Board on behalf of Hank and Nancy Mahler, owners of property on South West Avenue. Reed said he was representing Mahler in trying to obtain clear title to the property. Reed said there was not much advantage to the Mahlers undertaking a rehabilitation of the property until they are sure they have a good title. Reed said he estimated it could take approximately 6-7 weeks to obtain a clear title. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Reed said the Mahlers presently have a deed from part of what he thinks may be the heirs of a former owner. Reed said that Hank Mahler had told him he discussed the idea, with City Property Inspector Steve Johnson, of boarding up the structure until title could be cleared, and thought that the idea had been at least accepted. Steve Johnson reported that Mahler had not boarded up the structure. It was clarified that notice regarding the property was first sent to Mahler on July 23 and that he first contacted Reed about a week to ten days ago. Director Bumpass asked if the property was salvageable. City Building Superintendent Freeman Wood reported the property had electrical and plumbing code violations, that the structure was bad but could be fixed, that the roof sags, and that there are holes in the ceilings. Director Martin asked if the status of the title at this time meant that Mahler owned the property. Reed explained that Mahler has paid some money to some of the owners. 359.7 The Mayor suggested allowing Reed two weeks to explore the matter of the title, and to report to the City Attorney. Director Martin asked that Mahler let the Board know his plans for the property. Director Johnson commented that, if the building was supposed to be boarded up, it should be boarded up. The Mayor stated that would be a provision of the two-week referral. Director Bumpass stated the boarding up should be done pursuant to instructions from Steve Johnson. 359.8 Director Hess asked what legal liability there was on the part of the City for razing a structure which could belong to someone other than October 7,1986 the person the City has contacted as the owner. Director Bumpass commented that it had been the City Attorney's opinion that it does not matter who owns the property if it is in such dilapidated condition as to be unsightly and unsafe. Bumpass pointed out it is Mahler's name which appears on the property tax records. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion that the City remove the property at 1220 South West Avenue from the ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 3G0 360.1 The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak for any other 360.2 property owners in the ordinance. R. L. Vaughan addressed the Board on behalf of property at 1316 South 360.3 School Street. Vaughan asked for permission to move the structure on the property to his country home. Vaughan asked the Board for thirty days time in which to move the structure. Director Lancaster, seconded by Orton, made a motion to allow Vaughan thirty days in which to move the structure off the property. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. • The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak regarding the property on Cato Springs Road or McClinton Street. There was no public comment expressed. 360.4 360.5 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 360.6 ORDINANCE 'NO. 3211 APPEARS ON PAGE 60 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK xx/y Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion that, for the next agenda, the property at 1220 South West Avenue be included in a new ordinance. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Director Lancaster asked about the status of unsightly property owned by Mr. Apple. City Manager Grimes reported a letter had been sent to Apple by the City Attorney, and that Apple called the City promising to clean up the property. Director Bumpass reported that there appeared to be a big sale going on, on the property, over the past weekend. Grimes said he would check further into the situation. SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 360.7 360.8 The Mayor introduced an ordinance amending Section 17B-11 of the 360.9 Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to allow four wall signs per wall. •I .-. vkA 361.1 361.2 361.3 361.4 361.5 361.6 361.7 361.8 361.9 October 7,1986 City Manager Grimes explained that currently the ordinance allows one wall sign per business, with a limit of four wall signs per business per building. Grimes said the staff recommends amending the Ordinance to allow up to four wall signs on one wall, but keeping the same maximum display surface area requirements (being 150 square feet or 20% of the area of the wall). Grimes explained that there would still be a limitation of four wall signs per building. Grimes read an ordinance allowing "...four wall signs per business on one wall with a limit of four wall signs per business per building." Director Orton suggested an amendment limiting the wall signs to four per building and, if more than one business exists in the building, then one wall sign per business per wall be allowed. Orton said this would allow there to be four signs on one wall, but would prevent a building with four businesses from having as many as sixteen wall signs. The City Manager said the intent was not to permit sixteen signs. He suggested striking "per business" from the amendatory ordinance. - Director Martin asked how many signs would be permitted per building in the case of a building with six businesses. Orton said her intent was to allow one sign per business. Orton proposed the following amendment: "Wall signs shall be limited in number to four per building, except if more than one business exists in a building, then one wall sign per business per wall is allowed." Freeman Wood pointed out that the ordinance already allows one wall sign per business per wall. Orton said she intended for the requirements to remain the same as it applies to buildings with more than one business. Mayor Noland spoke in favor of the amendment as it applied to one business in a building, but not as it applied to multiple businesses. Noland suggested the amendment be sent back to the staff for further clarification. The ordinance was left on first reading. SIGN APPEAL/SPE-DEE MART The Mayor suggested tabling the Sign Appeal submitted by Greenwood Food Stores, since it involved a request for permission to have two wall signs on the same wall, and since it relates to Agenda Item #3 which was tabled. Director Orton, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table until the next meeting. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 0,. October 7,1986 SIGN APPEAL/GREEN ACRES ROAD The Mayor introduced consideration of an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance for a sign to be located at 2039 Green Acres Road, in a Residential -Office zoning district. The Mayor explained that Drs. Brown and Singleton (Ophthalmologists) request permission to have a 12 -square -foot freestanding sign. Dr. Singleton addressed the Board, explaining that their problem is unique as their patients cannot see their sign. Singleton said his sign painter feels a 3' x 4' sign is as small as she can make the sign and still have people see it from the street. Singleton said they would be happy to remove the red mailbox which has been serving the purpose of a sign. Singleton said he intended to comply with the required 15 foot setback and six foot height. Director Orton asked if there was any reason why a smaller sign could not be used at this location. Singleton said the sign painter felt the proposed size of the sign was reasonable on which to fit the doctors' names. Singleton said some patients cannot see the lettering on the mailbox. Director Martin said a compelling argument is that the nature of the neighborhood has changed since it was zoned R-0, in that there is no residential zoning behind or to the east, in addition to the practical considerations of the patients needing to be able to see the sign. Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the request. Director Orton noted that other offices along that road are also zoned R-0 and are required to limit their signs to four square feet. She asked if there were any exceptions to that rule. Building Superintendent Freeman Wood replied that he did not know of any exceptions but noted that one sign on that road may have been installed in violation of the ordinance. Director Johnson stated she thought there was a hardship in that some patients cannot see the existing sign. Director Orton stressed that the requirements for the offices on that road must be consistent, or the Code should be changed to state that eye doctors may have larger signs. Orton said she thought there was no hardship as far as location of the sign is concerned. Director Bumpass asked what size sign would be permitted if this were a C-1 zoning district. Freeman Wood replied that a 10 square foot sign would be permitted. 362.1 362.2 362.3 362.4 362.5 362.6 362.7 362.8 Director Orton asked what the hardship was in this case. Mayor Noland 362.9 stated a comment had been made regarding the eye patients being unable October 7,1986 to see the sign. Dr. Brown explained that a lot of people who drive to an eye doctor's office should not legally be driving. Director Hess said he thought the hardship was that it was dramatically detrimental to their business. 363.1 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, moved to amend the motion to state the height of the sign should not exceed four feet and the red mailbox should be removed. Upon roll call, the amendment passed, 7-0. Upon roll call., the main motion, as amended, passed, 7-0. ALCOHOL ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 363.2 The Mayor introduced consideration of an amendment to the ordinance which makes it unlawful for a minor to attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any alcoholic beverage. The Mayor explained this amendment would require the "Notice to Minors" required by Section 4 of the ordinance to be posted at each drive-in window at an establishment which sells alcoholic beverages for off -premise consumption. 363.3 It was clarified that the intent of the amendment was for there to be a sign at the drive-in windows of liquor stores, in addition to the one required to be posted conspicuously inside the establishments. It was also clarified that the size requirements for both signs were the same, to be at least 8 1/2" x 11". 363.4 At the request of the Mayor, the City Manager read the .,amendatory 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 for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 1 363.5 The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in reference to the ordinance. No public comment was expressed. 363.6 Director Johnson asked if "...at each drive-in window..." meant on the window or nearby the window. Director Martin suggested this meant "in the vicinity of" the window. 363.7 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3212 APPEARS ON PAGE �' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK ?QQ October 7,1986 Director Lancaster asked, when a minor who has already purchased alcohol is served with a citation, if the penalty is $500 for attempting to buy, or $25 under the old law. STREET' VACATION The Mayor introduced an ordinance abandoning and vacating a portion of Elizabeth Street between 1363 and 1403 Harold Street. The Mayor stated that minutes of a Planning Commission meeting in 1976 have been made available to the Board, containing discussion regarding whether or not Elizabeth Street should be connected to Harold Street. At the request of the Mayor, the City Manager read the ordinance for the first time. Director Martin questioned the status of property at 1388 Briarcliff, a vacant parcel (adjacent to and south of the portion of Elizabeth proposed to be vacated) which appears to have a temporary utility tie on the lot. The Mayor noted that the Planning Administrator had initially recommended Elizabeth Street be connected to Harold Street but the Planning Commission decided not to make the connection. Director Johnson suggested the ordinance be left on first reading until the status of 1388 Briarcliff is determined. J. Y. Hughes, property owner at 1403 Harold Street, stated he and Raj Kilambi (property owner at 1363 Harold Street) would like to obtain the property in between their lots because they have been maintaining it for the last 3 1/2 years. 'He remarked that the City had mowed it twice in that time. He said he thought the property was of no valuebut because of weeds being overgrown and debris being thrown onto the property, it can be a fire hazard. He said 1388 Briarcliff had a "sold" sign and some building materials which have been on the lot for several weeks. Director Martin spoke in favor of leaving the ordinance on first reading until more information can be obtained. 3C� 364.1 364.2 364.3 364.4 364.5 364.6 364.7 364.8 The ordinance was left on first reading, to be taken up again in two 364.9 weeks. EASEMENT VACATION The Mayor introduced an ordinance abandoning and vacating two feet of a utility easement on the west side of property located on Drake Street, 364.10 3611; October 7,1986 in the Carlon Center Addition. The Mayor reported the City Engineers agrees with the vacation and a release is on file from Arkansas Western Gas Company. The Mayor noted the Planning Office reports there to be no other utilities within the easement. 365.1 The City Manager read the ordinance for the first time. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, 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 for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. 365.2 The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in reference to the ordinance. No public comment was expressed. 365.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3213 APPEARS ON PAGE ‘s-' OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK A(1% BID AWARD 365.4 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid, under the Community Development Block Grant Program, for the construction of water line and installation of fire hydrants for the Giles Addition and Wyman Road project. The Mayor reported the low bidder, of four bidders, was Jerry D. Sweetser Construction Company, bidding $58,232.80. The Mayor noted•the.bid was within the budget. 365.5 Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to award the bid to Jerry Sweetser, for $58,232.80. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7- O. MILLSAP & COLLEGE SIGNAL 365.6 The Mayor introduced consideration of a resolution and authorization for execution of an Agreement of Understanding with the State Highway and Transportation Department, for installation and maintenance of traffic control signalization at the intersection of College. Avenue and Millsap Road. The Mayor noted the City Manager reports the City would pay only 25% of the total cost of appraisal and acquisition of right- of-way and relocation services, if any of these should become necessary. 365.7 Director Hess, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. October 7,1986 RESOLUTION NO. 100-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 377 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK X)(01 NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT Director Johnson, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, stated there was no report from the committee at this time. WATER AND SEWER COMMITTEE REPORT Mayor Noland, Chairman of the Board Water and Sewer Committee, reported the committee met on September 24. OZARKS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE SEWER BID The Mayor reported bids were considered for sewer service to the Ozarks Electric Cooperative facility, with the low bid being submitted by Fayette Tree and Trench, in the amount of $97,709. The Mayor reported that 6.4% of this amount would be borne by Ozarks Electric, with developers who tie onto this line in the future paying a prorated share of the cost, being based on the acreage in the development compared to the total acres that could be served. 36C 366.1 366.2 366.3 Director Johnson, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to award the bid 366.4 to Fayette Tree and Trench. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 46TH STREET WATER LINE BID The Mayor reported bids were considered for water lines to serve citizens in the 46th Street area, with the low bid being submitted by Fayette Tree and Trench, in the amount of $26,704.50. The Mayor reported the property owners total share would be approximately $7,000, and the City would bear the cost of oversizing the line above 2". The Mayor explained that, in the case of future of development, developers would be charged a prorated share of the cost of the line. Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid to Fayette Tree and Trench. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. In answer to some questions from Director Johnson, City Engineer Don Bunn explained the price the contractor bid for installing 2" plastic line seemed to him to be excessive, and it seemed he was bidding the same amount for installation of 2" line that he was for installation of 8" line. Bunn said he did not believe that bid represented the price the property owners could get to have the work done if they negotiated on their own with a contractor. Bunn said, therefore, he thought 366.5 366.6 366.7 October 7,1986 $7,000 was a reasonable figure on which to base the property owners share, instead of using a higher bid price of $11,200. 367.1 Director Johnson commented that the staff should not have sought a bid from the contractor if they were not going to use it as a basis for determining the property owners share. Bunn said that when he received the bid, it was obvious that the price was not fair. 367.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-2, with Directors Johnson and Bumpass voting 'no'. 367.3 Director Bumpass noted that, in the previous sewer bid award, it was previously determined that Ozark Electric's share of construction costs would be 6.4% of the total cost based upon the number of acres for Ozark Electric compared to the total acreage that can be served by the project. Bumpass said he did not think the Board voted to approve that and wished to register publicly that he did not agree with it. Bumpass said he did not think acreage was as important as the actual amount of water usage or their number of employees. The Mayor said he thought Director Bumpass had made that point clear at the Board meeting when it was authorized that bids be taken for the project. 367.4 Director Martin questioned the statement in the City Engineers recommendation in regards to the sewer extension to Ozarks Electric, where he stated "Residences tying on (outside of a development) would be charged on the same basis as developers except that connection fees would be limited to a minimum of $500." Bunn clarified that his intent was to state "a maximum of $500". SEWER CONNECTION FEES 367.5 The Mayor introduced consideration of an ordinance amending Chapter 21 of the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to prescribe connection fees for property owners and developers tieing onto new sewer lines (1) in Sherwood Forest Estates, (2) north of Arkansas Highway 16 West and (3) along 46th Street. 367.6 The Mayor explained that the ordinance would establish a tapping fee of $1500 for a residential customer who connects to the sewer within a period eight months after the line has been approved for services. He said that, afterthe initial eight-month period, the tapping fee would be $3,000. The Mayor said there would be a waiver of the ordinance requiring residences within 200 feet of a sewer line to tie on within one year. He said a developer's tapping fee would be equal to the cost of Line "A", the off-site portion, and residences tying to Line "A" would be charged the same as a developer, except that the tapping fee would not exceed $1500. For Line "B", the Mayor said the tapping fee October 7,1986 would be $1500 during the first eight months, and $3000 after the eight-month period. It was clarified that this ordinance would implement the recommendation which was approved by the Board on September 2. Director Johnson said she did not think the time period had been discussed on September 2 and she had a problem with customers waiting to tie on eight months after the line has been approved for service. Johnson said she thought the City could be tied up installing sewer lines in that area for almost a year. The Mayor pointed out it would only involve the service line to a residence. Director Martin asked the City Manager what the basis was for establishing the eight month period. City Engineer Bunn said it was established to give the customers until fall or winter. Director Johnson made a motion to reduce the eight month time period to four months, after the line has been approved for service. Director Martin said that, although he was in favor of the City recouping the money as quickly as possible, he hated to box anyone into a position, if the line were completed during cold weather, making it difficult for the customers to tap on over the next four months. City Engineer Bunn said the weather could affect how soon the customers could tie onto the line, but he expected the line to be completed sometime in January or February, rather than earlier in the winter. Bunn said the reasoning behind the eight months was that, given a little more time, some of the residents who might otherwise choose not to tie on may decide to participate during the initial period. Director Bumpass seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-3, with Directors Martin, Orton and Noland voting "no". 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 for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in reference to this ordinance. No public comment was expressed. Director Hess said he thought the Water and Sewer Committee had initially discussed a $4000 tie -on fee. Hess said he did not think the City was recouping its costs but was doing those residents a favor. Hess said he thought, in fairness to other users, the City has an obligation to recoup the cost of service. {U8 368.1 368.2 368.3 368.4 368.5 368.6 368.7 368.8 .iE0 ,'.. October 7,1986 369.1 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-2, with Directors Hess and Bumpass voting 'no'. ORDINANCEyNO. 3214 APPEARS ON PAGE --OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK n X t/ SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT 369.2 The Mayor introduced authorization of change orders to a Sanitary Sewer System Rehabilitation Project, to cover the cost of replacing additional sewer pipeline; and authorizing an amendment to an Agreement with McClelland Engineers. 369.3 The Mayor explained that approximately 1900 feet of 20" sewer pipeline was found to have disintegrated, south of Highway 16, between Morningside Drive and Armstrong Avenue. The Mayor stated McClelland Engineers requests approval of an increase of $10,000 to their not -to - exceed fee for engineering services as a result of this change order. 369.4 The Mayor asked if the $10,000 fee included observation of the project. City Engineer Bunn said he thought the fee was alright, for what the City will require of the engineers on inspection. 369.5 Director Hess asked why this discovery had not been made prior to this time. Bunn said it was possible that "smoke" testing was done and it just did not show up. Bunn said it was found during replacement of a section of this line. Bunn said he feels the replacement is necessary and this would be a good time when the cost can be taken from the sewer plant project funds. 369.6 Director Martin noted the original sewer pipeline project was for 400 feet, at a cost of approximately $400,000. He questioned why the addition of 1900 feet would cost only an additional $100,000. The Mayor explained the $400,000 cost covered a series of line replacements, not just 400 feet of pipeline. The Mayor explained this is the third year of renovation work on the entire sewer collection system. 369.7 Bunn said the $10,000 engineering fee was based on estimated construction time for the additional 1900 feet, being sixty days. Bunn said, if the construction takes less time, the fee will be less. 369.8 Director Martin, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to approve the increase. of $10,000 to the engineering contract with McClelland Engineers; to approve the increased costs included in Change Order NO. 3, of $3,911.88; and to approve the cost of $100,305 included in Change Order Ho. 2. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. October 7,1986 BID AWARD The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of bid for the purchase of a laboratory air compressor for the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Mayor explained the air compressor which was installed was found to be inadequate to do the work that is necessary. The Mayor said he thought someone should be at fault for installing the inadequate compressor, that the old one should be removed and the City should receive credit for it. City Engineer Don Bunn explained that CH2M Hill prepared the specifications for the original equipment in error. Bunn said he had tried but was unable to trade in the old compressor. Director Hess asked if CH2M Hill should be held accountable for the error. Bunn said, although the compressor is not of any use right now, he felt sure it could be used at some time. Director Lancaster pointed out that the staff recommendation is not for the low bid. It was clarified that the higher priced compressor contained an aftercooler with a moisture separator. • Mayor Noland suggested that, to expedite matters, the new compressor be approved but later some negotiations should be entered into with CH2M Hill regarding this matter. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid to Mazander Engineered Equipment. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Mayor Noland asked that there be some additional explanation provided on this matter. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE Director Johnson, Chairman of the Board Personnel Committee, reported on that committee's meeting of September 24. HOUSING REHABILITATION SPECIALIST Johnson reported that, when the City's Pay Plan was adopted, the Housing Rehabilitation Specialist position was not surveyed and the employee was simply placed at a Pay Grade commensurate with the salary he was earning. Johnson reported that a survey of other cities was conducted and it was found that Pay Grade 14 should probably be recommended but, in relation to other City positions, the committee recommended Pay Grade 12. .�'. n 5!G 370.1 370.2 370.3 370.4 370.5 370.6 370.7 370.8 370.9 370.10 37I ELECTRICIAN October 7,1986 371.1 Johnson reported the committee considered a job description and a pay grade for an electrician at the Pollution Control Plant. She said this position was approved in the budget. Johnson said the committee recommends Pay Grade 13 and that the job be advertised and filled as soon as possible. 371.2 Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to adopt the recommendations of the committee. 371.3 Johnson said the committee asked the City Manager to look into the possibility of using the Electrician on other city projects as well. 371.4 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. CITY MANAGER EVALUATION FORM 371.5 The Mayor introduced consideration of approval of the form and procedural outline for annual performance evaluation of the City Manager. 371.6 Director Johnson asked that, when the Board receives the final copy of the evaluation form, they also receive the descriptive instruction sheet. Johnson recommended the following changes to the procedure [shown in bold type]; 371.7 • 1. The City Manager evaluation forms will be included in each Director's agenda packet for the first meeting in December. 2. Each Director should return to form to the Mayor prior to the beginning of the first meeting in December. 3. The Mayor will then have the evaluation averages under each factor computed and recorded on a blank evaluation form. [Delete by a disinterested person who is not associated with City government'] Each Director will then receive a copy of the average form along with their original evaluation form. The City Manager will be given a copy of the form containing evaluation averages. The Board will then, prior to the second meeting in December, select an appropriate time to discuss the evaluation results with the City Manager. Director Hess asked that the Board be given more time between the time they receive the form and the time they return the form to the Mayor. October 7,1986 At the Mayor's suggestion, it was agreed that the evaluation forms would be included in each Director's agenda packet for the second meeting in November. City Manager Grimes expressed no objection to the suggested deletion under No. 2, but said he would prefer the forms not be computed by a staff member in the City Manager's office. The Mayor agreed, commenting that it would not be appropriate for any staff person to do the computations. The Directors were in agreement to accept the changes as proposed. OTHER BUSINESS ANDY FRIEND PETITION The Mayor introduced a request from Andy Friend regarding a petition he submitted to the Board and which was on the agenda at the June 18, July 1 and July 15 meetings. Mima Wallace, Attorney representing Andy Friend, addressed the Board. Wallace explained her client was petitioning the Board for restitution for damages he suffered through governmental functions and agents of the City of Fayetteville. Wallace explained almost two years ago Friend's car was seized as evidence in a case by the Fayetteville Police Department and, as a result of the seizure, his car was inadvertently sold by the salvage company which retained possession of the car after the seizure. She said Friend was the owner of the car but at the time had a son whose driver's license privileges had been suspended. Wallace said an auto accident occurred involving a car which fit the description of the Friend vehicle, an accident in which the driver of that car left the scene of the accident. Wallace reiterated further details involving communications between Friend and Fayetteville Police officers at the time of the incident. She also made reference to an incident report made out by a Fayetteville police officer and made note of the fact that the report was dated about one year after the incident occurred. Wallace said the report stated that Lt. Bradley had told Mr. Friend the car would be towed away if he failed to produce a driver. Wallace said no arrests were ever made and no charges were ever brought against Friend or any member of his family in relation to the accident. Wallace said Friend tried unsuccessfully to regain possession of his car from the salvage company which informed him there was a hold on the car. Wallace said at some point the car was sold, although no notice was ever given to Friend. Wallace said Arkansas statutes provide that notice should be sent. Wallace pointed out there were no emergency circumstances which would have warranted the seizure of the car. Wallace said Friend had no other remedy but to petition the Board and asks for restitution in the amount of $3,000 •]].7r i) 1 r:. 372.1 372.2 372.3 372.4 372.5 October 7,1986 which she stated was the current Blue Book value of his vehicle. Friend told the Directors his car was a 1980 Ford Pinto. 373.1 Director Hess noted that, according to the incident report, the police officer went to the home, initially was told by Marty Friend that his brother had said he had almost had a head-on accident but that, after the Friends had a chance to talk together, none of that was acknowledged. Wallace said it is not known from the factual presentations in the report whether one of the Friend children may have been involved in an accident. 373.2 Director Lancaster said he thought the matter, which could be a potential lawsuit, should not be argued without the presence of the City Attorney. Lancaster pointed out that the Board has received an opinion from the City Attorney that the City is not liable, along with a recommendation not to pay restitution. 373.3 Director Bumpass said the Board had received voluminous- documents over the past several months regarding this incident. He asked if the City had a policy regarding personal property which is seized in connection with an investigation of a crime, when that property is lost while in the possession of the Fayetteville Police Department. Public Safety Director Coates responded that the City does not have such a policy, with each incident being addressed individually on the merits of the case. 373.4 Director Orton asked if the Police Department was still using this salvage company to impound vehicles. Coates stated he understood the company was out of business. 373.5 Director Lancaster commented that a lot more has transpired in this case, other than what has been brought out, since the Board was first given information regarding the matter in July. 373.6 Director Martin questioned whether the storage company might have had some kind of performance bond which could be applied against in this situation. 373.7 Director Bumpass said if the City seizes property and places it with someone else, and has to ultimately return -it to the owner, he didn't think it would be fair to bill the owner for storage fees. 373.8 Director Martin commented that it appeared to be clear that the City has stuck this person for the fault of the storage company. He asked if the Board could ask the City Attorney to look into the question of whether or not there was a bond or a liability insurance policy which could protect Friend's economic interest. 373.9 Director Hess pointed out that, according to the City Attorney, the City should not be held accountable because of the fault of the storage October 7,1986 company. Hess said it was his understanding the Police at no time ever instructed the storage company to sell the vehicle for unpaid storage fees. Director Orton asked what the City's procedure is when it asks a company to hold evidence. Coates responded that the Police Department normally provides some notice of release to the company, with the owner paying the storage fee even though no charge may have been made. Coates said it would be up to the salvage company to notify the owner of the release. Mayor Noland stated the City Attorney has recommended the City not pay restitution. Noland said the Board should decide whether to pay restitution or whether to ask for additional investigation. Director Martin suggested the Board ask the City Attorney, the City Manager and the Public Safety Director to investigate what surety the storage company was operating under and whether the City has any liabilityorresponsibility to assist Friend in obtaining that information so he can pursue a claim. Director Orton noted that the Board certainly wants policies so this won't happen again, with regard to notice to owners of property. City Manager Grimes stated he would follow up on the matter. Director Johnson, seconded by Hess, made a motion to accept the recommendation of the City Attorney and not pay any restitution in this matter. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS The Mayor introduced requests for budget adjustments from Public Works and Public Safety Departments, of $1,060 increase in travel and training for Public Works, and of $1,595 increase in the Fire Departmentto purchase a copier. Director Martin, seconded by -Hess, made a motion to approve the adjustments. Director Hess pointed out there were offsets for these adjustments, meaning no additional funds will be expended. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. AMENDMENT 64 The Mayor introduced a Resolution in support of Amendment 64. The Mayor explained this Amendment would increase the jurisdiction in 374.1 374.2 374.3 374.4 374.5 374.6 374.7 374.8 374.9 374.10 374.11 •]"1r J ! : October 7,1986 Municipal Court from $300 to $3,000. The Mayor commented that there is broad-based support for the Amendment. 375.1 Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to endorse the amendment and adopt a resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, RESOLUTION NO. 101-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 342 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK Xx V 1 EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS 375 2 City Manager Grimes introduced a request to initiate eminent domain proceedings for an 55' x 25' easement on property recently acquired by the City. 375.3 Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to authorize and direct the City Attorney to institute eminent domain proceedings to condemn a utility line adjacent to Tract #265 owned by Stanberry. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 102-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 38il OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK x%V I LEWIS BROTHERS BUILDING 375.4 Director Bumpass called attention to a letter received from the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program informing the City of the approval of the nomination of the Lewis Brothers Hardware Store building to the National Register of Historic Places; and a letter notifying the City that the Happy Hollow Farm has been placed in the National Register of Historic Places. 375.5 Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that the Board pass a resolution (at the request of John Lewis who will be the developer of the Lewis Brothers Building to be used as The Bank of Fayetteville) endorsing the Lewis Brothers nomination to be sent to the National Historic Trust in Washington, D.C. and further endorsing their attempts to become a certified rehabilitation preservation project. Upon roll call, the motion passed,�/ RESOLUTION NO. 103-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 3pp�S OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK October 7,1986 MINUTES 3'7(: The minutes of the September 16, 1986 meeting were approved with the 376.1 following corrections: 307.3 After "consideration" add "for parking" 311.3 Change "25%" to "20%" ADJOURNMENT With no further business, the meeting adjourned at about 10:40 p.m. 376.2