Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-12 MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Wednesday, November 12, 1986 at 8:30 a.m. in Room 326 of City Hall, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT• Mayor Noland; Directors Hess, Noland, Johnson, Lancaster and Orton; City Manager Grimes, Department Directors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience. ABSENT• Directors Bumpass and Martin CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order with five Directors present. CD BUDGET 419.1 The Mayor explained the purpose of the special meeting was to consider approval of the 1987 Community Development Block Grant budget, tabled from the November 4 regular Board meeting. The Mayor explained that the total list of requests had been ranked by the Directors, revealing that if the total amounts of funding requested were to be granted, the first four requests on the list would total an amount somewhat over the budget. 419.2 The Mayor asked Community Development Director Sandra Carlisle for a report on housing rehabilitation work done in 1986. Carlisle reported that $10,000 is allowable per house, meaning that an average of 12 houses can be completed for 1986. She said in addition that the project has included demolition of unsafe structures, and emergency repairs on water lines and yard lines. Carlisle said it has been observed that when a couple of homes are rehabilitated in a neighborhood, some neighbors take the incentive and work on their own homes. 419.3 Mayor Noland suggested reducing the amount allocated to housing rehabilitation, and trying to fund more of the projects on the list of requests. Director Hess suggested cutting both the Wedington drainage project and housing rehab in half, stating this would allow funding for Children's House playground equipment, the Sang Senior Center equipment, and the Shelter for Victims of Family Violence. 419.4 Carlisle reported that the total cost of the Wedington drainage project can be reduced from $130,000 to $120,000 as there are less easements to be acquired than were originally contemplated. November 12, 1986 Director Johnson pointed out that there probably will be no CD funds allocated to cities next year, meaning if Wedington drainage project funds are cut this year, the project could not be completed with CD funding. Mayor Noland suggested housing rehab funding be cut to $50,000, stating this would allow funding for the top eight projects on the list, through to Spruce Street. Director Johnson made a motion to fund Items 1 through 8, reducing Housing Rehabilitation to $50,000, and Wedington Drainage to $120,000. Director Hess seconded the motion. Mayor Noland commented that the rationale behind his suggestion to cut rehab funding was based on the fact that 40 or 50 people use the Senior Center every day, as opposed to 2 or 3 persons who might use one house that is rehabilitated; that the Duncan sidewalk is a safety -oriented project which will benefit children who use it every day; and that 40 or more children might use the Children's House playground equipment every day. The Mayor said one of the reasons he would support the motion is that it would spread the money as far as possible for the benefit of the most people. The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. Bruce Cully, employee of the Economic Opportunity Agency of Washington County, stated he thought the democracy of "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" often has to be tempered with a little bit of compassion and fairness. Cully said although the rehab program doesn't take care of the most people, it does take care of people who can't do the work themselves, because they are elderly and living on a limited income. Cully commented that the greater number of people benefitting from the drainage program do not need the help as much. Director Hess asked Sandra Carlisle if there were applications for the rehab program. Carlisle reported about 22 were on file, on a waiting list. She said 35 homes had been completed in 1984 and 1985, and five of the grantees suffered from disabilities and 2 were amputees confined to wheelchairs. She added that their homes were provided with barrier - free access. Director Orton said she felt the city should continue with the housing rehab program, noting this may be the last year for the program, and that the city will always be working on street projects. Director Hess, who seconded the motion, stated he wanted to reconsider. Hess said he found it difficult to believe that a person over 60, who may be partially disabled, and living on an annual income under $10,000, is ever going to be able to find the help they need outside of 420.1 420.2 420.3 420.4 420.5 420.6 420.7 420.8 420.9 G November 12, 1986 CD funds. Hess said he would prefer to see the funding cut from the drainage project. 421.1 Director Lancaster suggested deleting the Spruce Street project and adding $17,000 to the $50,000 proposed for rehab, bringing the total rehab funding to $67,000. 421.2 Director Johnson amended her motion to delete the Spruce Street project and to add $17,000 to the Housing Rehab project. 421.3 Ralph Nesson, Executive Director of EOA, commented that two years ago the Southeast Fayetteville Community Action group did a survey asking citizens what their priorities were as far as issues of importance to them, and housing was by far the highest priority in southeast Fayetteville. Nesson said he thought this held true for the rest of the city, especially in low and moderate -income neighborhoods. Nesson added that EOA works in conjunction with the city's rehab program by weatherizing the homes, and volunteers help out by painting or hauling away trash. 421 4 Director Hess asked, if the drainage project runs over estimate, how the additional costs for that project would be funded. Carlisle responded that the least critical parts of the project would have to be deleted, or, after CD funds are exhausted, the city could choose to fund the remainder. 421.5 Mayor Noland said he thought the drainage project would alleviate the problem in an area where houses owned by moderate income citizens flood about once a year. Bruce Cully commented that, although there are flooding problems for some citizens once a year, low income elderly citizens have to choose between food or heat in the winter months. The Mayor commented that over the course of the CD program, the city has allocated 18% to the housing rehab program, and this year the proposed allocation of $67,000 would be 21%. 421.6 Upon roll call, the motion as amended passed, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 113-86 APPEARS ON PAGE y0 i OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(KV II 421.7 Director Orton made a motion to recommend to the next Board that, if any additional CD funding is received, they try to bring the Housing Rehabilitation project funding as close to $100,000 as they are able to do with the funds. There was no second to the motion. November 12, 1986 SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Safety Director for an ordinance which would amend the Sign Ordinance as it applies to real estate signs. Director Johnson said she had a letter from George Faucette, Jr., indicating that he would like to speak to the Board concerning this item, and would like to be notified when discussion would be held. Johnson asked to table this item as Faucette is out of town. City Manager Grimes commented that the staff's recommendation is a result of conversations with Mr. Faucette, that he is in agreement with the proposal. It was clarified that the proposed ordinance would allow a portable real estate sign to be used if the property being advertised is totally paved; and would limit the height of the letters so they may not exceed three inches in height and two inches in width. Marty Coates explained that the complaint has been the difficulty in drilling a hole in pavement to erect a freestanding sign. Director Orton asked if it should be made more clear what constitutes a real estate sign. Coates described a real estate sign as one which advertises real estate for sale, rent or lease. Orton commented the city could be criticized for allowing portable signs which might remain on site on a permanent basis. Coates said he was not sure how the city would know whether the sign was still needed. He said the ordinance was an attempt to respond to the needs of some of the realtors and owners who say if the city enforces the Sign Ordinance literally, they have to go to a great expense of drilling a hole for a sign which may be there temporarily. Director Orton asked how the ordinance would be enforced, as far as setback requirements. Coates said setback requirements would remain in force. Orton pointed out it would be difficult to enforce setback requirements on asign which is not permanently installed. In answer to a question from Director Johnson as to size requirements, Coates explained the only changes to the ordinance were the size of the letters, and allowing the sign to be portable. Director Johnson said she did not think the ordinance addressed the need because it does not also provide that a portable real estate sign shall meet size requirements. Inspection Superintendent Freeman wood pointed out that the size requirements for real estate signs are already included in Section 17B-6 under paragraph (c) in the city's Sign Ordinance. Director Johnson said she would like the City Attorney present to explain what the ordinance is really doing, and she would like George Faucette to be present. Johnson said she thought it was really confusing to someone reading the ordinance to find provisions for allowing real estate signs within the paragraph which prohibits portable swinger signs. 1 , (A 422.1 422.2 422.3 422.4 422.5 422.6 422.7 A ,) ,))f i ..0 November 12, 1986 423.1 Director Johnson made a motion to table the request. 423.2 The City Manager asked that the motion include a deferral of enforcement of the current ordinance as it applies to real estate signs which are now in violation. Director Johnson agreed. 423.3 Coates commented that the proposed ordinance was simply to allow a portable sign on a paved lot. Director Johnson said she wanted the City Attorney to clarify that fact. 423.4 Director Orton seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0. 423.5 Director Johnson asked if there is a time limit by which a variance expires. Freeman Wood responded that there was a thirty day time limit. Johnson asked if petitioners received a letter informing them of the time limit. Johnson noted in the case of the "Happy Church", they have not yet moved their sign which was a provision of the variance. Wood said the petitioners are told by the staff of the time limit, but that the Inspection Office could devise a form letter which could be used to inform the petitioners in writing. 423.6 Director Johnson asked if the ordinance addresses the cleanup of political signs. Freeman Wood said the problem has been finding the persons responsible for the removal of those signs. Director Johnson asked if letters could be sent out in this regard. APPOINTMENTS 423.7 Director Johnson distributed a list of jobs for members of the Arts Center Council and Arts Foundation Board. Director Lancaster asked if these had been reviewed by the City Attorney and Johnson said she copied them verbatim from the Interlocal Agreement. Johnson said she had some question about the fact that both groups have authority to hire and fire employees. Director Orton said she was bothered also by this fact, but noted the City and University attorneys seemed to think this was no problem because a Board could only fire the employees which it has hired. 423.8 Johnson asked if the Board wished to interview five top candidates, or all the applicants. The Mayor suggested the top five to seven candidates be interviewed. Director Hess suggested the Board meet all the applicants, pointing out that he did not know some of them. Director Orton said she knew enough of the applicants to know which ones would be good. Hess pointed out that people whom the Board does not know are automatically eliminated if there is no opportunity to November 12, 1986 meet all the applicants. Director Johnson agreed that it was a closed process. Director Lancaster suggested one member of each committee be a city employee. Director Orton expressed disagreement. Director Hess stated he was unsure whether or not applicants should be chosen who are employed by the University of Arkansas, since the University has made its own selections. Director Orton said she would prefer not to choose University employees. Director Orton announced that the University had chosen the following persons to serve as their representatives: Bernard Madison, Lloyd Seaton, Andrew Gibbs, Stanley Smith, Winfred Thompson, and Linda Malone (all University employees). It was decided that Directors would choose five applicants for each Board and a Nominating Committee meeting would be scheduled following the Board tour on Monday, November 17. AUTHORITY MEETING A meeting of the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority was tentatively scheduled to be held on Thursday, November 20. Director Orton suggested a groundbreaking ceremony be scheduled for December 10, the day tentatively set for bonds to be sold. ADJOURNMENT with no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at about 10:15 a.m. 424.1 424.2 424.3 424.4 424.5