Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-11-18 Minutes4, r 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, November 18, 1986 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 W. Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin, Orton and Hess; City Manager Grimes, Department Directors Burch, Coates and Linebaugh, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy; members of the press and audience. CALL TO ORDER The Mayor called the meeting to order, with seven Directors present, and asked for a moment of respectful silence. CLEAN WATER FUNDS The Mayor announced that additional funds were released this week for clean water purposes, and the City Manager learned from the State Department of Pollution Control and Ecology that the City of Fayetteville will receive $1,945,113 to be used for the Wastewater Treatment Plant project. Noland stated this will make the total grant funds made available for this project up to approximately $22 million. REZONING/OLD FARMINGTON & SHILOH The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 1.96 acre located at the southwest corner of Old Farmington Road and Shiloh Drive, from R-0, "Residential Office", to C-2, "Thoroughfare Commercial". He said the request had been made in 1985 and was denied. He reported the Planning Commission recommended approval by a 9-0 vote, but Planning Consultant Larry Wood did not recommend the rezoning, for the following reasons: This same property was under application for C-2 District in 1985 and was rezoned to R-0 District. The same reasons that were given for the denial of the C-2 District and the approval of the R-0 District are still valid. 1. The introduction of C-2 District at this location would open up the west side of U. S. Hwy. 71 along the service road and Old Farmington Road to commercial development. November 18, 1986 2. Commercial development at the location requested is not consistent with the General Plan recommendations; and 3. The R-0 District was approved to establish a buffer and transition from the commercial development to the south and to discourage the expansion of commercial development along the service road. The Mayor asked the City Attorney to read the ordinance for the first time. The ordinance was read 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. Director Orton asked how the situation had changed since the denial of this rezoning in 1985. Orton pointed out that the property was rezoned to R-0 in 1985. Speaking for the petitioner Henry Hickman was a representative of Fairchild and Associates. He said the situation had changed, as there is an offer and acceptance for the property from a 60 -unit motel which is contingent on the rezoning. He said the last time they made this request they only had tentative buyers. He said they feel the motel would be a clean, viable industry for the location. He commented that C-2 zoning is within 200 yards of the intersection in every direction, except towards Old Farmington Road. He contended the situation has changed since last year because of expected increased traffic. He noted the property fronts directly on the four -lane highway. Director Martin pointed out the Planning Commission had unanimously recommended approval of the request. 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 City Attorney read the ordinance for the second time. Director Johnson, seconded by Martin, made a motion to 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 wished to speak in opposition. No public comments were expressed. Director Bumpass asked the City Attorney about the Supreme Court's ruling regarding rezonings for commercial property adjacent to other commercial property, and whether those adjacent owners would have the right to commercial rezoning. The City Attorney said the established rule is that a property owner is entitled to a reasonable not necessarily most profitable use of property. He said he did not think the rezoning would establish a precedent for widespread commercial growth in the area. 426.1 426.2 426.3 426.4 426.5 426.6 4r November 18, 1986 428.1 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-2, with Directors Bumpass and Orton voting in the minority. ORDINANCE NO. 3225 APPEARS ON PAGE / y OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )00.1/ ASSURANCE AUTHORIZATION 428.2 The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the Public Works Director to authorize the execution of a Bill of Assurance by Johnson and Sons Motor Company concerning property at the intersection of South School Avenue and 9th street; tabled at the November 4 meeting. The Mayor explained that the existing Bill of Assurance in which Willard Johnson promised to bear his portion of the cost of making improvements to 9th Street, expired on May 17, 1986. 428.3 The City Attorney explained no action is necessary since the property owner was obligated to take certain steps if the property was still under use at the end of a three-year period. McCord said the property is still under use and, according to law, the City has five years from May 17, 1986 in which to enforce the contract, if it chooses to do so. 428.4 Director Hess asked about the reference in the contract to Johnson initially installing a portable building, and whether this infers he is allowed to continue having the portable building. McCord said he did not think the contract obligated the owner to remove the portable building. McCord added that, if the owner is now in violation of the zoning ordinance, that can be enforced outside of the Bill of Assurance. 428.5 Director Johnson asked if the ordinance allows Johnson to operate out of a portable building in that zone, and if the parking lot should be paved. McCord said he would research those questions and report back to the Board at the next meeting. 428.6 Director Hess made a motion that the owner be asked to fulfill the obligations contained in the Bill of Assurance. The motion was seconded by Director Johnson. The City Attorney explained this action would require the owner to construct or pay his portion of the cost of construction of a substandard street. The City Manager pointed out this would involve 400-500 feet of street, and that funds are not available in the proposed budget for this work. The City Manager stated that street probably does not carry more than 10-15 vehicles per day. He remarked that the city probably has a lot better use for its funds. Director Hess amended his motion to make the construction of the street at the call of the city. November 18, 1986 Director Orton asked why the Public Works Director recommended the execution of a Bill of Assurance. The City Attorney explained he had not had an opportunity to consult with him until just before the meeting regarding the legal ramifications that the City has five years from the expiration date in which to enforce the contract. Director Hess withdrew his motion for the City Attorney to take time to research the issues. Hess said his intent was to be sure the lot be paved if it is required and that there be a permanent structure if that is required. ASSURANCE RELEASE The Mayor introduced a request from John Vernon Wilson for release from a Bill of Assurance for property located north of Wedington Drive and West of Garland Avenue. The Mayor explained this property had been rezoned from R-2 "Medium Density Residential" to C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial" in 1979, at which time the owner agreed there would be no ingress or egress from the property to Wedington Drive. Director Orton asked Wilson if he wished for the zoning to revert back to R-2, since a condition of the rezoning to C-1 included the execution of the Bill of Assurance. Wilson said that was not his intent. He said the reason for his request is because of a negative response he is receiving from would-be buyers of the property. Wilson said he thought it would be useful if the Bill could be rescinded and developers could consult the highway engineers regarding a westbound traffic merging lane. Wilson said he owned the easement now used by the neighboring bank, and asked that he be granted the same privilege as the bank. Wilson said when he sold property to the bank he reserved a thirty foot easement. Director Lancaster reminded Mr. Wilson that the only reason the Board agreed to the rezoning was with the stipulation that no traffic come out of the property onto Wedington Drive. Wilson asked the Board if they thought a merging lane would be feasible, to be built by the Highway Department and the property owners. Wilson said he signed the Bill of Assurance under protest in order to receive the rezoning. Wilson said it was not fair to allow the bank ingress and egress. He said he just wanted to be treated fairly. Director Martin asked if anyone knew how the bank was allowed to have ingress and egress. Director Lancaster said that at the time of the rezoning and the Bill of Assurance there was a restriction that the property owner could not use the bank driveway. The Mayor said he thought the traffic problems in that area have gotten even worse since 1979. 49c 429.1 429.2 429.3 429.4 429.5 429.6 November 18, 1986 430.1 Director Orton commented that the property has quite a bit of frontage on Garland Avenue and it was the Board's intention at the time that Garland would be a far safer point of ingress and egress and that Mr. Wilson agreed to that at the time. Director Johnson, seconded by Orton, made a motion to deny the request. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. CONTRACT MODIFICATION 430.2 The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the City Planning Commission to authorize a modification of a developer's contract with the City concerning Phase IV of Park Place, located west of Highway 265 and south of Highway 45. The Mayor explained the contract provided that no lots could be sold in Phase IV until a street is constructed connecting Phase IV with Highway 265. He reported that at the November 10 Planning Commission meeting the developer requested the contract be modified to state that no lots will be sold in Phase VIII, nor will any permits be issued for lots in Phase VIII, until a street is constructed connecting Phase VIII with Highway 265. The Mayor reported the Planning Commission recommended approval of the request by a vote of 8- 1. 430.3 Dave Jorgenson, engineer for Albright and Associates, spoke on behalf of Dr. J. B. Hays. Jorgenson explained a concept plat was submitted to the Planning Commission on October 27, containing a revision of the route to Highway 265, and that the Commission concurred with the plan. He said he subsequently discovered the contract between Hays and the City which has initiated this request for a modification. Jorgenson said the revised route would make it not so convenient for people to travel through the subdivision to avoid the intersection. He added that costs would be prohibitive to building the street now. Jorgenson explained the original route plan was to build from Revere Place in a southeasterly direction to Highway 265 and would cost about $300,000. The Mayor said he didn't think people would cut through the subdivision to avoid the intersection, after work has been completed on that intersection. He asked how many living units would be in the development. Dr. Hays said there would be approximately 18-25 units per phase, with these being single family units south of phases IV, V and VI. 430.4 Jorgenson said if they are required to build the street now, the project will not be able to continue. Director Martin said he thought the street was important, and pointed out that, if the city modifies the agreement, there was a chance the street would be built eventually. Martin said he would support the amendment because he would like to see the street built. Director Orton said the reason for the requirement was because the city does not like a lot of people in a development "bottled in" with only November 18, 1986 one egress, for safety reasons. Public Safety Director Marty Coates said he had definite concerns for the safety standpoint, and that the Fire Chief shares his concern and would prefer to see the street built as it was originally designed. Director Johnson noted there were 12 cul de sacs in the development. She asked if it was the Board's policy to approve a concept plat, or is the Board just deciding when and where the road will be built. Bumpass expressed concern about the fact that sanitation and other city vehicles will have to drive up and back on every cul de sac in the subdivision. He said he thought additional access should be built soon, whether the original or revised route is used. Director Martin pointed out the Planning Commission had approved the concept plat, and recommended approval of this request by a vote of 8- 1. Jorgenson pointed out that Phases IV, V, VA and VI will have to be brought through the normal subdivision process. Dr. Hays said if the development cannot be completed in stages the road will not be built. Dr. Hays said he didn't realize the length of time it would take to sell all the lots. Jorgenson said they didn't understand at the time the fact that it is more affordable to build the development in stages. Director Johnson stated that, due to the recommendation of the Public Safety Director and Fire Chief, and because she believes everybody ought to be treated equally (referring to requirements imposed on developer Wade Bishop), she would make a motion that the contract be maintained as it was approved prior to this time, and if Hays wants to change the location of the road, that is fine with her, but .that another point of ingress and egress be made available before Phases V, VA, VI, VII and VIII are completed. Dr. Hays withdrew his request, and asked that he be allowed to come up with a plan to possibly construct Phases IV and V at one time. Dr. Hays said it could be three years before the street can be built. Director Bumpass said that, regardless of what the Planning Commission thinks, some Directors think the street needs to be built fairly quickly, but that it may not need to be built to full city standards. Director Johnson said she had a problem with the Board approving a concept plat before it has gone though the proper process with city staff. 431.1 431.2 431.3 431.4 431.5 431.6 431.7 JA. 432.1 November 18, 1986 STANBERRY CLAIM Mayor Noland asked Dr. Ernest Stanberry, Jr. to come forward to discuss with the Board the question of city sewage on his property. The Mayor asked Dr. Stanberry if any sampling of his pond had been done in recent times. Dr. Stanberry said that was proposed a couple of years ago but had not been done. The Mayor suggested the staff determine the status of the pond by sampling the water, and asked that a report be prepared by the City Engineer on the extent of the damages and the condition of the pond. 432 2 Director Martin seconded the intent of the suggestion, and said questions have been raised as to the adequacy of the engineering. Martin said there was an opportunity, before the entire line is built, to recheck our assumptions. Martin asked for a report which would address each of the concerns about the adequacy of the entire segment of line to the plant, including the force main and the outfall line. 432.3 Dr. Stanberry said although the property is being condemned now, he was being asked to furnish additional right-of-way for the new line, and it is his understanding that the new line was engineered to augment an existing line which has never worked properly. Stanberry explained that one of the problems was, when manholes were bolted down and all the pumps were working at the pump station during periods when rain was mixed with sewage, when the volume hit the restricted pipe it couldn't handle it and would back up and either blow off the manholes or come out his drain. 432.4 Mayor Noland, seconded by Johnson, made a motion that (1) the pond be sampled; (2) the City Engineer report his viewpoint on the current status and what has happened in the past; (3) determine again that the two lines presently under construction will do what they are supposed to do; and (4) report back to the Board. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. AMENDMENT 64 432.5 Municipal Court Judge Charles Williams addressed the Board regarding the implications of Amendment 64, approved by Arkansas voters on November 4. 432.6 Judge Williams explained the passage of the Amendment increases the Municipal Court's jurisdictional limits for contract actions, tort actions, and damages to personal property from $300 to $3000. The Judge explained the General Assembly has the, authority to change those limits, up or down, by 2/3 vote of each House, meaning in the future this probably won't be presented to the electors again. He explained November 18, 1986 the Amendment becomes effective on July 1, 1987 and will apply to all causes of action arising subsequent to November 1, 1986. Judge Williams told the Board that Municipal Judges began, 18 months ago, trying to identify the problems that might be encountered as a result of the Amendment, and working towards providing solutions to those problems. He explained the increased jurisdiction will cause a backlog in the courts, and that the Fayetteville court will receive the bulk of the cases unless provisions are made to distribute them among all five municipal courts in the county. The Judge explained it has been suggested there be an increase in filing fees, and Judges are also looking toward a restructuring of the lower court system, towards integrating it into the State system. He said the Board needs to be aware of the effect of the Amendment on the Fayetteville Court, and the possibility of having to change from a part-time Judge to a full-time Judge. He said that additional personnel have been requested in the Municipal Court budget. He said he hoped the increased court costs being suggested would cover the cost of a full-time judge and additional personnel. Director Hess asked if it would require an election to change the judge from part-time to full-time. Williams said he thought not, that instead it would be done by an agreement, with the judge being entitled to finish his term. The Mayor asked Judge Williams to keep the Board informed on this issue. ALCOHOL ORDINANCE The Mayor introduced an amendment to the Ordinance which makes it unlawful for a minor to attempt to purchase or otherwise obtain any alcoholic beverage; left on first reading at the November 4 meeting. The Mayor explained the reason for the amendment is to specify that merchants detaining suspects would do so for the purpose of determining their actual name, identity, address and age. City Prosecutor Terry Jones explained this amendment evolved out of a citizen committee meeting held following the passage of the original ordinance, at which a question was raised regarding what suspected. persons are detained for, how long they may be detained, and what should owners do with persons they have detained. Jones said that, after research, he discovered owners needed some guidance as to how far they can go to detain someone. He said this amendment was an attempt to protect those who try to enforce the ordinance from the possibility of civil suit. 433.1 433.2 433.3 433.4 433.5 November 18, 1986 434.1 The Mayor asked Jones how many incidents had occurred as a result of the ordinance. Jones said two arrests may have been made before the effective date of the Ordinance. 434.2 Director Orton asked what merchants should say when detaining a suspect Jones said most merchants have posted a sign and have warned people in that way. He said a merchant has the right to say "I think you are under age and I would like to see some I.D." 434.3 Director Martin asked Jones if he saw anything else which would require any further amendment to this ordinance. Jones said he didn't see any other need to amend the ordinance. 434.4 Director Lancaster commented that the city has no jurisdiction over what the State ABC does about an owner's license. Jones stated that the city did have authority to arrest a store owner for selling liquor to minors, which is then reported to the ABC. 434.5 Director Bumpass asked if parents, or any responsible adult, could be arrested for ordering alcohol for their minor child. Jones said there was an exception in the statutes which would allow parents to provide alcohol to their minor child. 434.6 The City Attorney 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. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-1, with Director Lancaster voting in the minority. ORDINANCE O. 3226 APPEARS ON PAGE 96 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK MV 434.7 Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to adopt an emergency clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Director Lancaster voting in the minority. 434.8 There was a recess at 9:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:45 p.m. November 18, 1986 REAL ESTATE SIGNS The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Safety Director for an ordinance which would amend the City's Sign Ordinance as it applies to real estate signs; tabled from the November 12 meeting. The City Attorney stated that, since there were questions at the November 12 meeting regarding wording of the ordinance, he drafted a new ordinance which was distributed to the Directors. McCord explained that the revision was drafted to be consistent specifically with the definition of a "portable temporary attraction sign board", and also contained a provision (left blank) for there to be a minimum setback if the Board wishes to impose a setback. The City Attorney reminded the Board that the existing ordinance does not permit portable sign boards, but that it does impose a minimum 15 foot setback for freestanding signs. Director Martin asked Public Safety Director Marty Coates if the amendment was developed entirely through his efforts. Coates said the amendment was developed as a result of concerns voiced by persons in the real estate industry who wished to have the right to install a portable sign on a paved area. Director Martin pointed out that, in instances where the area between the building and the street is entirely paved, there may not be much flexibility for setback. Coates pointed out that in those cases the individual would have to appear before the Board to request a variance. Martin said imposing a setback requirement in those cases might negate the usefulness of allowing the sign. Martin asked why portable signs should be only limited to paved areas. Freeman Wood said the rationale behind limiting them to paved areas was based on that fact that there were other industries which would like to have portable signs, and the staff was attempting to make a distinction to provide some relief for the real estate industry. Director Johnson said the ordinance before the Board did not address the total size of a portable sign. The City Attorney explained that Section 17B-6 of the Sign Ordinance which specifically pertains to real estate signs imposes size restrictions of 32 square feet in the A, P, I and C districts, and 8 square feet in R and R-0 districts. Director Hess asked for the rationale behind initially prohibiting portable signs in the Sign Ordinance. The City Attorney explained the original Sign Ordinance which banned portable signs was adopted in 1973, probably because of their tendency to blow over and possibly because of aesthetic considerations. Director Bumpass added that portable signs have a tendency to move closer to the street right-of- way, causing visibility problems. The City Attorney advised that if the Board wishes to create a separate classification authorizing the use of portable real estate signs, there needs to be a rationale basis for it. 4t) 435.1 435.2 435.3 435.4 435.5 435.6 436 436.1 436.2 November 18, 1986 Director Johnson asked if a temporary real estate sign is the same as a sign advertising vacancies in an apartment complex. The City Attorney quoted the definition in the Sign Ordinance of a real estate sign which reads "a temporary sign placed upon property for the purpose of advertising to the.puba4c the sale or lease of said property". Coates remarked that the staff's intent was to limit the signs by restricting the size of the lettering. Director Lancaster said he hated to wreck the Sign Ordinance just to keep from requiring people to drill holes in the pavement to install a real estate sign. 436.3 Director Orton said she had no problem with allowing temporary portable real estate signs on a paved area, but did have a problem with those permanently erected for apartment buildings. 436.4 436.5 436.6 436.7 George Faucette, Jr., local realtor, said that real estate signs which are normally placed in the ground have a tendency over time to lean over and look unsightly, unless concrete is used when they are installed. He said the portable "platform sign" has been developed as a result of this situation. Faucette said he thought, if the portable signs are good for concrete, they ought to be good for dirt too. He said he thought they were better looking and can be moved easily. Director Lancaster commented that Faucette is suggesting something different from the amendment being proposed by the staff. The City Attorney suggested tabling this item to give Freeman Wood and George Faucette, Jr. an opportunity to visit with him regarding an interpretation of the ordinance as to how a platform sign could be modified to become a freestanding sign. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to table. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. GREENLAND FIRE CONTRACT The Mayor introduced a request from the Administrative Services Director for authorization to renew the city's contract to provide fire protection for the City of Greenland. The Mayor explained the term of the contract is from June 1986 to May 1987, with the cost to Greenland to be $30,386, an increase of $1,451 over last year. 436.8 Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve the resolution. 436.9 Administrative Services Director Linebaugh explained the formula for calculating the cost in the past was developed by the City of Greenland but, because of Greenland's annexation, the formula will no longer November 18, 1986 work. Linebaugh said some other formula will have to be worked out in the future. Linebaugh added that, in addition, the Airport fire station no longer serves the City of Greenland, but instead the Central Fire Station will have to be used. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 114-86 APPEARS ON PAGE t/ O OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK AN0/1) TOWNSHIP ROAD IMPROVEMENTS The Mayor explained the engineer was not able to be present to speak to the Board regarding change orders for the Township Road extension project. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, made a motion to table the item for thirty days. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. V.A. ACCESS ROAD The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the Public Works Director for approval to delay construction of the access road to the Veterans Administration Hospital Grounds, by a period of 180 calendar days from the starting date. Director Bumpass, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to approve the recommendation. Director Martin asked the City Attorney if the City was legally permitted to grant this extension. The City Attorney said there would be no legal problem in that both the V.A and the City have agreed to the extension. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. AIRPORT COMMITTEE Director Lancaster, Chairman of the Board Airport Committee, presented a report on the committee's actions at their November 7 meeting. Lancaster said the committee recommended the award of bid for all three phases of the taxiway and runway overlay project to McClinton Anchor, bidding $621,227.40, subject to the FAA funding the three phases of the 437 437.1 437.2 437.3 437.4 437.5 437.6 437.7 437.8 437.9 438 • 1438.1 438.2 438.3 November 18, 1986 project, and their concurrence in the award of the bid for the low bi9d amount of $614,841.90, with the City funding the $6,285.50 difference. Lancaster said the committee also recommended to request 50% State grant funding for the FAA ineligible amount of $6,385.50. Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the committee's recommendation. Director Martin pointed out the bid came in within 1 1/2% of the engineer's estimate. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Director Lancaster reported the committee tabled a proposed airport survey until a request for financing can be made to the Advertising and Promotion Commission. 438.4 Lancaster reported the committee approved a request from Aero Tech to change their due date from the 10th of each month to the 20th of each month. Lancaster, seconded by Martin, made a motion to approve the committee's recommendation. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 438.5 Lancaster reported the committee tabled a request from Hart Leasing, Inc. to establish a car rental agency in the terminal until further studies can be completed. 438.6 Lancaster reported the committee tabled a request from Airways Freight to expand their building until further studies can be completed. 438.7 Lancaster reported the committee recommended the expansion of the fuel farm be added to the 1987 budget, but deferred action on the award of bid until a later time. BID AWARD/PARK RESTROOMS 438.8 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of Bid #731 for Wilson Park and Lake Fayetteville North restrooms. The Mayor reported the Public Works Director recommends the award of bid for construction of the Lake Fayetteville restroom be awarded to the low bidder, R. E. Easter, bidding $33,710, with the Wilson Park project being carried over with some 1986 funds into the 1987 budget year. 438.9 It was clarified that the restrooms would be new structures, but that the restroom being replaced at Lake Fayetteville would be remodeled and used for storage, and the restroom being replaced at Wilson Park would be demolished. It was also clarified that the total bid for both restroom projects would amount to $69,778, that $50,000 from the 1986 budget would be used, and $19,778 is proposed to be used from the 1987 budget. November 18, 1986 Director Martin, seconded by Hess, made a motion to award the bid. .Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Director Bumpass voting in the minority. PLANNING OFFICE FEES The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the Public Works Director for approval of an increased fee structure to be included in the revised Subdivision Regulations currently being reviewed by the City Planning Commission. City Manager Grimes told the Board final Board action was not needed at this time, as the Planning Commission would bring a recommendation before the Board at a later date in the form of an ordinance. Director Hess commented that, according to information provided by the Planning Office, the actual cost of processing each item exceeds the recommended fees. Grimes explained that figures were rounded off and, in addition, that staff was trying to avoid overkill while increasing these fees. Director Hess said he thought the fees should cover the costs. Director Johnson asked how the proposed fees compared to those used by other cities. Deryl Burch listed those fees charged by the cites of Rogers and Springdale. INSPECTION OFFICE FEES The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Safety Director for an ordinance amending the Fayetteville Code of Ordinances to reflect an increase in the City's permit fee structure. The City Attorney told the Board the passage of four ordinances would be necessary in order to amend the Ordinance to reflect the following increases: Item Electrical reinspection Additional plumbing permits: Concrete floor building Large building Extra inspection Septic field inspection Additional gas permits: Large building Reinspection Driveway & curb cut Existing $3.00 Proposed $10.00 8.00 10.00 2.00 10.00 3.00 10.00 25.00 -0- 5.00 10.00 5.00 10.00 2.00 20.00 439 439.1 439.2 439.3 439.4 439.5 439.6 440 Sidewalk 2.00 Driveway, curb cut & sidewalk 2.00 Building permit minimum fee 5.00 November 18, 1986 20.00 25.00 20.00 e ti 440.1 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Freeman Wood explained the driveway, sidewalk and curb cut fees in the past were administered by the City Engineer's Office and, for some reason, have.always been $2.00. Wood explained there was no way the paperwork and sending an inspector to the site for two inspections could be done for $2.00. Wood said the proposed fees were about "break even" fees. 440.2 The City Attorney read the first of four ordinances. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, 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. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3227 APPEARS ON PAGE '7 7 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK Mid 440.3 The City Attorney read the second of four ordinances. 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. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3228 APPEARS ON PAGE BOOK X X I d 440.4 The City Attorney read the third seconded by Hess, made a motion ordinance on its second reading. OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION of four ordinances. Director Bumpass, to suspend the rules and place the Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7- 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. 440.5 In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Freeman Wood told the Board septic field inspections are no longer conducted by the City, but are done by the Health Department. 440.6 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. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. November 18, 1986 ORDINANCE NO. 3229 APPEARS ON PAGE 9 9 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )(X The City Attorney read the fourth ordinance. Director Bumpass, seconded by Hess, 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 Hess, 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. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3230 APPEARS ON PAGE /0 0 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK )()(/ V EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Works Director for an extension of the City's employment agreement with Robert Franzmeier, Wastewater Treatment Plant Project Coordinator. The Mayor explained the recommendation is to increase his salary. Director Johnson asked if the City could employ him and increase his salary without guidance from the Resource Recovery Authority (since the recommendation includes Franzmeier acting as Project Coordinator for the Solid Waste Project upon completion of his current duties). Deryl Burch explained Franzmeier would continue with his current duties for most of next year. Burch explained either party can break the contract with sixty days notice. Director Martin asked if the employee could work on both projects. City Manager Grimes said, in his opinion, this may be possible. Director Johnson asked what salary increase would be proposed by the staff for city employees in 1987. City Manager Grimes said the staff would recommend a 2% cost of living increase, and whatever pay plan steps are built in to the Pay Plan. Scott Linebaugh projected the cost of those increases to be less than $500,000. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to extend the contract between the City and Franzmeier, for a year, with a salary increase of 5%. Director Johnson said she thought it only fair to other city employees that Franzmeier be given a 5% increase. Upon roll call, the motion failed, 2-5, with Directors Bumpass and Johnson voting for the motion, and Directors Noland, Lancaster, Martin, Orton and Hess voting against the motion. 44:. 441.1 441.2 441.3 441.4 441.5 441.6 441.7 442 November 18, 1986 442.1 Director Martin, seconded by Orton, made a motion to extend the contract at the salary increase specified. 442:2 1 Director Orton asked that it be clarified that Board was not acting on the aspect of Franzmeier working as Project Coordinator for the Resource Recovery project. 442.3 Director Bumpass commented that approval of the recommended salary sets a bad precedent for fundamental fairness to the other employees. 442.4 Mayor Noland said he thought, if the Board reviewed this employee's qualifications as they would fit into the city's Pay Plan, the proposed salary is not high enough. 442.5 Director Johnson said maybe the employee ought to be brought into the Pay Plan. She said she didn't agree with arguing that he belongs in the Pay Plan, but should be given a 12% increase. 442.6 Deryl Burch said the employee did not belong in the Pay Plan, was under contract, and did not receive other fringe benefits. 442.7 City Manager Grimes said the employee was very professional, and the City was fortunate to find him to oversee the project. 442.8 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-2, with Directors Bumpass and Johnson voting in the minority. RESOLUTION NO. 115-86 APPEARS ON PAGE y/ 2 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XxVtl OTHER BUSINESS CROP DAMAGE REIMBURSEMENT 442.9 The City Attorney explained that he was still in the process of negotiating a possible settlement regarding a request for crop damage reimbursement. 442.10 Director Hess, seconded by Orton, made a motion to table this item. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT 442.11 Director Johnson, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, announced the committees recommendations for appointments to the Arts Center Council and Arts Foundation: November 18, 1986 Arts Center Council Arts Foundation Frank Sharp Sonja Decker Jim Gilbreath Elaine Longer Billie Starr Scott Linebaugh Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to approve the recommendations. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. BIENNIAL "REPORT TO THE PEOPLE" Mayor Noland announced the staff has recommended the award of bid for publishing the biennial "Report to the People" to the low bidder, Phillips Litho, bidding $9,760. Director Johnson, seconded by Bumpass, made a motion to award the bid. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, with Director Martin voting in the minority. MINUTES The minutes of the November 4 meeting were approved with the following corrections: 397.2 before "Louis Watts", insert "NWARRA Project Director" 397.9 after "study", insert "for an east/west highway corridor was done for two or three routes..." 407.9 in the last line, insert "charged" after "continually" 411.6 Change "Lake Wilson" to "Wilson Park" ADJOURNMENT With no further business before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 11:20 p.m. 443 443.1 443.2 443.3 443.4 443.5