HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-03-31 Minutes1
•
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held at
4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Match 31, 1987 in the Board Room of the City
Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayette6ille, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Johnson; Directors Kelley, Marinoni, Hess, Bumpass,
Lancaster and 'Martin; City Manager Grimes, City Attorney
McCord, City Clerk Kennedy, Solid Waste Project Director
Louis Watts, representatives from Morrison-Knudsen and
Volund; members of the press and audience.
CALL.TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with seven Directors present.
The meeting was called for the purpose of (1) considering withdrawal from
the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority; (2) further
consideration ofthe location of the site for the solid waste incinerator
project and its application for a permit; and (3) such other business as may
come before the Board.
VOLUND PRESENTATION
Mayor Johnson asked Morrison-Knudsen to do a brief overview of the facility
as planned. Check Gebhardt of M -K introduced Calvin Hartman who, on behalf
of Volund, presented a slide show on the technology of the incinerator.
In answer to a question from a member of the audience regarding the facility
"stack", Mayor Johnson asked that questions not be asked and told the
audience that this was not a public hearing.
Chuck Gebhardt explained that local people would be hired to be trained as
operators of the facility, that during the construction period all approvals
would come through the Board of Directors. He said that, during operation,
public comment would be welcome.
DISCUSSION
Director Bumpass said that, in asking the Board to consent to this special
meeting, he was concerned not so much with the technology but rather the
political decision that was made in the choice of the location for the
facility. He said that, in an attempt to be responsive to public objections
which were made at the last Authority meeting, the City Board should take
85
85.1
85.2
85.3
85.4
85.5
r
086
86.1
86.2
March 31, 1987
the opportunity to vote not to let the Happy Hollow location be the site for
the incinerator.
Director Bumpass made a motion that a resolution be passed to oppose the
issuance of an air permit for the facility at Happy Hollow Road and to
present that resolution at the public hearing to be held later this evening.
86.3 Director Lancaster commented that a great deal of time and research had gone
into the planning for this project over the last seven or eight years. He
pointed out that it was the nine members of the Resource Recovery Authority
who made the decision regarding this site, and that even though seven of
those consisted of the City Board, some of the current City Board members
were not on the Board at that time. Lancaster said he hoped the Board would
understand that citizens should know what it will cost, whose going to pay
for it, and why.
86.4
Mayor Johnson commented that, since the Authority voted to consider the
Happy Hollow site, she would prefer that the air permit be issued since, at
this time, it is the only site the project has. Johnson said she had asked
the City Attorney to prepare a resolution supporting an investigation by the
Authority of an alternative site, but which would support the immediate
issuance of an air permit for the site on Happy Hollow Road. Johnson asked
Bumpass to substitute this resolution for the one proposed by him.
86.5 Bumpass said he thought the Happy Hollow site should not be acceptable
because of the concern expressed by the residents. He pointed out, even
though a great deal of research had gone on over the last seven or eight
years, the present site was not selected until five months ago. Bumpass
said he thought the problems could be eliminated through an educational
process, the selection of a new site, and a presentation to the voters.
86.6 Director Martin said he had opposed the project in the past on economic
grounds but that, last Fall, a super majority of the Authority members voted
to proceed and at that time he "quit flogging the economic horse". He said
we had been operating under the impression it would be an environmentally
benign plant but in recent weeks we have heard sobering questions, raised by
people with or without technical expertise, which he thought the Board was
obligated to pursue. He said he thought there was a difference of opinion
which he thought could be resolved. He said there were citizens who
probably support the site as the best one but there was a broad spectrum of
the population which does not have confidence in the site and he thought the
Board should be sensitive to that. Martin said he could not support the
site because the public does not support it.
86.7 Director Hess said at yesterday's Authority meeting that group polarized
themselves to the public and as a body. He said he still believed the
project was in the best interests of the community. He said if the permit
were issued for the Happy Hollow site it would not necessarily have to be
the final location, as there would be ninety days in which to investigate
alternative sites.
1
1
1
• 87
March 31, 1987
Director Martin pointed out $100-200,000 was spent on the project before an
air permit was obtained. He said pursuing the air permit would solidify the
necessity to be build the plant on that site.
Director Hess said it was difficult to know what all the people in
Fayetteville want. He said a resolution opposing the permit would just kill
the project. Hess said the Happy Hollow site was environmentally sound,
according to all the statistics he has received, but it may not be
politically sound, and may -be in everyone's best interests to locate
somewhere else.
Bumpass said he thought it was a political decision to locate the plant on
Happy Hollow Road, because it was close to "the wheeling deal", it was close
to the garage, and there was a hurry to make the decision before the
issuance of the bonds. Bumpass said, since he couldn't approve of the Happy
Hollow site under any conditions, why go through the motions of having a
permit issued on the site. He said the Board should be responding to the
lack of confidence from the public in the Board's ability to make a suitable
decision for them.
Director Kelley stated he could not support the site or the continuation of
the process of the issuance of an air permit. Kelley said he also had some
concerns about the economics of the project itself and changing EPA
standards which may increase the economic lack of feasibility for the
project.
Director Lancaster asked where the facility could be located which would not
become a political issue. Bumpass said he could envision it being located
on property under the control of the City, east of the town, and with
additional equipment which has been suggested being added to the facility.
Bumpass said the true test would be a vote of the people. Lancaster said he
hadn't heard Bumpass say he did not want to kill the project entirely.
Bumpass said he supported .giving the people of this community the
Opportunity to choose a way to deal with their solid waste.
Director Kelley asked Director Bumpass to repeat his motion. Bumpass moved
that the Board pass a resolution which states that they are opposed to the
issuance of an air permit for the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery
Authority's solid waste disposal facility at the Happy Hollow Road park.
Bumpass said he wanted to present the DPCE with that resolution tonight.
The motion was seconded by Director Kelley.
Director Marinoni asked how much time it would take to transfer an air
permit to a new location. Project Director Louis Watts explained time would
be needed to select a new site, thirty days notice would be required prior
to a public hearing for the new site, and thirty days would be required
after the public hearing to issue the permit.
Director Lancaster pointed out the City Board does not have the prerogative
87.1
87.2
87.3
87.4
87.5
87.6
87.7
87.8
88
March 31, 1987
88.1 to start over. Lancaster said he would agree with the resolution proposed
by Bumpass if it stated the project was not being condemned.
88.2 Director Kelley pointed out that, if the air permit is issued for the Happy
Hollow site, the Authority which makes the decision on the site for the
plant could find it very convenient to vote to start construction. Director
Hess asked Kelley if he was fearful of being able to find a suitable site.
Kelley said he was not fearful of finding a suitable location but was
fearful of the politics which may decide where the facility will be
constructed.
88.3 The City Attorney explained the Authority has the option to change the site
but does not have the option of changing the technology without legal
consequence. He said the Authority had entered into a contract with M -K
Ferguson to construct a facility using Volund technology, and has also
entered into a waste disposal contract. He said the issue was site
selection, not technology or whether the project should go forward.
88.4 Bumpass asked if additional equipment could be added to the plant. McCord
said an amendment could be made to upgrade the system.
88.5 Director Hess asked if the Board could support the construction of the
facility at a different site. Director Bumpass asked Hess if he objected to
people voting on the project. Hess said he had no problem with a vote to
get feedback, with the understanding that if the people were opposed to the
project, it wouldn't mean it would not be built.
88.6 In response to the question of withdrawal of the City of Fayetteville from
the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority, the City Attorney quoted
from a memo he prepared on that question, which states "Any municipality or
county may withdraw from a sanitation authority at any time without the
consent of the other municipalities and counties which are members of the
authority, provided, however, that all contractual rights acquired and
obligations incurred while the municipality or county was a member shall
remain in full force and effect." McCord said the bonds would have to be
paid off.
88.7 Director Bumpass asked if other members of the Authority could be allowed to
withdraw. McCord said he would have to research that question. In answer
to a question from Director Hess, McCord said if there was no project, the
City would have to raise sanitation rates.
88.8 Director Hess suggested an amendment to the motion, to go forward with the
project at a suitable site within the Baldwin substation area.
88.9 Director Marinoni said he supported the project but thought better sites
could be chosen on a high plateau in a less populated area. He said he saw
no problem in continuing with the hearing or the allocation of the air
permit if the intention is to move the site.
1
1
t;9
4
March 31, 1987
Director Johnson read from a portion of her proposed resolution:_ "The Board
of Directors expresses its belief that an alternative site should be located
in the area of Fayetteville served by the Baldwin Substation of Ozarks
Electric Cooperative Corporation, should be located on a plateau, should be
located away from public schools and densely populated residential areas,
and should be readily accessible by sanitation trucks."
The City Attorney suggested, as a compromise, a resolution that the issuance
of the air permit be withheld until alternative sites can be investigated.
Lancaster said he would support that resolution. -
•
After further discussion, the roll was called on the motion and it passed by
a vote of 4-3, Directors Kelley, Marinoni, Bumpass and Martin voting in
favor of the motion and Directors Hess, Johnson and Lancaster voting in the
minority.
Director Bumpass said he would like to immediately proceed with the
selection of some alternative sites for the project and he asked the other
Directors for assistance in setting up such a process. Director Martin
pointed out that the Authority would have to select a site and all the City
Board.. has done by their actions at this meeting is send them a signal.
Director Martin suggested an Authority meeting be scheduled or the staff be
asked to develop a process for investigating appropriate sites.
Director Lancaster, as Chairman of the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery
Authority, stated that body would call a meeting.
Director Marinoni commented that Director Kelley had made the suggestion
there be an advisory committee on site selection. Director Martin suggested
instead -there be a series of public hearings.
ADJOURNMENT
With Mayor Johnson stating that Director Lancaster would call a meeting of
the Authority as soon as possible, the meeting was adjourned at 6:05 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO. 22-87 APPEARS ON PAGE 41
•
OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK
89
89.1
89.2
89.3
89.4
89.5
89.6
89.7