HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-07-21 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, July 21, 1987 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors'
Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville,
Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Johnson; Directors Lancaster, Martin,
Kelley, Marinoni, Hess and Bumpass; Acting City
Manager Linebaugh, City Attorney McCord, City
Clerk Kennedy, Department Directors Burch and
Coates; members of the press and audience
CALL TO ORDER
209.01 The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with seven
Directors present. The Mayor asked that there be a pause for a
moment of respectful silence.
PRESENTATION TO DON GRIMES
209.02 The Mayor commented that the Board had held a reception prior to
the meeting on the occasion of Don Grimes leaving as City Manager
after 15 years of service. Johnson noted that some of Grimes'
major accomplishments were the revitalization of downtown
Fayetteville, the improvements at the Airport, and the planning
of the new sewage treatment plant. She said that since Grimes
was City Manager Fayetteville's population has doubled. Johnson
said the Board appreciated the job he had done, the openness he
had with the press, the non -favoritism he showed with City
Directors, and the attitude he had serving the citizens. She
said if the Directors had known what a difficult job it was going
to be to hire a replacement for him, they might not have accepted
his resignation. Johnson presented a plaque to Grimes from the
Board in appreciation of his 15 years of service from April 10,
1972 to July 20, 1987.
REPORT TO PUBLIC
209.03 The Mayor introduced the Report to the Public for the month of
June. This was presented by Scott Linebaugh and distributed, in
written form, to Directors and members of the press. The report,
because of its length, is not included in these minutes, but
X
•
1
210
July 21, 1987
included a financial summary, an update on major projects such as 210.01
the Resource Recovery Authority project, the Wastewater Treatment
Plant project, the Arts Center project, and the Animal Shelter,
followed by progress reports for the month of June for all City
departments.
Director Kelley expressed an interest in seeing comparisons of 210.02
ratios (from the financial report) with other cities of similar
budget size.
Director Bumpass complimented Linebaugh on his memo which 210.03
provides answers to questions posed by Board members.
HIGHWAY 45 RECOMMENDATION
The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the City Planning 210.04
Commission that the State highway designation be removed from a
portion of U. S. Highway 45, from College Avenue to Highway 265.
She explained the question was studied by the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC) which voted against the proposal.
Mrs. Mary Frances Newbern, property owner residing at 403 N. 210.05
Washington for the last 43 years, told the Board that as a result
of wise decisions of past Directors, the lives of Fayetteville
citizens have for the most part been very pleasant. She said the
heavy truck traffic on E. Lafayette (designated Highway 45) has
now become almost unbearable and property owners are asking the
Board for a decision which will relieve a miserable situation.
Mrs. Newbern said E. Lafayette from College Avenue to Highway 265
is not a business street but is a residential street with only
one business - Dillon's Market - and a roadside nursery. She
said there were three churches, two church/schools, Root School
and a cemetery. Mrs. Newbern asked why Highway 45 signs direct
heavy trucks into the center of the city, which are destined for
places other than Fayetteville. She asked why those trucks with
business on Highway 471 are not using that highway instead of
Highway 45. Mrs. Newbern pointed out that the Washington -Willow
Historic District which is on the National Register is bisected
by noisy and hazardous traffic. She said the lives of many
children are seriously endangered as they walk, ride bicycles and
skateboards along Lafayette to the schools. She said the
principal of Washington School reports 167 children live east of
College Avenue who attend Washington School. Mrs. Newbern asked
the Board if it wouldn't be better to keep the heavy truck
traffic on the bypasses and on Highway 471 and on business
streets except 'when absolutely necessary, than to destroy a
lovely area and chance the loss of even one child. She said the
•
2 1
July 21, 1987
211.01 Board had the power and ability to solve this serious problem and
she hoped they would find the answer and act on it very soon.
211.02 John Burrow, resident of 409 E. Lafayette, proposed that traffic
be routed north and south at Highway 265, rather than onto
Highway 45. He said as long as the State controls Highway 45,
they could decide to widen it and compound the existing problem.
Burrow said part of the proposal includes asking the City to
bargain with the State on designating replacement roads to be
alternative State routes.
211.03 Pat Havens, resident of 400 N. Washington, told the Board the TAC
had conducted two 3 -hour rush hour traffic counts, resulting in
six trucks. Havens said, with the thought in mind that truckers
avoid rush hour, some of the residents decided to make their own
traffic count. He said in a 22 -hour period from 5:00 a.m. to
3:30 a.m., 104 heavy trucks were counted, 18 of them between 10
and 11 a.m., 13 between noon and 1 p.m., and 55 between 1 and 5
p.m.
211.04 Director Martin commented that removing the truck traffic from
Highway 45 would not do away with the traffic but would simply
export it somewhere else. He noted that Highway 265 also ran
through a lovely residential area. Burrow said their hopes were
to eliminate the through truck traffic, not those trucks with
local business to conduct.
211.05 Director Lancaster commented that the Board had discussed this
problem in the past and he thought they had the authority to
eliminate the problem of heavy truck traffic headed for somewhere
besides Fayetteville, but he thought they couldn't prohibit
trucks from conducting local business.
211.06 Robert Wykoff, resident of
delivering circulars in the
cross the street. He said
driver who said signs could
of Huntsville at Highway 74
Springdale to direct trucks.
391 N. Fletcher, said that while
area he had been "scared to death" to
he talked to a professional truck
be put up at the eastern intersection
to Fayetteville, and at Highway 68 to
211.07 George Blackwell, resident on South Hill Street,
Board make Lafayette and Maple one-way streets.
211.08 A resident of
there were
Williamsburg,
bypasses were
the district.
suggested the
220 E. Lafayette told the Board that 30 years ago
at least two state roads which ran through
the first historic district in the country, but
built around the city to reroute the traffic out of
1
It
1
1
July 21, 1987
A resident of Highway 265 said he came to the meeting to "ask for
justice": Hale said he travelled Highway 265 several times a
day, that it was one of the busiest highways in the county during
rush hour, and that he didn't need any more traffic on that
highway.
t2
212.01
The Mayor asked the Board if, in light of Mr. Haven's traffic 212.02
count, the question should be referred back to the TAC, or back
to the staff. Director Bumpass said he didn't think a study was
necessary to post "no through truck traffic" signs, if that would
ultimately do some good. Bumpass expressed anxiety over the
potential loss of State highway funds.
Public Works Director Burch told the Board he thought the major 212.03
part of the problem can be answered. He said he thought removing
the State highway designation would not accomplish anything, but
could hurt the City in the future because of the loss of
maintenance on the part of the State.
Burch said the staff proposes a solution of posting signs at the 212.04
southern and northern entrances to the city for trucks to use the
bypass and posting signs at the eastern entrance to the City.
Burch said truck traffic with legitimate deliveries will not be
eliminated. Director Martin commented this was a splendid
starting point but remarked that he found the argument against
loss of maintenance funds to be fairly uncompelling.
Martin -moved that the staff proceed with the approach proposed by 212..05.;
Burch. The motion was seconded by Marinoni.
Burch said the staff would like to make a formal request to the 212.06
Highway Department to do a study to make a "Business 45 Route".
Director Martin said the intent would be an attempt to route
traffic not destined for the center of town around the town,
perhaps an attempt to direct the flow of traffic even farther
east and west of the community.
Director Bumpass, with Martin
included as an amendment to the
motion passed, 7-0.
STOP SIGN ON TOWNSHIP
in agreement, asked that this be 212.07*
motion. Upon roll .call, the
The Mayor introduced an appeal
Works Director to deny a citizens'
four-way stop signs at Township
Township and Azalea Terrace.
from a decision of the Public 212.08
petition for installation of
and Primrose Lane, and at
3
July 21, 1987
213.01 Elaine Longer, resident of 2387 Twelve Oaks, told the Board she
was representing the residents of the East Oaks and Azalea area.
Mrs. Longer asked the Board to review their petition which was
filed with 110 signatures on May 21, and which requested the stop
signs for four reasons: (1) large volume of pedestrian traffic;
(2) children have grown accustomed to having a protected
neighborhood prior to the construction of Township extension; (3)
there is a blind spot where west bound traffic approaches the
intersection of Township and Azalea; and (4) if the stop signs
were installed, travel time at 30 m.p.h. would only increase by
35 seconds.
213.02 Longer said they were told the reason the stop signs were not
installed was because federal guidelines require that four-way
stop signs may only be installed at intersections where there are
equal flows of traffic in opposing directions. She said they
discovered that the City Board may override the federal
guidelines in the public interest and for public safety. She
asked that the Board at least install a four-way stop sign at the
Azalea intersection, but preferably both Azalea and Primrose.
213.03 Director Hess said he thought
a short-sighted problem at the
sensed there was a potential
stop sign at one intersection,
for two stop signs.
a defect in engineering has caused
Azalea intersection. Hess said he
hazard and had no objection to a
but thought there was not a need
213.04 Public Works Director Burch said the staff feels it would not be
advisable to use a stop sign to control speed. Burch said at the
intersection in question there is 300 feet of sight distance
which is acceptable for speeds of 35 m.p.h., giving sufficient
time to stop.
213.05 Traffic Superintendent Perry Franklin said north and south sides
of Azalea were checked and it was determined there was a300 foot
line of sight distance.
213.06 Longer said the residents were not looking for speed control but
for a safe place for pedestrian traffic to cross at least one
intersection.
213.07 Director Marinoni said he thought the city built the street for
east -west traffic and he would not be in favor of ladening the
street with stop signs. Marinoni said Azalea was a collector
street and he could see putting a stop sign there.
213.08 Director Lancaster said he had talked to one resident in the area
who feared traffic would run over someone while disregarding a
stop sign.
1
x
1
July 21, 1987
Franklin said installing a stop sign on a major thoroughfare can
create a traffic hazard and the potential for rear -end
collisions. He added that a stop sign would teach children to
believe that every motorist will see the stop sign and stop. In
answer to a question from Director Martin, Franklin said a 25
m.p.h speed limit was posted temporarily until a traffic study
can be conducted to determine safe driving speed. Franklin said
studies will be done to count pedestrians and vehicles to
determine whether a four-way stop sign is warranted. Franklin
said there were several warrants for a four-way stop such as high
pedestrian count and high volume of traffic.
Director Marinoni asked about the feasibility of installing a
blinking caution, light. Franklin said that deviating from the
guidelines would set a precedent for other similar requests.
214
214.01
214.02',
Franklin said counts were planned to be conducted after the 214.03
street had been'open for about a month, or sometime in August.
He said speed studies are already being conducted.
Director Kelley said there appeared to him to be a blind spot for 214.04
westbound traffic at the intersection of Azalea and Township.
Director Kelley, seconded by Marinoni, moved that a four-way stop
sign be installed at Township and Azalea.
Mayor Johnson expressed a preference for a speed study to be done 214.05
to determine the traffic patterns. Director Martin agreed.
Director Lancaster said he believed a driver travelling 30-35
m.p.h. has plenty of room to stop.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, moved to table 214.06
consideration of Director Kelley's motion for ninety days. Upon
roll call, the motion passed, 4-3,.Directors Kelley, Marinoni and
Hess voting in the minority.
Public Safety Director Marty Coates told the Board that, in the 214.07
last week to ten days, the Police Department had issued 25
citations. Director Bumpass said he thought it would not be
appropriate to issue warning tickets because of the low speed s..
limit. He said he didn't want the City to be criticized for
trying to pay for the road with traffic tickets.
R-O-W/ALLEY VACATION
The Mayor introduced a request
abandoning a portion of street
located between N. Skyline Drive
for an ordinance vacating and 214.08
right-of-way of Sequoyah Drive,
and Loraine; and a portion of an
215
July 21, 1987
215.01 east -west alley located between Sequoyah Drive and Williams
Drive.
215.02 The Mayor reported utility companies have submitted their
concurrence with the vacation, although the City Engineer
requests a 15 foot sewer easement where sewer lines are located.
215.03 The City Attorney said the ordinance would retain the requested
easements. He read the ordinance for the first time. Director
Bumpass, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on its second reading.
215.04 Fred Hunt, adjacent property owner, told the Board the petitioner
had not spoken to him or to another adjacent property owner, Dave
Randle. Mr. Hunt said he thought it a little premature and
objected to it because he did not know how it would affect him.
Mr. Hunt asked if alley and street closings are supposed to be
heard by the Planning Commission. The City Attorney explained
two procedures may be followed - (1) upon petition of all
abutting property owners which is referred to the Planning
Commission for a recommendation to the City Board; or (2) the
Board of Directors, upon determining that an open street or alley
is not required for corporate purposes, can adopt an ordinance
vacating such a street or alley.
215.05 Petitioner Greg House said initially he visited the Planning
Department and City Engineer and asked if he could improve
Sequoyah Drive as a regular city street, and dedicate it to the
City. He said the City Engineer told him the City would not want
it as a city street because it was too steep. He said he then
decided to ask the city to vacate the street. He said he spoke
with Dave Randle whose property would be affected by the closing
and that Randle voiced no objection. House pointed out that the
vacation of the street would entitle Randle to receive 1/2 of the
unimproved right-of-way. House said the only right-of-way on
Sequoyah he wished to vacate was that part of it lying adjacent
to his two lots and Randle's property. House said that Hunt's
property would still be accessible from Loraine and the alley
adjacent to Hunt's property.
215.06 Director Marinoni asked if the purpose of the request was to add
more square footage to the lots. House said he intended to
install a private drive off Skyline to lot six where he intends
to build a home, and the purpose of closing the alley is so that
lots 5 and 6 can be contiguous.
215.07 Director Bumpass suggested Greg House visit with Hunt and Randle
to work out any differences. House said he would be glad to do
so but pointed out Hunt's property was not adjacent to the
property in question.
1
1
1
July 21, 1987
216
Upon roll call, the motion to move the ordinance to its second 216.01
reading failed, 4-3, Directors Johnson, Lancaster and Bumpass
voting in the minority. The City Attorney advised the ordinance
be placed on the next agenda for its second reading, explaining
that five affirmative votes were necessary to move the ordinance
to its second -reading.
The Mayor told Greg House the ordinance would be on the next 216.02
agenda for its second reading. She asked him to meet with Mr.
Hunt in the meantime and explain his plans.
Director Lancaster suggested this request be heard by the 216.03
Planning Commission. Director Hess disagreed, commenting that
after viewing the property, he didn't think the City wanted the
property. Hess pointed out the property was too steep and would
be very difficult to maintain.
SIGN APPEAL
The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the 216.04
Sign Ordinance for a sign located at 3422 North College,
submitted by Gary Simmons for "Mind -Body Harmony, Inc." Simmons
told the Board he felt his business has suffered due to the fact
that he only has a 16 square foot sign on the Mathias Plaza joint
identification sign. Simmons asked for permission to install a
banner below his sign containing advertising matter. Simmons
displayed a sample of the banner. Simmons said he displayed the
banner for a period of time during which he noticed an increase
in his business. He said he did this in the spirit of other
businesses such as McDonalds. which he saw using banners for
advertising. Simmons asked the Board to permit him to use the
banner during this first year of trying to establish a new
business in Fayetteville.
Sign Inspector Richard Wilson told the Board businesses
McDonalds which display a banner are permitted to do so
they are the only occupant in their building. He said
are treated as wall signs and permits must be obtained to
them. The City Attorney quoted from the City Code:
such as
because
banners
install
216.05
x
"...banners bearing advertising matter shall be considered 216.06
wall or freestanding signs depending upon mounting and shall
meet all regulations pertaining thereto..."
Wilson also told the Board that, although the business is located 216.07
in an R-0 District, the place where he wishes to install the
banner is zoned C-2.
July 21, 1987
217.01 Director Hess asked about the legality of a banner displayed by a
fitness center on College Avenue which advertises summer classes.
The Sign Inspector said he issued a permit for that business by
mistake and, for that reason, they were allowed to continue using
their banner because it is temporary.
217.02 The Sign Inspector explained the reason the banner cannot be
legally installed on the joint identification sign is because the
business already has one sign installed there and the addition of
the banner will place the total allowable square footage over the
limit. He explained the joint identification sign currently has
119 square feet of sign space and the maximum allowed is 121
square feet.
217.03 Simmons asked the Board for permission to display the banner for
three months, until he can establish his business.
217.04 Director Kelley asked Simmons if the property owner had any
problem with the installation of the banner. Simmons said Howard
Scott owned the property and was supportive of the business. He
said if necessary he would supply the Board with a letter from
Scott.
217.05 Director Bumpass moved to allow Simmons to hang the banner for 60
days with Howard Scott's permission. The motion was seconded by
Director Kelley.
217.06 In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Simmons said he
was unaware of the Sign Ordinance before he started his business.
217.07 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-2, Directors Johnson and
Lancaster voting in the minority.
the meeting recessed for 10 minutes at 9:50 p.m.
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY
217.08 The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the razing and removal
of an unsafe structure located at 1405 N. Gregg Avenue; tabled at
the July 7th Board meeting.
217.09 City Attorney McCord told the Board the property owner submitted
a letter today requesting the ordinance not be adopted, and
indicating the owner wishes to board up the structure to make it
unaccessible by the public.
1
1
1
•
2
July 21, 1987
2 1 R
The Sign Inspector said he had received no response from the 218.01
property owner. The' Mayor said that in the letter received by
the Board today the owner expresses his intent to sell the
property. Director Hess said he thought the property would be
easier to sell without the structure. He said he did not think
the structure was salvageable.
Director Martin said he thought the property owner wastrying to 218.02
cooperate. Hess pointed out that the first violation notice was
mailed to the owner in July of 1985.
Director Bumpass suggested the ordinance be read once at this 218.03
meeting, to see what progress may be made between now and the
next Board meeting.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. 218.04
Director Hess asked if the staff could be directed to write to 218.05
the property owner explaining the ordinance had been left on
first reading and the Board would like to see a plan for the
repair of the structure.
The Mayor said she thought the structure should be boarded up. 218.06
She said after the third reading of the ordinance the owner would
have six weeks to sell the property or do something with it.
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY
The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of 218.07
unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe
structure located at 2846 S. School Avenue; tabled at the July 7
meeting.
The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. 218.08
The Mayor said the property owner, Mrs. Olive Baley, had
submitted a letter explaining she is on a fixed income, has
health problems, and would like to try to gradually rehabilitate
the house. Mrs. Baley's daughter spoke on behalf of her mother,
telling the Board they are doing some work on the property. She
said her mother lives in Missouri and, since the house in
Fayetteville cannot be occupied, she has no place to stay while
working on the house.
The Mayor recommended the same relief be granted as was granted
to the property owner of a structure on Rollston, whereby an
extension of the building permit is granted until the end of the
218.09
218.10
29
July 21, 1987
219.01 year, with no additional fees being charged. The Mayor so moved,
seconded by Martin.
219.02 Director Lancaster asked if work could be finished in six months.
Mrs. Baley's daughter said she could not promise the work would
be completed in six months but work would be done each month.
219.03 The Mayor asked the Public Works Director to inspect a culvert
which is draining into the basement of the structure.
219.04 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
219.05
UNSIGHTLY
PROPERTY
The Mayor
unsightly
structure
meeting.
introduced an ordinance ordering the
conditions and the razing and removal
located at 1620 Mitchell Street; tabled at
abatement of
of an unsafe
the July 7th
219.06 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time.
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.
219.07 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3279 APPEARS ON PAGE
RESOLUTION BOOK
OF ORDINANCE AND
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY
219.08 The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of
unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe
structure located at 604 W. Douglas Street.
219.09 The Public Safety Director asked the Board to table the
ordinance, reporting the owner would like to continue to work on
the property.
219.10 Director Martin, seconded by Kelley, moved to table.
X
S•
1
11
July 21, 1987
The Sign Inspector told the Board the owner had asked him to seek
bids on the demolition of the structure.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY
It was reported that the structure at 111 South Street had
already been demolished, making passage of an ordinance
unnecessary.
PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Public Works
Committee meeting of July 15.
HIGHWAY 265 SOUTH EXTENSION PROJECT
Director Hess reported the committee discussed amending the
Master Street Plan to eliminate Highway 265 as proposed, where it
would run through property in the historic district and land
close to the Happy Hollow School district. Hess said the
committee unanimously recommended modifying the Master Street
Plan to eliminate Highway 265 as shown, with the Public Works
Department to make a recommendation as to a new route.
Hess moved to modify the Master Street Plan to eliminated Highway
265 as proposed with the Public Works Director to bring a
recommendation to the Board. The motion was seconded by Marinoni
and upon roll call passed by a vote of 7-0.
BRIDGE AT DOUBLE SPRINGS ROAD
Hess reported the bridge at Double Springs Road has a "zero"
rating, meaning it cannot carry as much as three tons. He said
the City was in the process of installing temporary supports at a
cost of $1600. He said the bridge would eventually be eligible
for State funding to be rebuilt.
WASTEWATER USER CHARGE
Hess reported the State is mandating new requirements the City
must comply with by creating a "user charge ordinance" to keep
water and sewer rates in compliance with State and federal
legislation. Hess said the City Attorney would draft an
ordinance for the Board's consideration.
•
abizic
220.01
220.02
220.03
220.04
220.05
220.06
220.07
220.08
TRAFFIC LIGHT AT COURTHOUSE
July 21, 1987
221.01 Larry Froelich spoke on behalf of a "Courthouse Crosswalk Light
Committee". Froelich said in the past the Board approved the
installation of a traffic light, with the County and City
providing cost-sharing. Froelich said the County was unwilling
to provide any financial support for the traffic light. Froelich
said his committee is willing to raise $3600 of the cost, or
about 1/3 of the total amount needed.
221.02 Public Works Director Burch reported when the issue was first
raised the staff estimated the cost of installing the light would
amount to about $11,000. Burch said the City received no
response from the County on the proposal for a 50/50 cost sharing
arrangement between the City and the County. Burch said it could
take about two months to obtain the equipment if the Board
approves the installation.
221.03 Director Hess asked Burch for a recommendation. Burch responded
that the staff would like to see the light installed but feels it
would be fair for the City to bear only 50% of the cost.
221.04 Froelich asked if the original light at that location was removed
because of a new light which was installed to serve traffic to
the Hilton. He asked if the anyone representing the Hilton made
a contribution to that light. Director Hess told Froelich that
the light was installed because of the new County Jail, not
because of the Hilton, and that he was not aware of any
contribution by the County. Director Hess said he thought the
light was mandated by the State.
221.05 Traffic Superintendent Perry Franklin explained the Highway
Department has conducted a traffic count and issued a letter
stating a permit would be issued for a traffic light at the
Courthouse.
221.06 Froelich said $3600 could be raised in 30-45 days.
221.07 Director Bumpass moved the Board accept the offer from a citizens
group to raise $3600 for the traffic light. Director Kelley
seconded the motion.
221.08 In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Franklin said
the new light would be part of a coordinated system of other
lights on College Avenue.
221.09 Mayor Johnson asked if money was in the budget for the light.
Burch said funds would be available if they could be found in the
budget.
1
1
1
July 21, 1987
ALL
Burch pointed out that the staff only recommended the light as 222.01
being warranted if there could be a 50/50 cost sharing
arrangement.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
LITTER PICKUP PROGRAM
222.02
Hess reported the Public Service Litter Pickup Program was 222.03
discussed by the committee. He said only $1,000 of $1600
allocated was spent. He reported the committee voted unanimously
to support the program, with the Public Works Director to report
back to the Board in the future with a specific proposal.
PERSONNEL COMMITTEE
The Mayor reported the Personnel Committee report was postponed
until the next Board meeting.
PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE
222.04
The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Public Safety 222.05
Committee meeting of July 15.
SEAT BELT POLICY
Director Bumpass reported the committee discussed a Santa Fe seat
belt policy and a seat belt program which the committee
recommends the City adopt, as well as a voluntary program for
increased citizen participation to be administered through the
Police Department.
In answer to a question from the Mayor, Director Bumpass said the
committee would work with the Ozark Guidance Center on the Santa
Fe seat belt program. Bumpass said this program, as well as the
program to be administered by the Police Department, would be at
no expense to the City.
Bumpass moved the Board vote in favor of the seat belt program.
The motion was seconded by•Hess and, upon roll call, passed by a
vote of 7-0.
222.06
r..222.-07
222.08
July 21, 1987
BID AWARDS
223.01 The Mayor reported the staff recommends both bids for the
floating dock be rejected and the project be re -budgeted for
1988.
223.02 The Mayor reported the staff recommends the award of bid for a
sailboat pier to the lower of two bidders, Jack Burge
Construction, bidding $5,750, within budgeted funds of $6,000.
223.03 Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, moved the award of bid and
rejection of the bids recommended by staff. Upon roll call, the
motion passed, 7-0.
BID WAIVER
223.04 The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving competitive bidding
requirements and authorization to obtain informal quotations for
the purchase of an incinerator for animal disposal.
223.05 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time.
Director Bumpass, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading.
223.06 In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Budget
Coordinator Judy Huffaker said she anticipated quotes would be
received in the range of $20-30,000. The City Attorney told the
Board they could waive the bids if they believed the bidding
process would not be feasible. He added that the staff's
recommendation was based on the fact that the per -animal costs
quoted by the landfill would cost the City over $20,000 within a
very short time. It was clarified that after quotes are received
these would be brought before the Board for approval.
223.07 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The City Attorney read
the ordinance 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. 3280 APPEARS ON PAGE j97 OF ORDINANCE AND
RESOLUTION BOOK X XiV
1
T.
1
n
FIRE TRUCK FINANCING
July 21, 1987
The Mayor introduced a recommendation from the Acting City 224.01
Manager concerning the financing of a fire truck for the Fire
Department. The Mayor reported bid was awarded at the last Board
meeting, contingent upon a financing package.
Acting City Manager Linebaugh explained the staff attempted to 224.02
obtain a lease -purchase agreement offered by the company to whom
the bid was awarded, but the company withdrew its offer.
Linebaugh said the staff discovered in checking with other places
that they would not be able to obtain such an agreement because
of a Pulaski County case. Linebaugh recommended the money be
borrowed internally over a three-year period, with one fund
paying interest to another fund.
Director Kelley asked why the City would charge interest to 224.03
itself. Linebaugh said this would be done in fairness to the
funds. He said the staff had not yet decided from which fund the
money would be borrowed.
Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, moved the recommendation. 224.04
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
OTHER BUSINESS
CITY VS. HORN
The Mayor asked the Board to make a decision on the settlement 224.05
offer in City vs. Kenneth Horn, concerning three acres south of
the Airport. She explained the City's appraisal was $60,000, but
attorney for Horn has submitted a $77,000 settlement offer.
The City Attorney explained the project was federally financed
and any amount the City agrees to pay in excess of their
contribution would `have to be paid from City funds. He
recommended the City submit a counter offer. He said the
property owner's independent appraisal was $79,500.
i
224.06 !i
.r
Director Bumpass moved the Board offer $69,900. The motion was 224.07
seconded by Lancaster who commented that, if the motion does not
pass, he would recommend the City go to court
In answer to a question from Director Hess, McCord estimated 224.08.
costs of litigation, if the case were tried to a jury without an.
appeal, to be $2500-$3000.
4) 4 ) r
July 21, 1987
225.01 Director Hess said he would vote against the motion because he
felt it was undermining the City's appraiser. Hess commented
that anyone could get a higher appraisal.
225.02 The City Attorney informed the Board the case was set for trial
in December of this year.
225.03 Director Marinoni commented that every time appraisals come up
there are a wide variety of appraisals received. Marinoni said
he thought it should be up to the court to decide the issue.
225.04 Upon roll call, the motion failed, 2-5, Directors Lancaster and
Bumpass voting in favor of the motion, and Directors Johnson,
Martin, Kelley, Marinoni and Hess voting against the motion.
225.05 Director Bumpass said he thought this was the worst case the
Directors could have picked to make a stand like this, commenting
that they should have done this in Sweetser's case on Township
Road. He asked the City Attorney if a jury decided in favor of
the full amount of their appraisal, would the FAA pay for it.
The City Attorney said he thought so but the Airport staff should
check into that.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION ERROR
225.06 The City Attorney told the Board that on May 5th the Board
vacated a portion of East Avenue south of Archibald Yell,
reserving an easement. He said the legal description of the
easement was erroneous in the ordinance because he misunderstood
the amount to be reserved. He read, for the first time, an
ordinance to correct the error. 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. 3281 APPEARS ON PAGE /9P OF ORDINANCE AND
RESOLUTION BOOK 01t)
KLINGER VS. CITY
225.07 The City Attorney reported the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed
the Washington County Chancery Court's decision in the Klinger
case and held that the Arkansas competitive bidding statute
applies to contracts for professional services. McCord said this
was contrary to the prevailing view in other appellate
Jurisdictions but is now the Arkansas law. He said he would send
•
1
rtic
July 21, 1987
._6.01 the Board his analysis of that decision and its impact on future
professional services contracts and the pending contract for
archeological services.
DICKSON STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
226.02 Director Bumpass called the Board's attention to material they
received from the newly formed Dickson Street Central Business
Improvement District Commissioners. He announced that Carl
Collier was elected President of the group and the Board will be
contacted soon concerning proceeding with condemnation of
property around the Arts Center site.
226.03 Director Lancaster said he wanted to be sure the Arts Center
Council concurs with what's happening with the District, before
the Board is asked to condemn land for the project. The Mayor
said Frank Sharp (Arts Center Council President) told her the
Council would take the District's resolution and ask the
architect to review it in order to form a plan to move ahead with
construction.
26.04
i
INCINERATOR PROJECT DISCUSSION
Director Martin, in connection with recent publicity concerning
proposed new EPA guidelines, asked the staff to give the Board a
summary of whether these will affect the incinerator project,
what capital costs might be, as well as annual operating and
maintenance increases.
226.05 Acting City Manager Linebaugh said Project Director Louis Watts
has reviewed this information but was not present. Linebaugh
said he understood, from information obtained from HDR, that
adding the scrubber unit would cost approximately $2 million,
including additional operating and maintenance costs of $160,000
per year. He estimated this would mean an increase in debt
service of about $200,000 per year. He said this increase, plus
the additional $160,000 per year, would increase the tipping fee
about $10 per ton. He said it would mean an additional $1.40 per
month in 1990 for residential customers.
226.06 Director Martin said he thought it was important to find out
whether the proposed new guidelines will apply to the incinerator
project. He said his concerns about the incinerator project
have, from the very beginning, been economic. He said he voted
against remarketing the bonds because the likely project
economics were not acceptable for the ratepayers. He said he
found it more -difficult than ever to, in good conscience, proceed
blindly without re-examining some questions, in the face of a
potential massive increase.
2{'6
2'7
July 21, 1987
227.01 Director Martin moved the City Board direct its representatives
on the Authority to support an indefinite moratorium on
additional spending for the solid waste incinerator. The motion
was seconded by Kelley.
227.02 The Mayor asked what types of spending were being incurred now.
Linebaugh said he understood the Project Director was instructed
to proceed in developing their plan and spend costs for anything
that is not site-specific. He said about $4-6 million has been
spent on the project.
227.03 Martin said his proposal was nothing less than what the
Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce has requested and was consistent
with the School Board's request not to proceed with the project
at the Happy Hollow site.
227.04 Director Lancaster expressed opposition to the motion because the
State is on the verge of issuing a ruling on the air permit. He
added that neither the Chamber or the School Board has proposed
an alternative for dealing with solid waste.
227.05 The Mayor said she did not think it would put the project "too
much in the lurch" to hold off on doing any additional design
work until further information can be obtained as to whether or
not the scrubbers are going to be required.
227.06 Martin said he hoped that the community interest in the project
would provide an opportunity for the Board to engage in good,
healthy, open, bipartisan revisiting of assumptions to be sure
they are on firm environmental and economic ground. He suggested
the Board begin town forum -type discussions with balanced
presentations from both sides. He said he thought HDR was
engaged to evaluate all the potential sites but, after he left
the Authority meeting, the Authority voted to limit HDR to sites
in the area which had already been chosen.
227.07 Director Hess said he was willing to engage in open discussion
but thought it mandated there be people on both sides who want to
be open and fair. Hess said he has found that those people who
would like to discuss the project have already predetermined that
they are against the project. He said that after it was agreed
to look at new sites, at the feasibility of adding a scrubber,
and increasing the height of the stack, which will increase the
cost of the project, then the opponents objected to the expense
of the project.
227.08 Tiny Hamilton, citizen speaking from the audience, said that
three weeks ago a Senate committee held a hearing with the EPA
concerning guidelines for incinerators. He said it was said
there were no guidelines for municipal incinerators in the United
1
,.
1
1
July 21, 1987
State and will not be any until 1990 or 1991. He urged the Board
to find out if this information is correct.
Director Lancaster told the Board the EPA should be ruling on the
air permit for the Happy Hollow site in the next couple of days.
Director Marinoni asked if the motion could be tabled until a
ruling is received from EPA.
In answer to a question from the Mayor, the City Attorney
explained the air permit is issued by the Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology in accordance with the Arkansas Air Quality
Act and implementing regulations """He said he understood there
were no current EPA regulations the project must comply with. He
said he understood the air permit is to be issued this week and
that there is a challenge period.
Director Martin asked the City Attorney if he had a chance to
look at a recent publication from the EPA concerning proposed
guidelines. McCord said he saw a written announcement of a
previous oral announcement of a proposed rulemaking by EPA the
affect of which he did not know. He said Louis Watts, project
director, could address the question more authoritatively.
Director Hess asked if a moratorium on spending would stop HDR in 228.05
the middle of their study. The City Attorney said there was a
contract with HDR and their document is to be submitted by the
end of the week. McCord said he understood the motion was for a
moratorium on the construction contract, not on HDR's consulting
contract.
228.01
228.02
228.03
228.04
The Mayor said she would second Director Marinoni's. motion to 228.06
table for the reason that she believed Louis Watts should be
present to answer questions. Upon roll call, the motion passed,
4-3, Directors Martin, Kelley and Bumpass voting in the minority.
Director
scheduled
meeting.
Lancaster suggested a meeting of the Authority be 228.07
for Louis Watts to be present rather than a Board
5 Y
f -
t.
The City Attorney asked if Watts should send a memorandum out to 228.08
the Authority: Directors regarding the recent EPA announcement and
ramification on the project.
Director Bumpass asked the City Attorney whether he or any other ..::228.09
Directors have exposure for personal liability, in light of
allegations which have been made of malfeasance and spending
money inappropriately in pursuing this project because of the
knowledge of changes by EPA and not calling a moratorium.
2 _'9
July 21, 1987
BOARD COMMITTEES
229.01 Director Kelley said he has been greatly concerned over the past
few weeks about the amount of time the Board spends at City
offices waiting on committee meetings to begin. He said he
thought the committee system could work and should work but it
doesn't work.
229.02 Kelley moved that the Board discontinue its committee assignments
and move toward a Board agenda meeting on off Wednesdays to take
up business which needs to be brought before the Board, in the
hope of moving regular Board meetings along in a more expedient
manner. The motion was seconded by Director Martin.
229.03 The Mayor expressed a preference for waiting until the new City
Manager is hired and can make a recommendation on the matter.
229.04 Director Hess said he thought Kelley's idea had merit but he
agreed with the Mayor. Hess said he would like to see the staff
assume more of the things that are now being presented to the
Board.
229.05 Kelley said he thought too much was being put on the Board
members and he agreed staff needs to take more responsibility.
Kelley said the problem was the Board needed to allow the staff
to take that responsibility. Kelley said he would rather not
wait for the new City Manager, and suggested the Mayor run the
agenda meeting.
229.06 Director Lancaster said he'd like to wait until the Board finds a
City Manager to tell them what the City ought to be doing. He
said the Board is being too much of a City Manager, that the City
needs a City Manager to run the City and a Board that sets
policy.
229.07 Director Martin said he thought Kelley's suggestion addresses
what the Board is currently doing, in that most of the Board now
attends committee meetings. He said an important aspect of an
agenda meeting is to allow the public know what the key issues
will be at the next Board meeting. Martin said it is up to the
Board to decide how to organize itself, irrespective of what the
City Manager thinks.
229.08 Director Bumpass spoke in favor of Kelley's motion, commenting
that the Board should try agenda meetings for six months.
229.09 Director Hess said he has yet to see only the committee members
at a committee meeting, commenting that the Board does not use
its own process. Hess said, however, that he worried the agenda
meeting will make the Board meeting a "rubber stamp".
1
tie
I!
r
July 21, 1987
Director Lancaster stated he was going to abstain because it was
not going to work.
Upon roll call,:tiie motion passed, 4-2-1, Directors Johnson and
Marinoni voting '`..in the minority and Director Lancaster
abstaining. •
•A Board agenda meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, June 29 at
8:30 a.m.
CABLE COMMITTEE
Director Hess suggested the Board appoint a three-person
committee consisting of John Watkins, Scott Linebaugh and Jim
McCord to comprise a negotiating team to negotiate with Warner
Cable.. Hess said the Mayor suggested if the Board has any input
for the committee they submit it to Acting City Manager Scott
Linebaugh. The Mayor recommended the committee hold a public
hearing to get community input to Warner Cable's proposal.
It was so moved by Hess, and seconded by Martin. 230.05
23 0
230.01
230.02
230.03
230.04
Director Bumpass said it would not be fair to give the committee
this charge and let them operate in a vacuum. He said he would
prefer for - them to identify points and survey Board members
individually to ask their opinion.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 230.07
230.06
•
MINUTES
The minutes of the July 7 and July 13 meetings were approved as
distributed.
- ADJOURNMENT
230.08
The meeting was adjourned at about 12:08 a.m. 230.09