Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-02-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held.on Tuesday, February 2, 1988 in the Directors' Room of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Johnson; Directors Bumpass, Lancaster, Martin, Kelley, Marinoni and Hess; City Manager Pennington, City Prosecutor Jones, City Clerk McWethy, Department Directors Coates and Linebaugh, members of the press and audience ABSENT: City Attorney McCord CALL TO ORDER • 6 The Mayor called the meeting to order, with seven Directors present. She 55.1 asked for a moment of silence. SPECIAL ELECTION The Mayor introduced an ordinance calling a special election for March 8, 1988 on the question of constructing a 150 -ton per day mass burn incinerator to dispose- of solid waste, containing estimated dollar figure increases in sanitation rates. At the request of the Mayor, City Prosecutor Terry Jones read the ordinance for the first time. • The Mayor asked Administrative Services Director Linebaugh for the estimated dollar figures to be contained in the ordinance. Linebaugh recommended the Board use a figure which would reflect a time period up to the year 2010, assuming June abandonment of the project. The Mayor expressed a preference - for using a figure which would reflect a ten-year time period, commenting that this would be the amount of time that the bond holders could call the bonds. Linebaugh explained that, on the landfill and a June abandonment of the project, rates would be accelerated an additional amount to get a ten- year pay off. He said the project can be paid off over the 25 -year term of the bonds. He suggested, to spend the least amount of money on the project, sanitation rates be raised the additionalamount shown in the Coopers and Lybrand study, in order to pay it off in ten years. Johnson said she thought voters needed to know "they're not getting a free ride." She said the plant will have to be paid off as quickly as possible. Linebaugh said he recommended using a dollar figure which reflects a time period up to the year . 2010, the .year where Coopers and Lybrand stopped their report. Director Marinoni said he thought in comparing the difference in the rates, the amortization should be for the same length of time, whether the project 55.2 55.3 55.4 February 2, 1988 is dropped or not. Director Martin agreed with the approach suggested by Marinoni. 56.1 Director Lancaster moved that dollar figures be inserted in the ordinance as recommended by Linebaugh. Linebaugh asked the Board to decide whether to use "the base case" or "the additional investment". He said the additional investment included the stack height and other pollution control equipment, and would amount to a rate of $10.58 if the project is built. He said June abandonment of the project would mean a rate of $7:90. 56.2 Director Marinoni moved an amendment, after "The Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority has contracted for the construction of a 150 ton per day mass burn incinerator to dispose of solid waste and has issued $22,405,000 in revenue bonds" to add "and up to an additional $5 million due to delays and environmental safeguards". 56.3 Linebaugh said the additional investment package has a bond issue of about $3.4 million which he said does not include any funding for road costs. 56.4 Johnson, with Marinoni in agreement, suggested the wording as moved by Marinoni be changed to "and including up to an additional $3 million for project delays and additional environmental safeguards." Marinoni so moved, seconded by Lancaster. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 56.5 Director Martin, seconded by Bumpass, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7- 0. Jones read the ordinance for the second time. Director Bumpass, seconded by Lancaster, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Jones read the ordinance for the third time. 56.6 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak on the question of whether or not to call an election. She asked citizens of Fayetteville to speak first. 56.7 Joe Robson, resident of Fayetteville, said if dollar figures are going to be used, people should know those figures were generated from a report which he said was based on a financial forecast and assumptions provided by staff and management of the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority. He said the assumptions had some reasonable basis but at the same time the report said "there will usually be differences between forecasted and actual realities because events and circumstances will not occur as expected and those differences may be material." "If additional significant delays are encountered the likelihood of completing the facility and commencing operations on schedule decreases and the validity of this forecast would be impaired." The Mayor said the City Board and Authority is not capable of generating those assumptions and that was the reason they paid $40,000 for the Coopers and Lybrand assumptions. Robson said he was critical of the report, thought the agreement entered into had a lot of problems and thought 1 February 2, 1988 the City was going to suffer because of that. He said it was unfair to the ratepayers to put a dollar amount on the ballot which has nothing to do with reality. He said he thought it was a misrepresentation of what was going to happen over the next 25 years. Director Marinoni suggested Robson had no more evidence to verify the figures were wrong than he had evidence to verify that they are right. Marinoni said the fact that $40,000 was spent to come up with the figures should be•some evidence. Director Bumpass asked Robson if he were voting would he vote not to include rates, just the issuance of the additional bonds, in the explanatory paragraph of the ballot. Robson said he would like to leave off the dollar amounts. Vicky Kelley, resident of Fayetteville, proposed the vote be allowed, commenting that a mistake has been made. She said with thevote, the project can stop now. She said she didn't mind spending her money, commenting that we all pay for mistakes. She said "don't ask me to do this" (setting a dollar bill on fire). Leonard Ostendorf, resident of Zion Road, said he didn't intend to take one of the Directors into the voting booth with him. He said that was exactly what was happening when you put "a bunch of gobbledygook" on the ballot that is designed to swing your vote one way or the other. He said "why=can't we be simple." Joe Alexander, resident of Fayetteville, said that the ballot was worded so that just residents of Fayetteville would vote. He said the proposed incinerator site was outside the City limits and it seemed to him people outside the City should be able to vote on the question. The Mayor explained that the City Board can only pass an ordinance to allow citizens. of Fayetteville to vote, that the Quorum Court is responsible for the county - residents,.. and the City of West Fork is responsible for the West Fork residents. Candice Marie, citizen of Fayetteville, spoke in support of using easy to understand language on the ballot.. She said it was confusing to read a long ballot with figures and try to make a decision. Larry Froelich, acting Chairman of the Association to Fight the Incinerator, said the group is in favor of an election and would rather have the explanatory language than no election at all. He asked if there was.a rule requiring. that the proposed explanatory language be attached to the issue. He said there was a wide range of facts and figures associated with the project and he asked why these particular figures are being chosen, commenting that there is no way those figures are going to be guaranteed. Director Martin said it was surprising that there is an implication that. including figures would 'skew the. results: of the' election one way or the other. He said that was never the intention, but the intention was to be •as forthcoming to the public as possible. He said the figures are clearly 57.1 57.2 57.3 57.4 57.5 57.6 57.7 v February 2, 1988 described as estimates. He said he supported the fullness of disclosure, as a matter of letting people know the issue is not a matter of "no costs versus a lot of costs". 58.1 Froelich said his group does not question intentions. He said it was clear the City Board has been acting out of high concern for the community, and the motivation to do something better with our trash has been a factor in the Board's actions. He said he thought the inclusion of the figures makes them seem to be facts when inherently they are only a best case scenario. Martin reminded Froelich that the figures are labeled as estimates. 58.2 Froelich asked if the explanatory paragraph could show the present sanitation rate of $5.50 per month, so that people can see how much the rate would go up under both scenarios. Hess asked if it would be clearer if the ordinance state the rates would be increased from $5.50 to $7.90 and from $5.50 to $10.58. Bumpass asked if there was confusion over the language "will be increased by an estimated $7.90 per month" in the ordinance. Froelich said that his group was not against figures, dust would like to have firmer figures. Hess asked if the language should actually read "increased to an estimated $7.90...". Marinoni suggested the $5.50 rate could be added to the wording 58.3 Dr. Jim Tinnin, resident of Fayetteville, asked if the additional $3 million in bonds would include the costs of constructing a new road. The Mayor said that figure did not include road improvements. He asked who would pay for the costs of the road. The Mayor said the issue had not been addressed. Tinnin said part of the worst case scenario should include expenses which have not been addressed. In answer to Tinnin, the Mayor said the sanitation rates could be more than $10.58. Tinnin said he thought that was why the figures were misleading. 58.4 It was moved by Martin and seconded by Marinoni to amend the ordinance to change "by an estimated" to "to an estimated". Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. 58.5 Ruth Collier brought a plastic bag of garbage to the podium. Emptying the bag of its contents, she spoke about how the items in the bag could be recycled. Collier said she thought our landfills would last until the year 2000 if people recycled their garbage. She said, whether or not she is elected to the Quorum Court, she intends to work on a regional waste management plan. She said the City Board was not managing the City's waste, it was simply wasting it. She said the reason recycling did not work in Fayetteville was because it was not supported or ever offered to people as a service. 58.6 Candice Marie asked why the explanation on the ballot could not include figures on the cost to recycle garbage and the revenue which could be generated from recycling. She asked if the citizens could not present the City Board with facts and figures and have them considered just as valid as the Coopers and Lybrand estimates. Johnson said she thought the Board would , February 2, 1988 consider any of that information. Candice Marie suggested the ballot also include information on how to recoup money which has already been spent on the incinerator. Director Hess said when the original wording was being considered he suggested the ballot contain wording to get feedback on whether or not people would be in favor of mandatory recycling. Director Bumpass, seconded by .Kelley, made a motion to amend the ordinance to strike the explanatory language and simply .leave Section 2 with the "for or against." Upon roll call, the motion failed, 3-4, Director Bumpass, Martin and Kelley voting for the motion and Directors Johnson, Lancaster, Marinoni and Hess voting against the motion. Ron Harrell, resident of Washington County, asked if it was guaranteed that sanitation rates will not exceed $10.58 per .month. The Mayor said that rate was an estimate. Harrell said he thought the figures were misleading. .He added that the Coopers and Lybrand's study made no provision for salvage value of equipment already purchased, and that road construction was not addressed. He said these facts should be listed on the ballot. Director Johnson noted that additional wording had been added to the end of the first sentence of the explanatory paragraph to state "...including up to an additional $3 million for project delays and additional environmental safeguards." She said the rates would be increased to an estimated17.90 if the incinerator is not constructed and to an estimated $10.58 if the incinerator is constructed. 59.1 59.2 59.3 City Prosecutor Jones told the Board the $3 million figure should actually 59.4 be $3.88 million. Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin, moved to amend $3 million to read, 59.5 $3.88 million to accurately reflect the costs to be incurred. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-1, Hess in the minority. 59.6 ORDINANCE NO. 3324 APPEARS ON PAGE 02,?, OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK xX ( ✓ Hess said he believed the primary motivation for considering. the ordinance was an atuempt for the Board to place itself in a "no lose" situation. He said he didn't think it was the Board's position, when it is dealing with a "hot potato that is burning our hands", to throw that potato in the lap of the citizens where it can scald their legs. He said he felt people who voted for him wanted him to remain true to his convictions. He said his instincts tell him this is not the right thing to do. Johnson said she thought it has become apparent that the Board is really 'not sure whatthe will of the City of ,Fayetteville is and what position the voters want the Board to take on the issue. She said she did notbelieve the Board was passing a hot potato to the voters, but believed that the • 59.7 59.8 it v February 2, 1988 controversy over the issue has clouded other issues the city has to deal with, and has caused dissension among the Board members. She said she thought this had caused a questioning in the community of other decisions the Board faces every day. She said, if the incinerator issue passes, the Board will be diligent in seeing that final permits are issued and ground is broken. She said, if the issue fails, the Board will get the city out of the project as quickly as it possibly can. She said she thought the thing the City Board was most concerned with was in best protecting the interests of the city and the citizens of Fayetteville. 60.1 Recess at 8:55 p.m./Reconvene at 9:10 p.m. 60.2 Mayor Johnson asked that the Board consider an appropriation from the budget for an informational campaign on the election issue, with information to be developed by city staff. Director Marinoni asked what would be done with the $1500 already allocated. Johnson said those were Resource Recovery Authority funds. Kelley asked what a normal amount would be for the City to expend on an educational program. Johnson said about $2,000 has normally been appropriated. Kelley asked what is done with the money. Johnson said facts are presented to the voters by way of mailouts. She said newspaper coverage was bought prior to the sales tax election. Kelley asked if the Board would approve copy prior to its use. Linebaugh said he thought it was for the sales tax election. 60.3 Director Marinoni, seconded by Lancaster, moved to allocate $2,000 for promotion of the project. With Johnson correcting him, Marinoni changed his motion to state the allocation would be for an information campaign. 60.4 Fran Alexander, speaking from the audience, suggested the Board allocate the same amount for education which they used when they sold the bonds. 60.5 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. REZONING APPEAL 60.6 The Mayor introduced an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission regarding denial of Rezoning Petition R87-29; tabled at the January 5th meeting and left on first reading at the January 19th meeting. 60.7 The Mayor explained the petitioner, Pat Pinnell, requested rezoning of 0.18 acre from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to R-2 "Medium Density Residential, located on the south side of the west end of Rutledge Lane. 60.8 Eddie Pinnell was present to speak on behalf of Pat Pinnell. He said he talked with the property owner to the east, Lois Hawkins, who he said had no complaint. He said she was the only property owner on the block, on the west side of Rutledge Lane. In answer to a question from the Mayor, he said the intent was to use Velda Court as an entrance to Lot 13, rather than Rutledge Lane, so as not to disturb the subdivision area. He said a major February 2, 1988 concern of Larry Wood and the Planning Commission was that there was no fire. protection for the Rutledge subdivision. He said they plan to extend the fire plug at the time of gaining a building permit. Director Martin, seconded by Marinoni, moved that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on its second reading. Pinnell noted that the Planning Commissioners were polled again on the issue, following the offer the petitioner made to extend fire protection and provide access from Velda Court. It was noted that the poll resulted in four commissioners in favor of the rezoning, four against, and one absent. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Prosecutor Terry Jones read the ordinance for the second time. Director Martin, seconded by Kelley; made a. motioh to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Bill Bracey told the Board the rezoningwould constitute an intrusion into an R-1 zone and, for that reason, was denied by the Planning Commission. He said he was representing Norman Gabbard who owns eight homes (zoned R-1) immediately to the west of Pinnell's property. He said the rezoning would fly in the face of the city's comprehensive plan, would result in increased fire hazards and public safety problems. He said Gabbard had no problems with the proposed access but would request the cost be borne by Pinnell and not the City, and that it be up to standards. He asked the Board to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the rezoning. Director Martin expressed confusion about Bracey's statement that Gabbard's property was zoned R-1. Martin said the Planning Consultant's zoning report indicates the property to the west was zoned A-1 and C-2. Bracey said the city's .zoning map was incorrect. Johnson asked Gabbard what was north and south of his houses do Velda Court. Gabbard said there was residential development on the north and south, although it was commercial on the highway. Bracey said he and . Mr.. Gabbard were not notified of the agenda, but saw it advertised in the newspaper. Pinnell said the intent is to build apartments an Lot 13 as a buffer to the C-2 zoning to the south. Director Marinoni asked Gabbard how` it would affect him if the Board stipulated that access would have to be from Rutledge instead of Velda Court Gabbard said he would prefer access from Rutledge. Marinoni asked Pinnell how it would affect him if the Board granted rezoning to R-1.5 instead of R-2. Pinnell said, with that zoning, he couldn't afford to extend the fire protection. Marinoni said, in view of the fact Pinnell's building plans are for a year or two in the future, he thought it would make G 61.1 61.2 61.3 61.4 61.5 61.6 61.7 61.8 61.9 61.10 February 2, 1988 more sense if Pinnell would request rezoning of several of the lots, commenting that would establish a trend in the neighborhood. He said a fourplex on one lot among residential homes seemed out of character to him. 62.1 Director Martin quoted from Planning Commission minutes of December 14, 1987: 62.2 In answer to a question from Commissioner Dow, Mr. Wood said the General Plan recommended the R-2 District for most of the area with the exception of the face of Old Farmington. 62.3 Bracey said Wood was either not telling the truth or was not privy to data he (Bracey) had been provided. 62.4 Upon roll call, the motion to place the ordinance on third reading passed, 6-1, Director Lancaster voting in the minority. Jones read the ordinance for the third time. 62.5 Hess said it might be a satisfactory compromise for both parties if the Board allowed access through Rutledge Lane with the provision that there would be improved fire protection. He said he thought that would protect Velda Court. 62.6 Director Bumpass said if Larry Wood changed his recommendation, it was for a good reason, because his recommendations are generally very conservative. He said Wood generally tries to protect the overall plan. Bumpass said he would vote for the rezoning. 62.7 Pinnell told the Board that he would prefer to provide the access from Velda Court 62.8 Marinoni asked if the Board could stipulate that the access be from Rutledge Lane instead of Velda Court, if R-2 zoning is approved. He said he would oppose the rezoning if the access is from Velda Court 62.9 Director Bumpass asked for the meaning of the phrase in Larry Wood's latest recommendation, "restrict access to Velda Court". City Prosecutor Jones said he thought that meant the access is restricted to Velda Court, that access goes to Velda Court. 62.10 Hess asked how long the petitioner would have to wait to petition again for a rezoning of his property if this request is denied. The Mayor said the petitioner would have to wait one year. 62.11 Marinoni suggested the ordinance be amended to stipulate access be from Rutledge Lane. Johnson said she did not think the Board could make that a stipulation in a rezoning, but could ask the petitioner to include that in a Bill of Assurance. Marinoni asked Pinnell if he would make that concession. Pinnell said that would go against everything he told the woman living in the only house in the subdivision. February 2, 1988 UL Director Bumpass asked Pinnell if he was requesting the Board table the 63.1 request until Pinnell can visit with his neighbor. Bumpass, seconded by Marinoni, moved to table. Upon roll call, the motion 63.2 passed, 7-0. REZONING/LONGVIEW STREET The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning .079 acre north of Longview, 63.3 approximately 335 feet west of "Highway 471, from R-1 "Low Density Residential" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial". The Mayor reported the Planning Commission recommended rezoningonly the 63.4 east 110 feet of the property to C-2. Terry Jones read the ordinance for the first time. 63.5 Director Bumpass commented that Planning Consultant Wood had recommended the remaining portion of the property be rezoned to R-0. Johnson reported that, although a motion was made at the Planning Commission meeting to rezone, the remaining 95' to R-0, that motion died for lack of a second. Carolyn Miller, resident of Longview, showed the Board slides of houses on Longview. Miller said her concern is that, since LewisFord owns a considerable amount of her street anyway, every time another of their lots is zoned C-2, it gets closer and closer to the residents on Longview. She said she feared property values would go down, and the aesthetic values of the neighborhood will go down to nothing. • Director Martin said one criteria for deciding whether to extend a certain type of zoning is how extensive that zoning is in the area He said the zoning map shows the C-2 zoning has a well-established boundary. He said there was some logic to lining up the west end of the C-2 zoning. He added that Larry Wood's recommendation for R-0 on the west end of the property was an attemptto provide a buffer. Johnson pointed out there was not a petition to -rezone any of the property to R-0. She told the Board the recommendation before them is to zone 790 Longview to C-2. Director Hess asked Tom Lewis if he intended to appeal the decision not to rezone 792 Longview. Lewis saidhe was representing the owner of the property, Lewis Brothers Leasing Company. He said he also represented Lewis Chrysler Plymouth Dodge, a new car dealership. He said the original request was to rezone both lots to C-2. He said Wood recommended the R-0 buffer zone between the residential and commercial. Lewis said that was not what he wanted but was something he could live with. Lewis added that the Planning Office would address the question of fencing at the time the large scale development building plans are submitted. He said he would be receptive to any kind of landscaping and screening, and obviously planned to 63.6 63.7 63.8 63.9 February 2, 1988 fence the property for security purposes. Lewis requested the remaining 95' of the property be zoned R-0. 64.1 The Mayor said, with the City Attorney being out of town, the Board can only consider at this time the recommendation of the Planning Commission to rezone 790 Longview to C-2. She said Mr. Lewis could come back at the next meeting to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on 792 Longview. 64.2 Director Martin asked if the ordinance could be amended on its second or third reading to change the description of the property. The Mayor said she thought two ordinances would be necessary, because one would be an approval of the Planning Commission's recommendation and the other would be an appeal. 64.3 Director Marinoni, 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. Jones read the ordinance for the second time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Marinoni, 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. Jones read the ordinance for the third time. 64.4 Scott Crook, resident on Longview, said what hadn't been addressed was the problem of continuing encroachment off the highway. He said there seemed to be an attempt to line up the C-2 zoning in a straight line. He said most of the residents moved to the area because of the zoning, the isolation and the fact that there are no through streets. Crook said no one has yet said where the stopping point will be. Crook asked for some resolution from the Board that there is a stopping point and where it is, and that the Board will net consider further encroachment. 64.5 Albert Erbach, resident of 767 Longview, said Lewis told the Planning Commission he intended to tear down the house and make a parking lot. He said he would have a big parking lot to look at from his front window. 64.6 The City Manager told the Board an appeal has not been filed. He said the issue before the Board is the Planning Commission's recommendation to rezone 110' to C-2. He reminded the Board that R-0 was not part of the Planning Commission's recommendation. 64.7 Martin said, because the absence of the City Attorney has precluded the Board from amending the ordinance, Lewis should be entitled to come to the next meeting with no question of time running out on his appeal. Pennington said Lewis should have been notified of his right to appeal and apologized that that did not happen. 64.8 Hess said because Lewis was not informed of his right to appeal he should be allowed to appeal the decision on 792 Longview. Hess asked Lewis if he would consider putting in landscaping or screening along Longview to inhibit the view. February 2, 1988 Lewis asked if he should go back to the Planning Commission regarding the rezoning of the remainder of the property. . Johnson told Lewis to file his appeal with the City Board. Pennington recommended the Board take action to waive the requirement on the time period for filing.an appeal, in case the time period will have run out before the -next meeting. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3326 BOOK XXf V APPEARS ON PAGE A 9 3 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION It was moved by Hess and seconded by Kelley to preserve Lewis' right to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission on the property at 792 Longview. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. Carolyn Miller said the last thing that was said at the Planning Commission meeting was to inform Mr. Lewis that,he could appeal the decision. SIGN APPEAL/124 WEST MEADOW The Mayor introduced an appeal from the literal provisions of the Sign Ordinance for a sign at 124 West Meadow, for Seven Hills Realty. She said the petitioner, Melanie Stafford, requests permission to keep an existing six square foot freestanding sign set back nine feet from Meadow Street and five feet from Church Avenue. She said the requirement was a minimum 15 foot setback from right-of-way. The petitioner was not present. Sign Inspector Wilson told the Board the sign was erected before obtaining a 65.6 sign permit. He said at the time they obtained a permit he asked them to, move the sign back. He said the Police Department had to issue a citation before the sign was removed. He added that the sign permit has expired. G5 65.1 65.2 65.3 65.4 65.5 Marinoni noted that there was an additional sign on the building itself. Pennington told the Board that the sign has been removed but the posts remain. Marinoni said he thought the petitioner could install the sign at the required 15 foot setback. Wilson said that may be rather close to the house. - Hess suggested the Board tour the property before making a decision. Hess, seconded:by Bumpass, moved to table. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7`,` UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY/ROLLSTON The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure at 325 Rollston Avenue. - Property owner Wilkerson was present. The Mayor reminded the Board 65.7 65.8 65.9 February 2, 1988 the property was discussed in June of 1987 at which time Wilkerson was given until the end of the year to bring the structure up to Code. 66.1 Wilkerson showed a drawing of his building plan to the Board. Director Kelley asked when construction would start on the plan. Wilkerson said he would work on the project on weekends. He said he intended to put up textured paneling on the present site to improve the looks. He said he was in the process of installing 2' x 6' walls now. 66.2 Director Lancaster told Wilkerson that in June of 1987 he assured the Board the work would be complete and in place by the end of the year. Lancaster said in his estimation it looks worse now than it did in June. Wilkerson said he had removed debris from the lot. In answer to a question from Lancaster, Wilkerson said his school, "Fall Creek School of Design", was incorporated. 66.3 Director Hess said Wilkerson in June said he would have the roof completed in September. Wilkerson said removing the debris became a larger project than he realized. Hess said he had viewed the property and there is no roof. Wilkerson said he intended to build up the walls and build a flat roof so it will look good and come up to Code. Lancaster asked Wilkerson if the City Inspector had checked the building he owned next door. Wilkerson said there hasn't been any reason to check it. Lancaster said he might suggest the Inspector check that building also. 66.4 Wilkerson said he didn't see that a time frame was all that important. He said he would have his project done before the Arts Center is done. Wilkerson told the Board Tom Pearson's property in the same area has fallen in and has been in ruin for 15 or 20 years, and the City hasn't forced him to do anything. 66.5 Director Martin asked Wilkerson how long it might be before a view - obstructing wall could be constructed to buffer the appearance of the inner construction. Wilkerson said he had materials to do that, and the time would be dependant upon the weather. 66.6 Wilkerson said there was other property in the area in the same condition. Lancaster said the City was working on those and taking them to court. 66.7 Martin asked Wilkerson if he could construct the wall in three months. Wilkerson said he thought he could. 66.8 Director Hess asked Wilkerson if he could submit a plan to the staff for a course of action on the property. 66.9 Director Lancaster said, in his mind, Wilkerson would come out better financially if he would just "doze the whole works out of there" and sell the property. T February 2, 1988 It was clarified that the Board had waived the necessity of a new building permit. Hess said the original building permit had lapsed eight months previous to the time in June when Wilkerson came before the Board. He commented that an additional seven months had gone by and in his .mind there hadn't .been very much progress at all. Hess said he could not give Wilkerson an open-ended time frame in which to build the project. Hess said there had to be a limit"on the amount of time. Wilkerson said he would submit a plan within the next two weeks and adhere. to the plan. Lancaster said, as far going to have to be in writing and, to remove everything there." as. he was concerned, any plans were if that's not. done, "we'll go to court Hess moved to table the ordinance until the next agenda meeting, subject to Wilkerson submitting a specific plan in writing as to how he will proceed with the construction of the project and the time that he intends to take for each phase. Hess and Martin agreed that Wilkerson should submit his plan to the staff. • Director Marinoni said he thought the ordinance should be passed and.the lot cleaned before Wilkerson builds a building.- Director Lancaster requested that the ordinance be placed on the next agenda. Director Kelley said he didn't think the Board should get into the business of evaluating Wilkerson's construction plans but instead should get a recommendation from the staff as to whether any progress has been made. Director Johnson said, from her point of view, the city could have done Wilkerson a favor by removing the structure for him last June. Wilkerson said that would have destroyed his privacy and his property. Lancaster requested the City Inspector inspect Wilkerson's other property. Director Bumpass seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5- 2, Directors Lancaster and Marinoni in the minority. DRIVEWAY EASEMENT • The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a 25' easement from the City of. Fayetteville to M. Carl and Paula A. Covey. The Mayor explained the Coveys would use the easement as an access driveway for their property adjacent to the City's water storage tank. • Director Bumpass, seconded by Martin „moved approval of the resolution. Carl Covey told the Board the easement would run along the east side of his property and is necessary for him to gain access to his back yard. *3 1' 67.1 67.2 67.3 67.4 67.5 67.6 67.7. 67.8 67.9 67.10 67.11 67.12 February 2, 1988 68.1 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 9-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK UTILITY EASEMENT 68.2 The Mayor introduced an ordinance vacating and abandoning a 15' east -west utility easement located between 2861 and 2933 South College Drive, in the Country Club Estates Addition. She reported all utilities have concurred and SWEPCO indicated a desire to retain a 7 1/2' north -south easement on the west side of both lots 68.3 Prosecutor Jones 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 Marinoni, 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. 3327 BOOK XX/ APPOINTMENTS APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 68.4 Director Kelley, Chairman of the Board Nominating Committee, reported the committee recommended the nomination of the following citizens to various citizen boards, committees and commissions: 68.5 Arts Center Council: Arts Foundation: Board of Adjustment: City Hospital Board: Parks & Recreation Advisory Board: Planning Commission: Advertising & Promotion Commission: 68.6 Director James Gilbreath Elaine Longer Deane Davenport Lewis Johnson James Vawter Andrew Lucas Beverly Melton Charlie Sego William Waite Fred Hanna Gerald Klingaman J. E. Springborn Nathan Combs Bumpass, seconded by Hess, moved the recommendation Nominating Committee. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. of the 1 February 2, 1988 UNSIGHTLY PROPERTY/COLLEGE AVENUE Mayor Johnson introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located at 617 North College Avenue. Public Safety Director Coates recommended the ordinance be left on first reading, as the owner of the property was weatherbound in Tulsa and could not be .present. He said the owner has approximately three potential buyers for the property. Jones read the ordinance for the first time. The .ordinance was left on first reading. AIRPORT ITEMS The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a one-year lease with Aero Tech Services, Inc. for advertising display space at the Fayetteville Airport, at a rate of $80 per month. 4 Director„Bumpass, seconded by Marinoni, moved the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 10-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK The Mayor introduced an ordinance amending the Code to amend flowage feei charged at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport; left on first reading on January 5 and tabled on January 19. Bumpass, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7- 0. Jones 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. Jones read the ordinance for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3328 APPEARS'ON PAGE on W OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK, XY, / v' BID WAIVER/LAB EQUIPMENT The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance waiving the requirement of competitive bidding and approval of a maintenance contract for the atomic absorption unit in the laboratory at the Fayetteville .wastewater treatment plant. C9 69.1 69.2 69.3 69.4 69.5 69.6 69.7 69.8 70 February 2, 1988 70.1 Jones read the ordinance for the first time. Di,rector 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 Marinoni, 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. 70.2 A citizen in the audience asked what an atomic absorption unit was. Plant Operations Manager Gary Vaughn explained it was an instrument used in the lab to measure parts per billion of heavy metals in molecular structures. 70.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3329 APPEARS ON PAGE 42,7 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XX0J BID WAIVER/ROAD GRADER 70.4 The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding and authorization to purchase a grader turntable from John Deere, Inc., at a cost of $6,277. 70.5 Jones 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 Martin, 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. 3330 APPEARS ON PAGE 3 G O BOOK xX/ V MUNICIPAL JUDGE SALARY OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION 70.6 The Mayor introduced a request from Municipal Judge Charles Williams for reconsideration of his 1987 salary. 70.7 Williams said he gave some figures to an expert at the University of Arkansas to study in relation to his salary (report from Dr. Taylor was distributed to the Board of Directors). Williams requested the Board approve the payment of the salary shown on page 38 of the 1987 budget ($40,200 including a $4500 cost of living increase). He said if his 1987 salary stayed at the $33,500 amount that would put his salary level below the level he was earning in 1981, according to Taylor's study. He said in six years there has been a 65% increase in the work load. February 2, 1988 71 Director Hess pointed out that Williams' salary had; by law, been capped at 71.1 $29,000 and has been at that level since 1984. In answer to a question from Director Martin, Scott that, when the $40,200 was placed in the 1987 budget, it to come back to the Board after changes were made on the and get approval for the wage. reads $40,200 if the position was did not happen in 1987. Linebaugh explained was with the intent Small Claims Court, He said the wording in the budget actually changed to full-time, which Linebaugh said Martin asked what percent of the full-time position did the $33,500 reflect. Linebaugh said he did not have that information right now, but the Judge has said he puts in about thirty hours per week. Williams said page 38 .of the budget contained $40,200 for the Municipal Judge and states this includes $4500 cost of living which would be granted when the State legislature increases maximum salary, and states an additional $6700 would be added in July to compensate a full-time judge position, bringing annual salary to $46,900. Williams said he understood that if his position became full-time, the Board would consider adding $6700 to the $40,200. Linebaugh said this was not policy followed in the past,, that past policy has been to place a figure in the budget which is the best estimate at the time. He said the $40,200 was for a full-time judge for the balance of the months left in 1987. Williams asked the Board to reconsider his request, commenting that only once in 11 years had he requested a raise from the Board. Director Martin asked if it would be possible for the Administrative Services Director to give the Board a review of what the statutory ceilings were on the judge's salary, analyze the work load as compared to others, and give the Board a recommendation. Martin so moved, seconded by Bumpass. Mayor Johnson said she believed that was what the Board had when they established the judge's salary. She said the judge was given ample opportunity to speak at the meeting where his 1987 salary was approved, but chose not to address the Board. Martin asked if the staff could dust off their 'recommendation at the next agenda meeting, and review the new information, specifically in response to the statutory levels from 1981 forward. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-2-1, Johnson and Hess voting against. the motion and Lancaster abstaining with the statement that "when all'this controversy came about I was neither on the Personnel Committee nor the Finance Committee". • 71.2 71.3 71.4 71.5 71.6 71.7 71.8 72 72.1 72.2 72.3 72.4 February 2, 1988 DICKSON STREET UPDATE Pennington reported he had met with U of A Chancellor Ferritor and Carl Collier relative to the Dickson Street Improvement District and the Arts Center. He said information from the District is expected to be brought to the Board at their next meeting, so that assessors can be appointed and the plans can be reviewed. Pennington said three sites have tentatively been selected and this information will be forthcoming to the Board. CITIZEN COMMENTS Speaking from the audience, a citizen asked that the Mayor and Director Lancaster write a letter of apology to Wayland Wilkerson for harrassment, intimidation and unethical behavior of a Director. Director Lancaster said the situation has gone on for two years and Wilkerson has been before the Board before with the same story. He said he was sorry but he didn't want to make an apology. MINUTES The minutes of the January 16 and January 19 meetings were approved as distributed. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 12:12 a.m.