Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, June 7, 1988 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the Fayetteville City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Johnson; Directors Marinoni, Hess, Lancaster, Martin and Kelley; City Manager Pennington, Assistant City Manager Linebaugh, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk McWethy; members of the press and audience ABSENT: Director Bumpass CALL TO ORDER L99.1 The meeting was called to order by the Mayor at 7:30 p.m. with six Directors present. The Mayor asked fora moment of respectful silence. CONSENT AGENDA L99.2 The Mayor introduced the following items included in the Consent Agenda: 199.3 Minutes of the May 17th Board meeting; 199.4 Fayetteville's participation in the "Santa Fe Seat Belt Challenge" for a period to end on January 1, 1990; 199.5 Award of Bid #839 for water line replacements on Rolling Hills Drive, Stagecoach Drive, Stanton Street, West Street and James Street to the low bidder, Sweetser Construction Company, bidding $90,202.50; 199.6 Award of Bid #840 for the purchase of traffic signs and posts to the low bidders meeting specifications, Vulcan Signs and PSM Distributing, bidding a total of $17,628; 199.7 Award of Bid #843 for the purchase of traffic signal poles and arms to the only bidder, Thornton Sales, Inc., bidding $9,538; 199.8 Award of Bid #836 and authorization to landfill services to the University of cq to the only bidder, N. W. Arkansas $2,123.33 for per month for services month for services to the City; execute a contract with sanitary Arkansas and City of Fayetteville, Waste Management, Inc., bidding to the U of A and $19,716.67 per 1 y3 June 7, 1988 4 200 Award of Bid #838 for'engineering services for relocation of water lines 200.1 and sewer encasements in the vicinity of new Highway 265 and Cato Springs Road, to Crafton, Tull, Spann and Yoe; Renewal of contract with the University of Arkansas for fire protection 200.2 services from July 1, 1988 to June 30, 1989, at a cost to the University of $32,476; Approval of concept plan for Gulley Park and proposed improvements to be 200.3 made in 1988, estimated to cost $6,500 and including (1) naming the park "Fred A Gulley Park:, (2) construction of a gravel base parking lot on park land off Country Way, (3) installation of 754' of chain link fence and a gate bordering Mrs. Gulley's property and park land, (4) establishment of a jogging/hiking/biking trail around the perimeter of the park, to be made of asphalt and wood chips, and (5) the investigation of securing an easement by the cul de sac off Creekwood to Township, to be used as a pedestrian walkway; Approval of an extension of the contract with Huber, Hunt and Nichols for 200.4 completion of construction of the wastewater treatment plant, from June 1, 1988 to July 1, 1988 for work that does not affect the operation of the plant; and Approval of a change order to the contract with Huber, Hunt and Nichols 200.5 for construction of the wastewater treatment plant for costs incurred to better plant systems. • It was moved by Martin and seconded by Marinoni to approve the consent agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0, Director Bumpass being absent. RESOLUTION NO. 39-88 APPEARS ON PAGE -- OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK RESOLUTION NO. 40-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK RESOLUTION NO. 41-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK ' RESOLUTION NO. 42-88 APPEARS.ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION. BOOK RESOLUTION NO. 43-88 APPEARS ON PAGE I OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK ASSESSMENTS/DICKSON STREET IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT The Mayor introduced an ordinance levying the assessment of benefits which will accrue to each lot containedin the Dickson Street Central Business Improvement • 200.6 200.7 N v :01.1 :01.2 !01.3 ?01.4 ?01.5 W1.6 201.7 201.8 June 7, 1988 District No. 1, due to the construction of improvements contemplated by the district. The City Attorney explained the ordinance was submitted by the attorneys for the improvement district and was formal action required by statute after appeals were heard recently by the Board. He said the ordinance would levy the assessments as adjusted by the Board of Directors and the Assessors, and provides that 8% would be collected annually which he said indicated about a 15 -year payout on the bonds. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance 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, 6-0. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the third and final time. Director Marinoni said the Board granted one reduction and asked that the other reductions in the ordinance be explained. City Attorney McCord told Marinoni the Board of Assessors had met with other appellants and reached agreements on several assessments, as reflected in the ordinance. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3351 APPEARS ON PAGE 333 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK REZONING/R88-8 The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning 9.74 acres located at the corner of Old Wire Road and Skillern Road, as requested by Bud Tomlinson and Sam Mathias, from A-1 "Agricultural" to R-1 "Low Density Residential." The Mayor reported the Planning Commission recommended the rezoning, 8-0. She noted the Board had first considered this at the May 17th meeting when several residents who could not be present at this meeting made comments. She said their comments were reflected in the minutes of that meeting. The City Attorney advised that, if the Board wanted to suspend the rules, the ordinance would not have to be read in full. He told the Board the ordinance had been left on first reading on May 17. 201.9 Director Marinoni, seconded by Martin, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Marinoni, 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. June 7, 1988 Director Martin said the Board had been advised of some criteria they may use to evaluate rezoning requests. He said one criteria was compatibility of the proposed development to the existing area and he said no one had been heard to say the density of four houses per acre is compatible with the semi -rural setting which exists in the area. He said that kind of R-1 zoning is not compatible with the area. He said other criteria to consider is whether a reasonable use is permitted to the property owners. He said the petitioners may build residential homes in the property while it is zoned A-1. He said he would oppose the rezoning. He said the City in the future will have some new zoning classification which would prevent residential construction in a less - dense environment than four to an acre. He said his opposition was based on his thinking that four houses per acre"is too dense. 202 202.1 Director'Marinoni asked if the Board was still within the ten-day appeal period 202.2 following the approval of the subdivision plat. The Mayor said the plat was approved conditioned upon the rezoning, so the appeal time would begin today, if the rezoning is approved. She said if the rezoning was denied, the plat would be denied. Director Marinoni said the request seemed logical to him and the issue was•what 202.3 the developer proposed to build. He said he thought the denial ought to come with the final plat rather than with the rezoning request. He said if the only way to stop the development was to deny the rezoning then he would be in favor of that. Director. Kelley asked the City Manager what density options might be'available 202.4 when. the new Code is adopted. Pennington said presently the consultants are proposing a low density of two units per acre, or 18,000 square feet of lot; and a second zone around 12,000 square feet per lot, or approximately 3 units per acre.. He said they may suggest a lot size of 20,000 square feet.. He said the consultants feel our zones are two small for a city of our size, and the density is surprisingly. large. He said they would recommend approximately three to five additional single-family residential zones, a townhouse zone, and an apartment zone. He said it would be a minimum of six to nine months before the zoning ordinance would be re -written. Director Kelley said he was there were other areas in the issue. of. compatibility. 4 still undecided.on the issue and said he thought 202.5 community on which the Board could argue the Director Martin said if the'development is permitted, there would be no future 202.6 hope because the four houses•to the acre would be there, but if the A-1 zoning remains, the petitioner could move towards more dense application of their land when the new zones are approved. 1 t Director Kelley said the petitioner .applied according to the rules of the 202.7 existing Code. Kelley said he thought.there would be a little bit of a problem in disapproving the plat. as presented. 6U0 June 7, 1988 :03.1 Director Hess said if the Board has a problem with the density, they have every legal and moral right to protect the integrity of the area. He said he had a problem with the density. !03.2 Martin said he was relying on the criterion of compatibility which he was not sure the Planning Commission addressed. !03.3 Hess said, although denial of the rezoning may damage the developer's plans in the short term, it won't hinder him from developing the property and making a reasonable profit. !03.4 Director Kelley asked if the petitioner receives a statement from the City telling him the plat must be designed to be compatible to the surrounding properties. The City Attorney said that was not a criterion of the subdivision regulations, but is one relevant factor in a rezoning decision. Kelley asked if the developer is notified of the criteria and how would a developer know when the City is going to change the rules. McCord said he didn't think it was a matter of changing the rules but was a matter of applying basic land use planning principles to any rezoning application and he thought the only time a developer can rely is once the ultimate decision is made by the Board. He said the decision now before the Board was not whether the preliminary plat should be approved but whether the rezoning should be approved. He said he advised the City recently that there is a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision saying a plat cannot be disapproved because the Planning Commission or the approving authority decides it just doesn't like the layout. He said if a subdivision plat meets all applicable regulations there is no discretion - it must be approved. He said a rezoning decision, on the other hand, has more discretion to be applied by the governing body, as long as the traditional and relevant land use principles are used and the decision is not arbitrary and capricious. He said the Arkansas Supreme Court had ruled that under a zoning ordinance a property owner is entitled to a reasonable use of his land but not the most profitable use of his land, and that Planning Commission recommendations, traffic considerations and neighborhood objections are relevant factors which must be weighed by the Board in reaching its final decision. 103.5 Petitioner Bud Tomlinson said they put together what they considered a feasible use of the property, the Planning Commission approved it 8-0, and Planning Consultant Larry Wood recommended it. He said in his view there must be a point where a developer can expect certain things of the City Board. He said these developers would get hurt because they bought land at a price they paid for subdividable, R-1 land, expecting the Board would do what they have always done. He said he didn't believe developers could keep coming before the Board and merely hope to get lucky and get approval, after investing money in engineers and in buying property. He said they consummated their deal with the owner between the time of Planning Commission approval and May 17 when they first came before the Board. He asked the Board to approve his request according to what is on the books now, and not according to what might happen in the future. June 7, 1988 204 Tomlinson said neither county nor city traffic records bear out the fact that. 204.1 the intersection is hazardous. He said the proposed density was not four houses per acre but 3.26. Tomlinson said he assumed the Board was getting good legal advice but he would 2042 like to test that, as he didn't really believe the Board could watch a subdivider spend his money and then succumb to political pressure. He said the property was now being used by local children's four -wheelers. He said he thought he had every right to ask the Board to approve the subdivision. Director Kelley asked Tomlinson if .he .would entertain any compromise in the 204.3 density of the development. Tomlinson said feasibility studies were done and they think the people who will live in the development will be "the salt of the earth" and not "second class citizens", and not a bit inferior to the citizens surrounding the property. Marinoni asked Tomlinson if there would be any compromise in scaling down the number of units per acre. He told Tomlinson if the rezoning were denied it would be a year before it could be brought back for rezoning. He told Tomlinson it might be a better compromise to reduce the number of houses per acre. Mayor Johnson said the Board would not discuss the plat but would only discuss the rezoning request. She said the only thing the Board could consider at this time was the potential development of four houses per acre. Director Lancaster said the question of whether or not to rezone the property 204.4 to R-1 was the only question which should have been considered. He said he thought it was contract zoning, and absolutelyillegal, to review the plat first on the basis of rezoning. He said he thought the process which was used was backwards and there was no way he could go with what's going on. He said he thought the whole thing was wrong. He said the zoning should have been decided first, and then whether the compatibility with the neighborhood fit the plat.. The City Attorney explained, that contract zoning was approval of a rezoning 204.5 application contingent upon the petitioner meeting certain requirements or restricting the use of the land in certain respects. He said that was not the situation here. He said the situation was that preliminary plat approval was contingent upon the rezoning;,approval.' He said that was not contract zoning. 'Tomlinson said the petitioners did not ask for .that, but it was suggested by city officials.. He said individual subdividers should not be expected to know the inner workings of the city•goveroment,` as to vrhat order the process should follow. 4 The Mayor asked if anyone present wished to speak against the rezoning. ,204.E Millard Blevins said he lived in the area,. and his house was the second one 204.7 built in the area 28 years ago. He said he would like to keep the area as it is now. He said he had a little over 3 1/2 acres. He said to his knowledge his is the only four -wheeler in the area, which he uses on his property to haul produce from his field to thefshed in front of his house. • • 05.1 June 7, 1988 Danny Wright said he owned property near the proposed development. He submitted a letter from Jack L. Perkins, a resident who was not able to be present. Wright said Perkins was not in favor of the rezoning. Wright said he thought if you bought property as A-1 and it doesn't get rezoned, sometimes you have to come back later on. He said if is rezoned, the area residents lose permanently; but if it is not rezoned, and new zones become available, there is a good opportunity there will be a new classification compatible with the neighborhood and still profitable for the petitioners. Wright said he bought his property 2 1/2 years ago. He said he bought it "like it is" and would like to see it stay that way. He said it took him two years to find an area that would be suitable to raise a family. He said it was a pretty part of Fayetteville that he would hate to see die out because some developers and investors want to maximize profits. Wright said he thought the developers could get a perfectly reasonable use from the property as it is now. Wright said there was a traffic problem at the intersection of Old Wire Road and Highway 265, with two dangerous 90 degree turns about 200 yards apart. Wright said one resident drew up a plat to show the compatibility of the planned development with the area around it. Wright showed this sketch to the Board. He said that the residents wish to preserve not only their investment but their lifestyle as well. !05.2 Van Bennett, residing at 3050 Old Wire Road, said he built a house in the area ten years ago. He expressed his opposition to the density of houses allowed in R-1, four houses per acre as opposed to 1 house on two acres under A-1 zoning. He said four houses per acre was not comparable with the surrounding neighborhood. He said most of the houses in the neighborhood were on three or more acre lots. He said many owners, prior to purchasing their property, understood that lots less than three acres would not be sold in the area. He said he expected, if the property were rezoned to R-1, it would be developed with lots which would not be even as wide as the length of the average house in the neighborhood. He said the development would draw from the area and not add to the area, and would be using the value of the surrounding property to make the lots in the development sell for a high price, while at the same time devaluing the surrounding property, and would act as a parasite on the neighborhood. He asked that the Board act to protect the residents and property owners of the area, and maintain the current zoning. He said they felt it was unfair to those who had already purchased property in the area to have the rules for development of the area change, especially since substantial, unalterable investments in the area have been made over the years. He said he thought the petitioners should have to show their request was the highest and best use for the property. He said the area has the potential for attracting purchasers who want large lots. He asked the Board to vote to maintain the current zoning status. ?05.3 Director Martin said understandings between land owners, such as that there would be no development on less than three acres, can't bind the City Board. ?05.4 Marita Lih, resident of 3200 Skillern, said continuity in neighborhoods results from building similar structures in the same area. She said these neighborhoods lend an aesthetic quality, a charm and a character to the city June 7, 1988 4Utt and, without this approach to development, we would just have one, big 206.1 homogenous city. She said her neighborhood is characterized by single family dwellings on small acreages and she believed the area was an endangered one for Fayetteville. She said she thought a need existed to preserve this area as it now exists for those who want to build in such an area, and the current zoning is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She said she thought it defeated the purpose of city planning to grant a rezoning without careful consideration of what effect it will have on the existing neighborhood and on the overall city. Lih said they were asking the City Board to make a statement about the aesthetics of neighborhoods and the quality and character of the city. Roy Rom said he owned ten acres east of the property. Rom asked the Board to 206.2 weigh some other criteria as they look at the issue of compatibility and reasonable land use. He asked his neighbors to stand and show the Board how many of them were present in opposition. He said the present A-1 zoning wouldn'tdeny the developers the opportunity to build homes. He pointed out that, when the builder was asked if he would consider an alternative to the proposed density, he dodged the question and stuck with 34 houses on 9 acres. He said the Board had the right to make a legal, moral and ethical decision. He remarked that the subdivision was supposed to be called "Cedar Grove" and asked if there would be any cedar trees left after the bulldozers were there. He challenged the Board to think about their rights when they look at the archaic city planning and zoning ordinance referred to in this and previous meetings. He said there had been an admission that what we are working with now is inadequate and perhaps wrong. He said if the decision is made to rezone the property residential there would be no recourse for.change. He said he resented what he called an invasion of his way of life. He said the criteria of fairness to all parties concerned should be considered. He said he thought the Board -had to exercise a degree of fairness for all concerned and not worry too much about the legality of it, not worry too much about how much one individual may have invested in property and planning. Referring to the good will of the community, Rom commented that the Board members were elected officials and said as such they_'were representative of everyone present. He said the individuals living in his neighborhood had a great deal of "stewardship for the land" and have established a way of life. He said the Board's stewardship was for planning the city and looking to the -future. He said the Board could postpone any action, could deny the rezoning, or could table the matter until* there is a clearer picture of the process of orderly planningof the city. He said the Board, when it votes, may have the opportunity to create "an island oferror" in a very viable community. C. B. Lih, resident of 3200 Skillern Road, said he'agreed with what had been 206.3 -said. He said he was not worried about the "class" of people who would buy homes but was worried about the number '.of people. He asked the Board to imagine an additional 1.25 cars per 34 homes• which would be added to the traffic in the area. He said: when Tomlinson bought the property he knew it was A-.1. He said he hoped the•Board's decision would be to deny the rezoning. June 7, 1988 ?07.1 Phil Guinn, resident of 3090 Old Wire Road, told the Board that there was a man who has the mental capacity of a 12 -year old after having a wreck at the intersection of Highway 265 and Old Wire Road, which he said caused a divorce in the family. He said there was a 17 -year old paraplegic girl due to an accident in that area, and there is seldom a week or two which goes by when there is not a car in the ditch at that corner. He said if the rezoning is approved there would be seven houses bordering his family's property line and he did not think that was compatible with the neighborhood. 207.2 Bob Riley said he lived south of Roy Rom and said it worried him that the development would be 200-300 yards from where he lives. He said he thought a decision to hold off on the rezoning would be entirely appropriate and fair to everybody. He said he hoped the Board would vote to wait. ?07.3 Bud Tomlinson asked if he had to wait 12 months before returning to the Planning Commission with a rezoning petition. Director Marinoni said to the best of his knowledge a petitioner has to wait one year, in the case of a denial, before re -submitting a petition. The City Attorney explained the ordinance provides that "no application for zoning amendments will be considered by the Planning Commission within 12 months from the date of final disapproval of a proposed amendment, unless there is evidence submitted to the Planning Commission which justifies reconsideration." Director Kelley asked if a change in the Code would constitute such evidence. The City Attorney agreed. He said if zoning classifications were changed, obviously the petitioner could submit a new application at any time. In answer to a question from Tomlinson, McCord said changes to the subdivision plat would not mean the petitioner could re -submit his petition for the next Board meeting. 207.4 Tomlinson offered to sell his property for $130,000. The Mayor told Tomlinson the Board was not in the real estate business. 207.5 Tomlinson said he would like to have his request tabled for an indefinite period of time. The Mayor explained that there would have to be a motion and second to table indefinitely, meaning a Board member would have to bring up the matter for reconsideration. She said if the rezoning is denied, Tomlinson must wait 12 months to make his request again. Tomlinson said, if there was going to be a 12 -month waiting period, he would rather the Board vote on the rezoning tonight. He said he would like to be given an opportunity to make some changes and come back before the Board at their next meeting. The Mayor said the plat is not a consideration. A citizen in the audience asked how Tomlinson could have the power to table a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Board. The Mayor said the Board had the final authority in the matter The Mayor said if the request to table was simply for Tomlinson to come back at the next meeting, she would just as soon take care of the matter tonight. She said, in the event he was trying to preserve his right to go to a different zoning classification as proposed in a future zoning ordinance, he would still have that right no matter what action is taken tonight. 207.6 Director Marinoni moved to table the request. There was no second to the motion. June 7, 1988 - The Mayor said her vote would be based on other considerations as well as the 208.1 recommendation of the Planning Commission, such as traffic, reasonable use, compatibility and neighborhood objections. Director Marinoni said he felt a property owner had a right to apply for a logical rezoning. He said the request for rezoning was not unreasonable and for neighbors to say they would like for the land to stay the way it is, for whatever reason, is unreasonable. He said he thought the issue was with the plat and not the zoning. He said for the legal process to tell the Board they must do things one way or another is surprising to him. He said if that was the case there would be no use for judges or juries, Planning Commissions or City Boards. He said he would vote for the zoning. Director Kelley said he had been totally undecided but, after hearing comments, felt the only options were in the hands of the petitioner. He said, with the land use plan being corrected, the petitioner will have some options to develop his property later at,whatever zoning --will be available. He said he thought there was a potential safety problem. He said he thought the rights of the petitioner and the other land owners had been violated in some way. He said he was pro -development but in this situation would be voting in opposition to the rezoning. Tomlinson said his request .to table was for an opportunity to consider if he can have fewer and bigger lots. He said, with this much opposition, he would like to re-evaluate and comeback soon with another request. Director Hess said if Tomlinson came back asking for R-1 zoning contingent upon a certain plat the Board could not consider it, because it must consider the merits of the rezoning irrespective of the plat. - f• 1 The City Attorney advised that, if the rezoning is denied and Tomlinson reaches an accord, with the neighbors on a minimum lot size, he can come back and offer a Bill of Assurance to enforce that minimum lot size. McCord said that would be evidence that would,justify reconsideration within the one-year period. He said the Board could not require him to do that because that would be contract zoning. c . . The Mayor pointed out the A-1 zoning will allow development with two -acre lot sizes. 1 Upon roll call, the ordinance failed, 5-1, Director Marinoni voting in the 208.7 minority. 208.2 208.3 208.4 208.5 208.6 • RECESS The meeting was recessed at 9:00 p.m. and reconvened at 9:15 p.m. 208.8 June 7, 1988 PROPERTY CLEANUP/ROLLSTON AVENUE 209.1 The Mayor introduced an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located at 325 Rollston Avenue. 209.2 The City Attorney advised a motion would be in order to take the item from the table. It was moved by Marinoni and seconded by Kelley to remove the item from the table. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-1, Martin voting in the minority. 209.3 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-1, Director Martin voting in the minority. The City Attorney 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, 5-1, Director Martin voting in the minority. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. 209.4 Property owner Wayland Wilkerson addressed the Board. He said he thought the property could no longer be called unsafe or unsightly, and the ordinance didn't apply to him anymore. He said he would like to complete the work that he was doing. 209.5 Director Martin said the work hit a crescendo pace in the last two weeks. He said he wanted to give Wilkerson more time but commented that it looked like, for a long time, there was very little progress. Wilkerson said his financial situation required him to wait that long. Martin said the last time Wilkerson was here he said it would be completed by now and, for whatever reason, it isn't. He said he supported Wilkerson's desire to continue, but said it had to be at an accelerated pace. Wilkerson said his father planned to make it to his 80th birthday party but he died a week beforehand. He said he followed the plan as well as he was able to but he has had to pay for it as he goes. He said he put up 2' x 6' walls, renewed the floor and started on the roof. He said he did the work himself and everything is safe and structurally good. He said he had never seen a construction project yet that came in on time or in the money. He said he thought his structure looked very well and is proceeding very well, was neither a danger nor was it unsightly. He said if the Board voted to bulldoze it he would have to seek legal action. He said he thought his 14th Amendment rights had been violated pretty grossly in this case, and he had witnesses he was prepared to present along this line. 209.6 Wilkerson said this whole thing has happened because a Director on the Board who was not present has been trying to get the property for someone he represents. Wilkerson said the City should have nothing to do with something like this. Wilkerson said he felt his rights had been trampled upon and was willing to take it to the Supreme Court if he had to, but saw no reason to make this much money for lawyers out of it. He said he saw no reason for the Board June 7, 1988 not to back off and let him go ahead and do his structure, which is in the interests of everybody. He said the structure was sound and good and he saw no reason for this to be happening. He said the 14th Amendment protects your rightto own, improve and use your property. He said he thought the Board had totally ignored the Constitution. Director Hess asked how many times Wilkerson had been before the Board. Wilkerson said this was the fourth time. Hess asked if Wilkerson felt the Board had grossly neglected his rights all four times. Wilkerson said "absolutely," because someone was trying to get the property for some other reason and never once made him an offer. Hess said Wilkerson's private dealings were not any of his concern. He said Wilkerson was asked to submit a schedule for progress which he submitted to the staff and which he agreed to abide by. Hess said he did not think Wilkerson had abided by his agreement. Hess, said the amount of progress which has taken place would not take 6-9 months to accomplish. Wilkerson said without a bank loan it does, and said that was a citizen's right. Hess said it was also the Board's right to protect the interests of the neighbors. Wilkerson asked Hess how the Board was protecting the interests of the neighbors. Hess said he thought the Board had already adequately addressed that. Wilkerson disagreed, commenting that the neighbors were not being hurt by the slow construction and most of them had been very encouraging. Wilkerson asked what was wrong with the structure. He said he didn't think it was.the Board's right to deny him the right to develop his property. Hess said he thought the Board'had bent over backwards to give him every opportunity. Wilkerson said he thought the Board had harassed him every step of the way. Wilkerson said he thought the construction had come to a point where it had reached safe standards. `Hess disagreed, stating there was no roof and no shingles, there, was T-111 siding, on only two sides, with the other sides being very much in decay. Wilkerson said the building was strong and capable of withstanding anything that Ahappens until he completes it. He said the City Inspector looked at it twice' and felt it was being done very well. Hess said it would not be his intention for Wilkerson to lose the materials he has installed, but he,thought the.Board could give him 30 days to remove the materials and raze the rest of the,structure. • Director Kelley asked about the findings of the Inspection Office. The City Manager said it was -.his understanding that the;Inspection Superintendent had visited with Wilkerson about construction progress, and it was his finding that the project was not at the point the Board,intended. s The Mayor summarized a chronology of events relating to the property: 210.9 210 210.1 210.2 210.3 - Wilkerson acquired a building permit. 4' - City Inspection Office inspected the building in May of 1987, found it to be unsafe and brought an ordinance before the Board. -Wilkerson indicated in,May of 1987 he would complete the building by the end of 1987. -In February of 1988 the building was not complete but Wilkerson was asked ,to prepare a timeline which indicated he would complete the structure by May 1, 1988. _.,i • N 1 + 211.1 June 7, 1988 -The Board gave Wilkerson until June 1, 1988 to complete the structure. -As of June 7 the building is still not complete. The Mayor said the City ordinances regulate that building permits will be valid for a two-year time period, indicating that a structure which is started must be completed within that time period. Wilkerson said the building permit was forced by chicanery on the City's part. He said at the time he was cleaning up the property and removing debris, he didn't need a building permit but his lawyer told him the Board was unhappy and wanted him to get a building permit. He said the building permit should not have even been necessary until about two months ago. 211.2 Richard Wilson, reporting on behalf of the Inspection Office, told the Board that Inspection Superintendent Freeman Wood inspected the property when he visited with Mr. Wilkerson and, at that time, the permit had expired and he told him not to do any further work on it until the Board acted. Wilson said since that time rafters have been erected and, at that time, Wood stated he doubted they would stand properly and support it correctly. 211.3 Lancaster said the first violation, according to the agenda, was on September 17, 1986. Wilkerson said he didn't even acquire the property until August of 1986. Wilkerson said he was apparently being blamed for someone else having burned the property down. 211.4 Director Marinoni said he felt the Board had been very generous to Wilkerson in extending the time but said he also felt the Board had a responsibility to be consistent. He said in looking back through the record over the past 1 1/2 years at the number of houses which were condemned, some of which he said had people living in them, within thirty days they were removed with no problem. He said as a duty to those who suffered those losses, he felt duty-bound to show consistency. Marinoni said the property would still belong to Wilkerson, that just the structure would be removed. Wilkerson said he didn't want to remove the structure, as he had great need and use for it. Marinoni said it seemed that, if Wilkerson had such great need and use for the structure, it would be complete by now. Wilkerson said his ability to borrow money had eroded because he hadn't been borrowing it consistently and now has to rebuild his credit rating. He said he had been working very hard to accomplish that. He said the building was so near completion that he didn't see what the problem was. Director Marinoni said the Board couldn't get into Wilkerson's financial situation. Wilkerson said the Board had done that already by forcing him to do a lot of things. Director Lancaster said the city didn't force Wilkerson to buy property that was already in violation of city codes. Wilkerson said he didn't know that when he bought the property. 211.5 Director Hess asked how quickly the ordinance would go into effect if it passed. The City Attorney advised that it would be effective June 7 because it contained an emergency clause. He said the ordinance provided that commencement of work would be within ten days, and completion within thirty days. Hess asked how much time he would have without the emergency clause. McCord said the effective date would be 31 days from the date of publication of June 7, 1988 the ordinance. The City Clerk advised the ordinance would be published three or four days after its receipt. 212.1 Hess said he wanted to give Wilkerson an opportunity to take down good 212.2 , materials, commenting that he would hate for them to be razed with the rest of the materials. Wilkerson said his foundation was quite usable The Mayor said Wilkerson had the option of razing and removing the building himself. Wilkerson asked if he would have an opportunity to build again after removing the materials. The Mayor said he would if he could obtain a building permit. She said the City would not deny him a building permit. Director Lancaster said it wouldn't bepermissible for Wilkerson to stack up 212.3 materials on the lot. Wilkerson asked if he would have to remove the foundation. Property Inspector Richard Wilson said Wilkerson would have to remove the foundation and bring it back to "natural ground." He said, in order for Wilkerson to obtain a building permit, he must meet setback requirements of the zoning ordinance. He said if he obtained the permit he would have nine months to complete the project. Wilkerson said that meant he couldn't do anything because he cannot meet setback .requirements. The City Manager said Wilkerson can seek a request for a variance from the Board of Adjustment. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 4-2, Directors Martin and Kelley voting in the minority. 212.4 ORDINANCE NO. 3352 APPEARS ON PAGE 331, OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK Xe)(/ J The City Attorney advised the Board vote onthe emergency clause because the 212.5 ordinance did not pass unanimously.: He said this would require a 2/3 vote, or five Directors voting in the affirmative. : - Director Lancaster moved the emergency clause. There was no second to the 212.6 motion. • The Mayor declared the ordinance•to be effective 31 days from the date of its publication. 4 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENT Director Kelley reported the Board Nominating• Committee recommended the appointment of Anne Thomas Ray to the Historic District Commission to fill the vacant position formerly held by Bill Flynn who has resigned. It was so moved by Kelley and seconded by Lancaster. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. ANIMAL IMPOUNDMENT The Mayor introduced a request from the Public Safety Director for an ordinance amending the City Code to authorize the impoundment of any dog or cat found 212.7 212.8 212.9 "410 213.1 June 7, 1988 running at large within the City. She said this would protect private citizens who place at large animals in the Animal Shelter. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Martin, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Marinoni, 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. 213.2 Director Marinoni asked if there had been any input from citizens on the ordinance, commenting that he could see this might be a little bit controversial. City Attorney McCord said this was mainly a "housekeeping" item because of concern expressed by litigation and a court decision in another jurisdiction where the local ordinance did not expressly authorize the "pound" to accept animals from a citizen, as opposed to the animal control officer. He said in his view it was noncontroversial. City Manager Pennington said the ordinance would make legal what is currently in practice. 213.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3353 APPEARS ON PAGE 33 e OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XX/J 213.4 213.5 WATER ASSOCIATION CHANGE The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing an amendment to the City's existing water purchase contract with the Mt. Olive Water Association, allowing them an additional water metering point and increasing the amount of water they can take from the City system from 300 gallons per minutes to 450 gallons per minute. She said the City Engineer recommended approval. Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, moved the resolution be approved. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 44-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK WATER SERVICE EXTENSION 213.6 The Mayor introduced a request to extend water service to property located north of Highway 45 East and east of the City's Growth Area. She said the City Engineer recommended approval. She said Ms. Sugg was present representing the petitioner, Mary Joiner. 213.7 The Mayor asked if the property was in the Growth Area. The City Manager replied that it was not. Director Lancaster said he had reservations about the City extending water outside of its Growth Area, unless the area would be June 7, 1988 14 released to be included in the City's Growth Area. Lancaster said, although .214.1 the White River Water District has signed a release, there was no way the district could provide the service. Lancaster said he checked with the people who were involved when Goshen was incorporated, because he knew some kind of deal had been made at the time. He said those people told him the deal was that the City would not oppose Goshen incorporating up to where they were, but if anytime in the future Fayetteville ever petitioned the area to come into the City or our Growth Area, this area would be considered to be Fayetteville's Growth Area, that Goshen at that time relinquished any hope on the area. He said if there is any problem, a release should be obtained from the Goshen City Council. He said sometime in the future the whole area will build up and could create a problem for Fayetteville if it's left in limbo. Director Martin asked if the release from the White River Rural Water Association was perhaps the equivalent of the Fayetteville Water Departmentfor the City of Goshen. Lancastersaid in his opinion Mrs. Joiner. couldn't get water from that Association. Director Martin pointed out that the property owner's well is dry and Fayetteville's water line can go right to their property. Lancaster said he had no objections to giving them water but thought the issue was whether they were in Fayetteville's Growth Area or will remain in Goshen's territory, if Fayetteville builds a water line in Goshen's territory. • Director Martin asked if Goshen had a fire department in Fayetteville's Growth Area. He asked if it wasn't true Fayetteville wouldn't send its fire trucks outside its city limits. The Mayor said Fayetteville had a mutual aid agreement with Goshen because they have their own fire department Martin said he thought the issue had grown to proportions that he did not understand. The Mayorsaid she thought it was a question of territorial planning jurisdictions. The City Attorney clarified that the property was located in the Goshen planning area. He said there was an agreement reached when Goshen was incorporated specifying the boundary line for each community's extraterritorial planning jurisdiction. The Mayor asked if those areas were adjacent to each other. 214.2 214.3 214.4 214.5 The City Attorney said there was a difference between land use planning, 214.E subdivision regulation and water service. He said the Joiner property was in the extraterritorial planningjurisdiction of Goshen which is for land development regulations, not necessarily for water service. Director Hess said -he was not really interested with what happened with Goshen. 214.7 before his time. He said in general he would approve of extending water service to Mrs. Joiner, but saw a danger in that Fayetteville does not really have an established policy for water extension. He said if the city grants city services beyond its boundaries then the benefits of living in the city become diminished. 215.1 June 7, 1988 Director Lancaster said he would like Goshen to release the area first because he feared that ten years from now Goshen would decide to annex the territory with Fayetteville's water line located in Goshen's territory. Lancaster said he'd like to table the issue and have Ms. Joiner check with Goshen or City Attorney McCord to be sure we were legal. The City Attorney said the fact that the property is in the extraterritorial planning jurisdiction of another municipality does not preclude it being annexed to the City of Fayetteville, at such time as it ever becomes contiguous to Fayetteville. 215.2 City Manager Pennington said the issue before the Board was a water service extension policy. He said, as long as we have the service available, we should provide it; however, there comes a point when we have to look at protecting Fayetteville for its future growth. Pennington recommended a policy in the future whereby a water service agreement would be developed for water service extension cases outside the City; and as part of that agreement, if and when the City becomes contiguous to the property, the owner of the land at the time would petition for annexation for the privilege of using the water. Pennington recommended Ms. Joiner's request be granted with the conditions he outlined. 215.3 Ann Sugg said she was a realtor with Bryce Davis and Company and was present to represent Ms. Joiner. She explained Dr. Painter was a potential purchaser of the property (12 1/2 acres) who would probably build one home. She said the property had a long area of highway frontage and could lend itself to two home sites. She said Painter wishes to have the option to sell off a portion of the property in the future. She said the water would probably have to be taken across the property of the neighbor to the west and they would like the option of offering that neighbor a water tap. She said the water will have to go under the highway. She said there was no intention at this time to develop a subdivision. She said the well on the property is not usable, and there is a house on the property owned by Ms. Joiner but which has been rented and tenants carried their water from town. In answer to a question from the Mayor, Ms. Sugg said she had no problem with the recommendation made by the City Manager. 215.4 Director Martin, seconded by Kelley, made a motion that city water be extended to no more than three taps on the defined property, subject to an agreement that the property will be annexed to the City of Fayetteville if and when the City limits ever become contiguous to the property. 215.5 Martin said the intent of his motion was to preclude any subdivision but allow for two additional developments. Pennington said he had no problem with that. It was clarified for Ms. Sugg that the motion would not allow three taps for the Joiner property and an additional tap for the neighbor, but would only allow a total of three taps. Director Martin added that the intent of his motion was that there would be no cost to the City. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 215.6 Mayor Johnson asked if Director Lancaster wanted a motion to approach the City of Goshen to change their boundaries. Lancaster said he thought we should do that. The Mayor asked if the City Manager would look into that suggestion. INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT June 7, 1988 The Mayor introduced consideration of the award of Bid #849 for engineering services for intersection improvements at Township Street and Old Wire Road. She said the recommendation was to award the contract to McClelland Engineers at a not -to -exceed cost of $4,335, with a budget adjustment necessary in the amount of $835. It was moved by Marinoni, and seconded by Hess, to approve the award of bid. Director Kelley asked why the award was not being made to the low bidder. City Engineer Don Bunn said it was felt the firm submitting the low bid did not have the expertise they felt was needed for the project and, in the evaluation, price was 25% and other factors were 75%. He said in this case price was outweighed by other factors. The Mayor noted that the city's professional selection policy was followed. 21E 216.1 216.2 216.3 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. 216.4 RETURNED CHECK POLICY The Mayor introduced a request for approval of an in-house policy for setting the amount of service charge levied by the City for "returned checks." She said the current $10 service charge would be increased to $15 for each returned check and this would be increased to $25 if the check remains unpaid for thirty days. Director Lancaster, seconded by Marinoni, moved approval of the policy. Marinoni asked if the policy would be flexible if Stateregulations changed. The City Attorney advised that, if the policy were to be changed, the Board would have to adopt a motion. He said the recommendation is less than parameters permitted; under State law which permits a $50 service charge. Hess said the State law allows a minimum of $50 to be collected. Director Martin asked what surrounding cities' policies might" be. Assistant City Manager Scott Linebaugh said that had not been checked. Director Kelley asked the amount of the average returned check. Linebaugh said these ranged from $40 to $50. Kelley said it would be difficult for someone who can't pay the $50 bill to then pay another $50 for a returned check charge. Linebaugh said the staff felt $15 had to be collected just to break even. • He said it was felt the City would not be able to collect any more than the $25 recommended after thirty days. In answer to a question from Martin, Linebaugh explained that when someone writes a hot check the City disconnects their water service and then charges them a re -connect fee in addition to the other charges. Linebaugh said most of the hot checks are due to the student population. He said that after the students leave town the city turns their 216.5 216.6 216.7 216.8 216.9 June 7, 1988 217.1 accounts over to a collection agency if the city can't collect on the accounts themselves. 217.2 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0-1, with Martin abstaining. 217.3 The City Attorney advised that the existing ordinance would be repealed. He read the ordinance for the first time. Director Hess, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 5-0-1, Martin abstaining. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Hess, 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, 5-0-1, Martin abstaining. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 5-0-1, Martin abstaining. ORDINANCE NO. 3354 APPEARS ON PAGE 137 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XX/'J BID WAIVER/ASPHALTS 217.4 The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding to allow the purchase of asphalt, asphalt mixes and aggregates; tabled on May 17 because only four Directors were present. 217.5 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Hess, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Hess, 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3355 APPEARS ON PAGE 351 o OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK xx/ v BID WAIVER/CONCRETE 217.6 The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding to allow the Purchasing Office to obtain quotations from area dealers for ready mix concrete; tabled on May 17 because only four Directors were present. 217.7 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. In answer to a question from Director Lancaster, Scott Linebaugh said the staff would still obtain written quotes. Director Marinoni asked for how long the quotes were good. Linebaugh said that varied with each quote. Marinoni asked if the June 7, 1988 C1t quotes would be for one-year service. Linebaugh said usually the quotes were 218.1 for a short period. Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, moved the rules be suspended and the 218.2 ordinance placed on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6- 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Lancaster, 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3356 APPEARS ON PAGE 3V/ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XX/ BID WAIVER/TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLERS The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive 218.3 bidding to allow the purchase of "Transyt" traffic signal controllers from Pinkley Sales Company. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Marinoni, 218.4 seconded by Johnson, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Johnson, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance -was read for the third time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0.. ORDINANCE NO. 3357 APPEARS ON PAGE ..”1.? OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS The Mayor introduced a request from the City Clerk for a budget adjustment of 218.5 $2,306.30 to pay for the City's share of the costs of the March 8, 1988 election, to be taken from the Sanitation Fund Unreserved Fund Balance; and a request from the Public Safety Director for a budget adjustment in the amount of $3,500 to pay for a refresher training course for all police officers on the use of deadly and non -deadly force, and to cover computer training costs for the Public Safety computer system. It was moved by Martin and seconded by Kelley, to approve the requests. Upon 218.E roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. June 7, 1988 EASEMENT VACATION 219.1 The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance vacating a portion of a utility easement located on the west side of a lot on Cliffside Drive, in the Hyland Park Addition. 219.2 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Marinoni, 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, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third time. 219.3 City Engineer Don Bunn told the Board that Southwestern Bell has submitted a letter stating they have no interest in the easement. 219.4 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. ORDINANCE NO. 3358 X X/ FIREWORKS USE APPEARS ON PAGE 3 Y3 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 219.5 The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance amending the City Code to regulate the use of fireworks. She explained the City Manager recommended four amendments: (1) making it unlawful for any person to offer fireworks for sale at retail within the City; (2) making it unlawful for any person to use fireworks within the City at any time except on July 3rd and 4th; (3) making it unlawful for any person to use skyrockets, firecrackers, or any other exploding fireworks at any time except at a public display (pursuant to the State Fire Code); and authorizing the Fire Chief or City Manager to declare an emergency and prohibit all use of fireworks if it would create a fire hazard during dry conditions. 219.6 The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Director Martin, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. 219.7 In answer to a question from the Mayor, the City Attorney told the Board the ordinance contained an emergency clause. 219.8 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 6-0. .1 June 7, 1988 ORDINANCE NO. 3359 APPEARS ON PAGE .131Y OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK KXI OTHER BUSINESS BILL OF ASSURANCE RELEASE 220 • The Mayor introduced a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to 220.1 execute a release of bills ofassurance executed by Ralph Gray for street improvements. 1 The Mayor asked if the property involved was adjacent to the Polarbek 220.2 development. City Engineer Don Bunn said it was located south of the Polarbek development and adjacent to Wedington Drive, and west of Mcllroy Bank property: The City Attorney explained the request involved a proposed development that never took place, and Bills of Assurance which were executed in contemplation of the development taking place. The City Attorney said since the development was terminated the Bills of Assurance are no longer needed, and constitute a cloud on the title. He said the release is requested as a result of a title opinion being rendered by an attorney. He added that, if the property ever is developed, similar Bills of Assurance could be obtained from the developer at that time. Director Hess said he thought Ralph Gray had planned to build apartments and there are now new owners of the property. Hess asked if the Bills are released, what would happen if the new owners wanted to build apartments. The City Attorney replied that the owners would have to bring .in a large scale development and the same requirements can be made of the new owners. He said a Bill of Assurance is executed in order not to install the required off site improvements at that time, if it's acceptable to the City Board. 220.3 • 220.4 Director Hess, seconded by Kelley, moved approval of the resolution. Upon roll 220.5 call, the motion passed, 6-0. RESOLUTION NO. 45-88 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK ODORS ON FOX HUNTER ROAD Director Marinoni asked about the study the city commissioned of Metcalf and Eddy on sewage odor. He said he received a call this morning about the smell emitting from the location of the Catholic cemetery. He asked if results had been received from the engineering study. City Manager Pennington said it would be some time before those results are received, since the entire system is being studied not only for odors but for corrosion in the system. Pennington said there have been reports of odor problems all over the city, 220.6 441 June 7, 1988 221.1 indicating that in dry weather the sewage is "going septic" in the lines. He said it may be three months before a report is received. 221.2 Director Martin said a new installation on Fox Hunter Road was designed by McClelland Engineers to remove an air pocket from the sewer line which was causing backing -up problems. Martin said many people were concerned that the proposed venting might create an odor problem. He said he received a complaint from someone about a new problem on the north side of Highway 45 East just across from Fox Hunter Road, which he said they hadn't had before. Martin asked for a report on the venting project. City Manager Pennington said it was his and the Board's understanding that the air filters and vents would be installed simultaneously. He said this has not been the case, with the air filters being back -ordered and not yet installed. 221.3 Johnny Quinn addressed the Board on behalf of McClelland Engineers. Quinn told the Board that in the middle of March the Board authorized McClelland to do a change order with Garney Construction Company to direct them to install air and vacuum release valves on the Fox Hunter Road interceptor, to try to eliminate an overflow at the top of the line on Fox Hunter Road. He said it was explained then that the overflow was partly caused by a calculated attempt to vent the new Fox Hunter Road interceptor differently than the existing interceptor had been vented. He said the reason for this was that several residents had indicated there were odor problems and if possible wanted those designed out. He said the engineers tried something unconventional and it didn't work - instead of bad odors they got an overflowing manhole. He said they went back to a more conventional approach and the problem has since been resolved. He said city staff directed them, even though the long-range study was in the works, to include interim odor control measures on the three air release valves on Fox Hunter Road. He said after the mid-March meeting, the engineers directed Garney to order and install the valves as soon as possible. He said they did this near the end of April or beginning of May and it addressed the overflowing manhole problem. He said, after the mid-March meeting, the engineers went back to the manufacturer/suppliers of the odor control units, consulted with national firms and suppliers and manufacturers around the State and found that they were not being used anywhere in the State. He said when they tried to order them, they were told they needed to sample the sewer gas to be sure the units were correctly sized. He said they contracted with an independent laboratory to take sewer gas analyses the last week in March. He said about that time rain diluted the sewage and caused a reduction in hydrogen sulfide gas levels, making sampling invalid. He said tests were re -scheduled only to have rain again and tests canceled for a second time. He said on April 29 samples were taken and results were received by the engineers on May 23. He said that week they sized and ordered the odor control units in conjunction with the city staff. He said city staff authorized a $750 additional expense for emergency delivery. He said that resulted in assured delivery date of the units the week of June 20. He said he believed the items, once received, could be installed in either one or two days, or sometime during the last week of this month. June 7, 1988 C. Fel Martin asked him if the time lag was clearly presented to the City Board. He 222.1 said his recollection was that there was never any major time delay suggested. Hess said he recollected that all the devices would go in at the sametime and the odor problem would be cured, and nothing was said about a time delay or sampling of sewer gases. Quinn said when the presentation was made to the Board the engineers believed the installation of both the air and vacuum unit and the odor control unit would be completed within 4-6 weeks. He said it was when they were ready to order them that they learned for the first time that the gas sampling was recommended by the supplier. Hess said it seemed that the engineers didn't research the equipment before telling the Board they could install it. Quinn said from the time...they understood they were to make the presentation to the Board to address the overflowing manhole, until the time they confirmed for sure that city staff wanted to address the odor control as an interim measure, was a two to three day period which he said they spent diligently obtaining information from suppliers. Quinn -said the engineers never made any attempt to hide from the City staff 222.2 that the devices were new and not in use in the State but were in close contact with them during the process. He said he would not purport that the problem will be resolved once the units are installed. He said the unitsare an interim solution which should improve the situation but the ultimate solution should come from the study. Quinn added that another odor contributor •is the existing line in the area which is not vented and which he said McClelland Engineers did not design. Director Martin said, for the six years he has been on the. Board, the neighbors have hypothesized that that original line was installed incorrectly and has caused sewer backups for years. Martin said in the last four or five years a second line has been built 222.3 parallelling the old line in an attempt to de -bottleneck the problem. Quinn said McClelland designed and installed that line. Martin asked if it solved the sewer backup problem in that area. Quinn said that problem existed in spite of the fact that there are vents on the existing line. He said to his knowledge the problem was that there was, in essence, a bottleneck. He said the installation of the vents within the last two months had to do with a new line installed in the last 1 1/2 years by McClelland. City Manager Pennington said the second line alleviated but did not resolve the 222.4 problem. Martin asked why the City had it installed if it was only going to alleviate the problem and not solve the problem. He asked why the City went to that expense and purport to people in the area that we were going to do away with sewer backups in their basements and yards. . Fran Alexander said she attended the Board meeting in mid-March and asked Joe 222.5 Tarvin with McClelland Engineers when the line would be vented. She said she had been living under that smell for two years, which she said was intermittent. She said Tarvin said the air pocket would relieve the overflow problem. She said she feared the residents would be trading raw sewage in their streams and houses for a gas problem, and did not believe the air pocket alone was causing the problem. She said Tarvin said it would be four to five weeks before the work would start, and she calculated it was five to six weeks .'4j 223.1 June 7, 1988 before work started. She said work went on for quite a while and then the workers went away. She said they have not been back to deal with the open pipes and they have been breathing hydrogen sulfide gas since that time. She said it is intolerable, unacceptable and unhealthy. She said she can't open her windows and doors or turn on her air conditioner. She said she can't go outside a great many hours of every day. She said for one year people have begged the city to stop raw sewage from rolling down the mountain and she has not brought suit against the city for what is going on in her pond. She said some of the neighbors have been sick. She asked for a time schedule that McClelland Engineers could be held to, something in writing about the filters so that the people out there don't have to monitor them personally and insist that they need changing and wait for changes to be made. She said it was totally unacceptable for the residents to have to do this, and she thought it was time that the City Board listen to themselves talk about safety, health, standards, personal property rights, timetables and fairness. She said the City was going to have to get tough with the engineers or the people were going to have to get tough with the City. 223.2 Quinn said the line which his firm was responsible for installing was only put into service in December, 1987 and was not, at that time, the source of the odor problems. He said in the last week there was start-up of sludge digestion processes at the sewage treatment plant which have put out unusually strong odors. He said this should recede in a short period of time. He said another source of odor has been the long, dry, warm weather. He said the existing vents on existing lines which have been there for years are another source of odor. He said McClelland's efforts have been to control the odors in the interim until the city can reach a final resolution based on a more detailed report. He said McClelland already delivered a time frame in writing to city staff on May 17. 223.3 Ruth Collier said she lived at the foot of Fox Hunter Road. She said she never had any complaints about the odor coming from the sewer plant, and the air is always from a southwest direction blowing away from her property. She said now that there are three new vents on the west side of her property, she is catching the odor. She said she was very sick on Monday night and missed two days of work last week. She said she was dizzy, nauseous and had a headache "that would kill a horse." She said she expected to get paid for those two days because her employer does not pay sick leave. 223.4 City Manager Pennington said the city received a memo from McClelland which indicated a long time period in delivery. He said a special order was placed because the city could not deal with the long time frame proposed. He said last Friday the city instructed McClelland to cap all but one of the air vents. 223.5 Pennington said this was one of the projects which we have inherited and one of the problems is establishing culpability. He said what frightened him was the question of whether the city has a collection system that is so messed up that we'll never see a major improvement in it. He said the project has to be watched and the City is under EPA orders to watch it. He said he wished he June 7, 1988 could assure the Board there was a solution but he couldn't. He said what concerned him was the fact that this is not a situation which just occurred but is two years old, and the overflows are older than that. Martin said it was not a matter of whether or not it is a new problem, but the fact was that the Board was being told repeatedly by city staff and consulting engineers that "we are going to correct the problem." He said if we're sitting here with age-old problems, it's a result of incompetence, because we are spending city money to correct things which have not been corrected. He said we needed somebody to take responsibility and, if we couldn't handle the normal functions. the City is supposed to handle without "living in a stench" nobody was going to want to live in Fayetteville. He said he didn't want to spend another dollar on staff or engineers if "we're going to sit here looking at a problem year after year." Director Hess said there still didn't seem to be a policy established for undertaking engineering contracts, in terms of culpability and accountability. Fran Alexander asked the Board to tell her what they could do on Fox Hunter Road during the hours they cannot breathe. She asked if they should check into the Hilton and send the City a bill. She said it was an emergency situation. Director Hess remarked that the vents had been capped. The Mayor said she was not so sure we could cast blame on any particular area, and wasn't sure if capping all the vents would solve the problem. Director Martin said the city has to break out of "the municipal mentality" which says it's okay to spend millions of dollars on projects that don't work. He said Fayetteville needs to say, if we spend one dollar we want one dollar's worth of goods and services, and if we spend millions on an intricate, progressive, state-of-the-art system, we want it to work, and we don't want it to create more problems than it solves. 224 224.1 224.2 224.3 224.4 224.5 The Mayor said she thought hiring an engineering firm to deal with the problem 224.6 of corrosive odors in the system may be the answer to some of our problems, rather than dealing withit piecemeal. She said when the sludge gets stabilized, that problem will go away, and when the treatment plant is operating at top efficiency, that $36 million will be well spent. She said finding somebody to take the blame is going to be a little bit difficult for us to do. Director Hess told Fran Alexander he didn't think anybody had a solution and 224.7 said they would be as diligent as they could to do whatever it takes "to get that stuff stopped." The Mayor said she couldn't see the city "throwing more bad money after bad" because she thought we had a responsibility to the citizens of Fayetteville. She said the Board had inherited some problems that were created years ago and is taking the heat for them because they weren't done correctly then. Ruth Collier said most of the problems being discussed tonight came from one particular engineering firm and she said the city keeps giving them money. 225 225.1 June 7, 1988 City Manager Pennington said the $30,000 [fee to McClelland] won't be expended until it is proven the system works. 225.2 Quinn said McClelland Engineers has served the city for a number of years. He said they had not served them perfectly but he knew of no engineering firm that has done so. He said they had not gotten all the engineering work from the city. He said they would continue to strive to deserve the confidence people have placed in them. He said as long as the control is left with McClelland they will stick with the problem until it is resolved. He said much more than $30,000 has been expended by McClelland and they intend to persevere until the problems can be resolved. 225.3 ADJOURNED The meeting was adjourned at about 11:35 p.m.