Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-07-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Wednesday, July 5, 1989, at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the City Administration Building at 113 W Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Present: Mayor William Martin; Directors Michael Green, Russ Kelley, 1 Ernest Lancaster, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Shell Spivey and Fred Vorsanger; City Prosecutor Terry Jones, Acting City Clerk Kay Nash; members of the staff, press and audience. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with seven Directors present. The Mayor asked those present to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and then asked that a brief moment of respectful silence be observed. CONSENT AGENDA The Mayor introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda". The Mayor explained that the Consent Agenda represents items on which there is thought to be unanimous agreement by the Board, but pointed out any Director may request the removal of an item from the Consent Agenda. The_Mayor-read the items contained in the Consent Agenda, as follows: A. Minutes of the June 20,-1989 regular Board meeting; B. Consideration of the award of;:Bid #89-26 for, playground equipment for Asbell School and Bates School Parks to be funded through the Community Development Block Grant.Program;, (1) The City Manager recommends award of "tot" playground apparatus for Asbell School Park to the low bidder, Rex Playground Equipment of Oklahoma City, bidding $4,995, including installation. The budget contains $6,000 for the expense;, however, the remainder of the project budget is intended to ;be 'used for a chainlink fence surrounding the apparatus., e (2) The City Manager recommends award of playground apparatus for Bates School Park to the lowest bidder meeting specifications, Apex Associates of Fairfield Bay, Arkansas, bidding $13,722, not including installation. Although the budget only contains $12,000 for this item, the Fayetteville Public Schools have agreed to pay the remaining $1,622, as well as to provide laborfor installation of the equipment. It was moved by Kelley and seconded by Marinoni to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0.' 210. 210. 210. .14- REZONING l REZONING R88-19 July 5, 1989 211.1 The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in petition R88- 19, and reported the following information regarding the request for the benefit of those present: An ordinance rezoning property as requested in rezoning petition R88-19 to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" was read three times on November 1, 1988 and amended by the Board to R-0 "Residential Office"; and tabled on November 15 and December 6 at the request of the petitioner. Size of parcel: .81 acres Location: West side of Lee Avenue Petitioner: Jim Hatfield Change requested: From R-1 "Low Density Residential" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" Planning Commission action: Recommended approval of R -O "Residential Office", 6-0. The petition was considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission on September 26 and October 10 and tabled both times, with the Commission requesting additional information. The petition was heard for the third time on October 24 and the staff advised the Commission its options for making a recommendation to the Board were: 1. Rezone the property to C-2; 2. Rezone the property to a less intensive zone (such as R-0); or 3. Deny any rezoning. A motion to recommend R-0 zoning was approved by a vote of 6-0 with Commisioners Hanna, Nash and Robertson being absent. 211.2 Director Green, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion that the ordinance be removed from the table. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. 211.3 The Mayor requested information or comments from the staff in reference to the rezoning request. John Merrell, Planning Management Director, addressed the Board stating that the petitioner had provided additional information to the City in the form of a letter from attorneys Warner & Smith who represent the Consumers shopping center. Merrell noted that the letter stated Consumers' agreement with the petitioner to allow him ingress and egress off their parking lot. He further noted this agreement was conditioned upon Mr. Hatfield's agreement to deed a portion of Lot k1, fronting on Lee Avenue and Consumers' parking lot, to the City. July 5, 1989'' The petitioner, Jim Hatfield, addressed the Board stating he would agree to deed an approximately 30' triangle, east and west on the northend of the parcel, to the City. This triangle, he noted, borders the Consumers parking lot and runs approximately 40' down Lee Avenue. Hatfield stated he also agreed not to construct any buildings on Lot #1 which allows a 60' set -back on the property. Marinoni questioned whether Consumers had made the agreement in the form of a deeded access or whether there was just a verbal agreement. Hatfield stated he had a letter from Consumers attorneys which he assumed would stand as a legal document. Vorsanger made a motion to amend the ordinance to include the deeding of the 30' triangle to the City. Green seconded the motion. Green noted that the Planning Commission had indicated they wished to zone the property R-0 prior to receipt of the letter from Consumers. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0. Mayor Martin stated the ordinance, as amended, is on its third and final reading and asked for further comments and questions. Green questioned whether the rezoning would be to C-2 or R-0, noting his understanding was that the petitioner was requesting a C-2 rezoning. The Mayor stated the original ordinance had been amended to an R-0 zoning and was tabled on its third reading pending resolution of the question of thoroughfare traffic to the parking lot. Lancaster questioned whether the Planning Commission would look favorably on a C-2 rezoning providing the street was changed. Hatfield stated he is still requesting a C-2 rezoning for the purpose .of placing a commercial building on the property facing the shopping center. i 1 -e•, a motion to amend thesordinance from an R-0 rezoning to a motion failed for lack of a,second.•.i made a motion to refer the rezoning request back to the for their review in light of the new information supplied Director Marinoni seconded the motion.4 Upon roll call, the Director Green made C-2 rezoning. The Director Vorsanger Planning Commission by the petitioner. motion passed 7-0. • R -O -W VACATION The Mayor introduced a request for an ordinance vacating,and'abandoning a portion of Leland Avenue located south of W. Berry Street and west of Sang Avenue; left on second reading on June 20. The Mayor reported that Patrick Van Asche, owner of property at 2137 W. Berry, and Richard Steele, owner of•property•a 2201 W. Berry,, request the closing of unopened Leland Avenue right-of-way adjoining their properties. He said the portion of Leland Avenue north of W. Berry was closed in 1981. The Mayor reported all utilities concur in the closing; however, the City Engineer requests the retention of a 20' utility easement and Southwestern Electric Power Company requests the retention of a 10' utility easement. He said the property owner to the south, Don Heckathorn, does.'not concur in the ,request for closing the street. 212 212. 212. 212. 212, 212. 212. 212. 212. 212. ‚Id July 5, 1989 213.1 The Mayor reported that the City Manager recommends approval of the ordinance. He said it is the opinion of the staff that, although Heckathorn's property would be cut off from access to W. Berry Street, it will still have access to Sang Avenue to the east, to unopened Leland Avenue to the south, and to unopened Lonnie Avenue to the West. 213.2 Director Kelley, seconded by Mayor Martin, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0-1 with Director Marinoni abstaining. 213.3 The City Prosecutor read the ordinance for the third time. 213.4 Harry Gray of Northwest Engineers addressed the Board on behalf of Mr. Heckathorn. Gray provided the Board with a copy of a page out of a plat book for the record. Gray noted to the Board that as part of the Master Street Plan, Cleveland is designed to be extended west to the frontage road and noted that he had shaded in the logical route for this extension on the plat. He stated that if the Sunny Acres Addition is looked at in relation to Valley Way Addition, it is obvious that Cleveland Avenue and Lonnie Avenue do align. He further stated that he felt that vacating the right-of-way at this point would be premature. 213.5 Mayor Martin noted that Cleveland Avenue which is to be extended to the by-pass appears to line up. The Mayor pointed out that under a preliminary plat which was presented to the Board, Cleveland Street does not appear to line up. He questioned whether this would create a problem. Gray stated it is conceivable for Cleveland Street to go all the way through. Martin noted that at a previous meeting Mr. Heckathorn had provided the Board with a concept plat of what he intended the development of the property to be. He said the plat showed a cul de sac on the east end of the property, did not show Cleveland Street extending through and also showed access to Leland Avenue. Gray stated that is a potential development but noted there are any number of things which could be done. He said that in working with Mr. Heckathorn they discovered there was 60' less land than what Heckathorn thought he had which means there is not room for two rows of lots. Gray said that in Block 4, Lots 1 - 7 are actually 60' deeper than shown on the plat. Martin stated that the concept plat showed one of the major points of egress through Leland Avenue which is a concern to the neighbors. Gray stated that when this property is developed some form of plat, either Large Scale Development Plan or Subdivision Plat would have to go before the Planning Commission at that time. At that time also, said Gray, all adjoining property owners would have to be notified and any decision of the Planning Commission could be appealed to the Board of Directors. 213.6 Director Spivey questioned whether there was presently a right-of-way. Gray stated there is no right-of-way in there now but noted that as part of the Master Street Plan, ultimately Cleveland would be extended. 213.7 Director Vorsanger stated that at a previous meeting he had requested Mr. Heckathorn and the City staff to get together to see if something could be worked out in a long range plan and questioned whether the City staff had any recommendations. John Merrell answered that staff feels that perhaps the closing or abandonment of this right-of-way might be premature because it would realistically eliminate one of Mr. Heckathorn's options. He stated if the right- of-way were abandoned it would not land -lock the property, on the other hand if July 5, 1989 ?; it were abandoned, it would' take away a viable option for the access to this property. Merrell further stated that the Cleveland Street improvement west to the by-pass is not in the five year CIP Plan but ultimately might have a place in the plan some day. Director Spivey questioned what could be done to prohibit further development which might prohibit Cleveland Street from going through. He asked what could be done.to keep that option open. He further asked if the lot between Lot 12 and Sang Avenue was open property. Merrell stated he believed that was open property. Merrell stated that lot, at this time, is land -locked as it fronts on a "paper street" which means the City would not be inclined to issue a building permit for this property. 214 214 Mayor Martin noted that in previous meetings it had been stated that "The City would never permit the opening of the street through the narrow isthmus on the 214 Heckathorn property which adjoins Sang Street" and questioned whether Merrell recalled that comment. Merrell answered affirmatively. Martin asked Merrell why that comment was made. Merrell stated he believed that statement was Mr. Heckathorn's opinion. He further noted that City staff's response was that, although this is not a desirable situation because of the proximity which would occur between that intersection and the intersection of the existing Cleveland with Sang, staff did not support the statement that it would never be permitted. Martin asked if the reason for that' Would be that it was'an off -set to Cleveland Street, in essence it would come in at one point and Cleveland Street would come in at another creating two intersections versus one. Merrell stated that would further complicate the situation. Martin said if Cleveland Street is straight through on the new map, that would create an off -set as well. Merrell concurred. Director. Green stated it should not be the Board's goal to look at all of the different options of planning at this ;tithe noting this should be done through the normal process. Green stated the point which needed to be made was that closing this right-of-way would limit a particular option -which may be available to the property owner. He stated he could not see a benefit in doing that at this time. He noted that after it goes through,Plat Review, Leland may not be required and all property owners at that point may be agreeable to closing it. He said he agreed with Mr. Merrell that it would be premature to close the right- of-way at this time. a i Mayor Martin stated his concern in viewing the concept plat where traffic was funneled through unopened Leland Avenue shifted him to the concern of the neighbors. He questioned why the traffic shout& be funneled through unopened Leland Avenue to a basic residential street`than through this narrow neck of Mr. Heckathorn's property to a minor arterial. Martin said,he feels at this time he will probably support the closing. ,. Director Vorsanger stated if the right-of-way is closed it would be giving away City property at no cost. He stated if the Board really°wants to look toward the future, all options should be kept open. He noted the development of a subdivison is the responsibility of 'the Plat Review Committee and the Planning Commission and said he didn't feel the Board should tie their hands at this time. Martin stated the ordinance to close unopened Leland Avenue was on its third reading. Upon roll call the ordinance failed 1-1-5, Director Martin voting in 214 214 214 214 215 215.1 215.2 July 5, 1989 favor of the motion, Directors Lancaster, Kelley, Spivey, Vorsanger and Green voting against the motion, and Director Marinoni abstaining. Spivey suggested the Planning Commission try to secure the Cleveland Avenue strip if possible so that later on it won't be a factor because if Cleveland is opened, there will be very limited traffic on the Leland extension. He further stated that steps should be taken to see that option is left open. Merrell stated the staff would look at this request and submit a report on their findings. PROPERTY CLEANUP 215.3 The Mayor introduced consideration of an ordinance ordering the abatement of unsightly conditions and the razing and removal of an unsafe structure located at 1723-1725 West Mitchell. 215.4 The City Prosecutor read the ordinance for the first time. 215.5 Director Spivey saved to postpone the second reading of the ordinance for 90 days because he had been contacted by the property owner who stated that within 90 days she will either sell the property or bring the property up to code Kelley seconded the motion. Director Lancaster questioned if the property owner does not sell the property or bring it up to code, will the property owner remove the structure or will the City do so. Spivey stated the property owner would remove the structure if she does not sell it or bring it up to code. Upon roll call the motion passed 7-0. 215.6 PENALTY WAIVER The Mayor introduced consideration of a resolution approving a penalty waiver program for elderly or handicapped city utility customers; and an ordinance amending the City code to authorize the program. He noted the program would waive the penalty applied to utility bills for certain elderly and handicapped residential customers whose financial situation causes a hardship for them in paying their utility bills by the due date. He said to be eligible, the elderly must be at least 62 years of age with a total gross annual income of less than $12,000. To be considered handicapped, a customer must be certified (as outlined in the program requirements) as having a permanent severe physical or mental impairment. The customer or their representative may make application for the waiver at the Business Office in City Hall. Those found eligible, said Martin, will not be required to pay a penalty for bill payment after the due date, but would still be subject to service termination for non-payment 28 days from the date of billing. Continued delinquency over 60 days would subject the customer to the penalty charge and removal from the program. 215.7 Director Marinoni, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the Penalty Waiver Program. 215.8 Marinoni noted that other utility companies have had similar penalty waiver programs for some time. 215.9 Green stated he felt the bills may be confusing to the public as far as the due date is concerned and requested that the bills be made more clear as to the date 1 July 5, 1989 .„7.0: of cut-off, as well as the date the late charge becomes effective. He further stated he felt the penalty waiver is a necessary program Martin requested Asst. City Manager Linebaugh and staff to investigate the billing clarification Director Green suggested. Director Lancaster stated he felt this clarification should be only for those people who are under the penalty waiver program 216 216. Upon roll call, the resolution approving the Penalty Waiver Program passed 7-0. 216 RESOLUTION NO. 56-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK 216 City Prosecutor Terry Jones read an ordinance amending the City Code to authorize the Penalty Waiver Program for the first time. Director Kelley, 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 the second time. Director Kelley, 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. Director Vorsanger noted this programwould cover only those customers who are over the age of 62 and handicapped and on Social Security. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed 7-0. 216 216 216 ORDINANCE NO. 3436 APPEARS ON PAGE- y 0 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK X X ✓ 216 BOAT STORAGE RATES • The Mayor introduced consideration of an ordinance amending the City Code to increase boat storage rates at Lake Fayetteville. He noted it is the recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the City Manager that the rates be increased as follows: Type 1989 •. 1990 Boat dock storage .$120/year $180/year Outside dock storage -$'12/year', , $120/year , City Prosecutor Jones read the ordinance for the first time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Martin, 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. Marinoni, seconded by Martin, 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. Bob Kelly, Acting Public Works Director, addressed the Board stating the increases in boat storage rates are well below other area storage rates. Director Vorsanger questioned what the rental figures for boat storage in 1988 were. Kelly stated rental figures in 1988 were the same as they are in 1989. Vorsanger stated a ten -fold increase for outside storage in 1990 seemed rather 216 216 216 216 H i 6 July 5, 1989 217.1 high to him although, he stated, he did not intend to vote against it. He noted there had been complaints from some citizens concerning this large increase. 217.2 Director Marinoni noted that there are a number of boats stored at the present rate of one dollar per month. He questioned if there were boats whose ownership was not known. Kelly stated they had located owners to all but possibly two boats at this time. 217.3 Director Lancaster noted that boat storage rates had been raised only once since the original ordinance was passed. Kelly concurred stating the rates were increased in 1983. A member of the audience questioned whether the increases were cost based rates. 217.4 Kelly stated he could not answer that question. Mayor Martin questioned whether there was a waiting list for boat storage. Kelly answered that Lake Fayetteville had a waiting list of more than 50 people wishing to store their boats there. 217.5 Upon roll call the ordinance passed 7-0. 217.6 ORDINANCE NO.3437 APPEARS ON PAGE 9/ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK xXV SEWER SYSTEM REPORT 217.7 The Mayor introduced a report from engineering consultants McGoodwin Williams & Yates on odor problems in the Fayetteville sewer system. 217.8 Asst. City Manager Linebaugh informed the Board that Carl Yates intended to address the Board on this issue but had not yet arrived for the meeting and requested postponement of consideration of this item until Mr. Yates arrived. The item was postponed until Mr. Yates arrived. SCHOOL BONDS 217.9 The Mayor introduced a request by Dr. Winston Simpson, Fayetteville Public Schools Superintendent, that the City begin the process of acquiring $5 million of unrated, uninsured, non-bank qualified for interest exemption bonds, to be used to finance construction of an addition to Fayetteville High School. 217.10 Dr. Simpson addressed the Board and introduced School Board members accompanying him as: Ed Fryer, Judy McDonald, Sue Gohn, and David Wilson. Simpson stated the Fayetteville School Board members as well as himself have an urgent need to know, with greater certainty than they now know, whether they can depend on financing construction of an addition to the high school with one cent sales tax proceeds or bonds based on the one cent sales tax. He stated that last November the voters in the City approved a one cent sales tax and approved the sale of $10 million in bonds for the purpose of constructing and renovating school facilities. He noted there were questions raised as to the legal feasibility of such a proposal. He pointed out that he and the School Board have known for some months that some bond attorneys felt there was not sufficient legal basis in Arkansas law for the proposal as presented. He went on to point 1 1 218 July.5, 1989 out that there was a bond attorney in one reputable law firm who concurs with the opinion that the proposal as put forward does have sufficient basis in law. Simpson stated the only alternative to this proposal currently available to the School Board is a property tax millage. He noted the voters of the City, through two elections, have indicated their preference for building the school facilities with sales tax revenues rather than property tax revenues. He said the School Board has only one opportunity to present a question to the electorate per year and noted the deadline for placing an item on the September, 1989 ballot is July 18th. Simpson said the Board of Directors could help the School Board make a decision as to what item to place on the September ballot by responding positively to their request and by following at least the outer limits of the time line which he had proposed in securing bond counsel and an underwriter for the sale as proposed in his memo. He•stated the key element in the process would be to secure a contract with a reputable bond attorney, within a framework of fees which are relatively usual and customary, indicating that the bond attorney does not expect some unusual question of this particular sale. Simpson stated the Board could also contract with•an underwriter to execute the sale. roe Simpson stated that all questions regarding this matter are hypothetical until the Board proceeds to the point of actually adopting a resolution which puts in motion the process of proposing a bond sale. + He stated that in order to get the real answer and specifically to get a bond attorney contracted and on-line, the question has to be a real questionrather than -a hypothetical question. .� Simpson said he thought this was a good opportunity for the City Board to assist the School Board in this matter without risking unusually high interest rates for this sale as compared to the rates forTa rated, insured sale which might be proposed at some future date. Hewent on to say he did not feel the Citizens Ad Hoc Committee, currently working to advise the Board on the incinerator bond issue, --would view the actions the School Board has requested the City Board to take as a lack of regard of their forthcoming advice." He further stated he did not feel the Ad Hoc Committee would view' these actions as substantially handicapping them in making recommendations to the Board with regard to the incinerator problem. Simpson said he had made -ran effort to contact members of the Ad Hoc Committee by mail regarding'this'matter. He noted he had responses by phone and/or in writing from 7 of the 12 members of that committee indicating they would not view the City Board's positive response to the School Board's request as a lack of regard for the advice they will be presenting to the City Board during the first of August. •Simpson said the School Board is requesting a sale of $5 million in bonds at this time with that source of revenue being used to underwrite approximately $50 mil.lionrin capital improvement projects. He said that, in short, the City Board would not be cutting off that avenue of a recommended solution by the Ad Hoc Committee and said they would not be risking unusually high interest rates or costs of sale as compared to the sale which could be expected at a later date. He said that the Board would have taken an action which would give the School Board an important piece of information with regard to the legal sufficiency of building school buildings with City sales tax revenues. Simpson told the Board that any delay in this project presents a real crisis for the school. He said if the buildings can't be constructed with City sales tax revenues, and the School Board does not have a millage proposal for that purpose approved in September, 1989, it will throw the project at least one year 218 218 218 218 218. July 5, 1989 219.1 behind the time line now in place for building the addition to the high school. He noted the project is expected to take three years to complete, including renovation of the existing buildings. He said enrollment and growth in the elementary and junior high schools is such that it is obvious there is no room left in terms of that time line. He said once one addition has been built, about half of the existing building will need to be vacated for renovation during one school year and summer; then the other half of the existing building would be vacated for renovation, moving these students into the renovated section. Simpson said the project should be completed and full use of the facility expected by the Fall of 1993. 219.2 Dr. Ed Fryer addressed the Board stating he could appreciate and understand the problems the City faces with the incinerator project at this time. He further noted he would not be requesting the Board's approval of the school's proposal at this time if he did not believe they were bordering on an emergency situation with the schools. Fryer reviewed enrollment projections for the school system and stated they are not building enough room in the school addition to handle all the kids they will have to shift out of part of the existing building. He said the existing building was built around 1950 and is in dire need of renovation. He said if this project is delayed another year or two, there will be 200 - 300 more students in those buildings than the buildings have been designed for during that renovation period. He said this means there is a possibility of having to fill up the parking lots with portable class rooms. Fryer stated this would be the first issuance ever of a bond of this type where the School Board and the City working together to raise a sales tax, using the revenues from that tax to meet the capital needs of the City as well as the school system. Fryer stated he fears that the closer the time comes for the incinerator bonds to come due, the harder it will be for any type of bond money to be raised at all. 219.3 Dr. Simpson stated that, regarding the question of sufficient statutory authority for the course that has been set, to proceed with the sale at this time would provide an opportunity to resolve the matter prior to the time the City is ready to go to the public and the school buildings would be built and renovated with this same revenue source. He further stated that perhaps it would be to the advantage of the City to try to resolve this matter before it is ready to seek funding through bond sales. Asst. City Manager Linebaugh informed the Board he had spoken with Senator David 219.4 Malone today and asked for assurance that his committee felt the schools would not be part of their presentation. He said Malone stated he could not give any such assurance but did say he anticipated having the Ad Hoc Committee's report to the Board of Directors at the July 18th Board meeting. Linebaugh stated that if the Ad Hoc Committee makes its report, the plan would be to have the bond issue out either the latter part of this year or for sure by January or February of next year. He stated his understanding of what has been said tonight is that the School Board would be content to have the money by February of next year. He further stated he has difficulty believing the cost would not be better if the entire amount were issued in one bond issue. He said the cost of issuance would be less if a $50 million bond issue were issued rather than having two separate bond issues. Linebaugh said staff would recommend that there be only one bond issue with the understanding that if everything doesn't progress as hoped, that the City would go ahead and issue something for the schools sometime next year. 1 July 5, 1989 Vorsanger asked Dr. Simpson what he sees as the problem the City may be facing 220 in reference to issuing bonds. Dr. Simpson stated the School Board was given a written opinion from a reputable bond attorney saying the City and the schools cannot enter into a program such as has been presented. He further noted there were a couple of Attorney General's opinions on the issue with some of the response being very encouraging that the program could be funded as requested. He said there were opinions from local attorneys to that end also. He said that of three bond attorneys who had responded to the question of the bond issue, only one had given an affirmative response to the legal basis for issuance of such bonds. He stated he felt that was substantial basis for the School Board to be concerned as to whether they would be'able to fund the school construction from this source. Simpson said if the money is available by January or February, 1990, it would meet their needs. He further stated that if they find out as late as November that school construction can't be funded in this fashion, the School Board will have no alternative available to it to stay within the stated time line. Their next opportunity to present a question to the public, he stated, would be September, 1990. Simpson said the Board could pass a very important benchmark by giving City staff authorization tonight -to employ bond counsel, secure proposals and interview underwriters. I - * , Director Kelley questioned whether the bonds, if issued, would be bank qualified 220 or non-bank qualified. Linebaugh stated staff had been advised by attorneys the City would not be able to issue any bank qualified bonds this year because of the Butterfield Trail Village Issue being closed. this week. He further stated that the City would be able to issue bank qualified bonds in 1990. Linebaugh noted'that before the election City staff contacted -a -major law firm in Little Rock requesting an opinion on whether this bond issue would be legal. He said that at that time, the attorney's opinion was that such a bond issue would be legal. Linebaugh went on to say he, has requested a,written opinion from the Little Rock firm which he is expecting to receive any day. He said the opinion would state that, if hired as bond counsel, they would 'submit an opinion stating this issue is proper and the sales .tax funds could be used to fund school renovation and construction. _`. • 4 i. Dr. Simpson stated that a bank qualified status for bonds'is applicable only if 220, the issuer issues $10 million or less in a year. He said the non-bank qualified status might cost as much as one-half percent in interest rates. Kelley questioned the marketability of non-bank qualified bonds and asked if there is still some interest rate liability by issuing non-bank qualified bonds. Simpson said his information was if bonds are bank qualified,.. the` interest rate might be lower than AAA insured bonds. He said if the bonds are not bank qualified, the interest rate could be as much as one-half percent higher than bank qualified' bonds. Kelley questioned whether T.J. Raney & Sons had indicated whether there would be a problem with marketability in Arkansas for non-bank qualified bonds at one-half point higher. Dr. Simpson said he had been told the Arkansas market for municipal bonds is a seller's market and would expect no problem with selling the bonds. Z2( Director Marinoni questioned how many new classrooms would be added and how many 220. new students would be accommodated through this building and renovation program Dr. Simpson said an added student capacity of about 700 students based on 55 class rooms and some additional support spaces. He noted the design for the entire facility would be intended to serve 1,700 students. Dr. Fryer stated the 221 July 5, 1989 221.1 School Board believes this construction would make the school system adequate to the year 2000. 221.2 Director Green stated that, as his firm is performing the engineering services for the school system, he would abstain from discussion and voting at this time. 221.3 Dr. Fryer asked Linebaugh if any law firm has said they would be willing to assume third -party liability now through a legal opinion. Linebaugh said the firm has stated they will give a "clean opinion" that these bonds can be issued and used to fund high school renovation work for the schools. Dr. Fryer asked if City staff knew whether the bonding of that firm was large enough to cover this particular bond issue. Mayor Martin further asked if the firm's policy is sufficient to cover a $10 million indebtedness. Linebaugh stated he did not know for sure but stated they handle bond issues which are much greater than this. 221.4 Mayor Martin asked if the Board of Directors decided to fully accept the School Board's request and proceed with all due haste, whether the School Board believed the City could have an answer to this legal question by July 18th which would satisfy their concerns. Dr. Simpson answered negatively. Simpson said the Board of Directors could pass an important benchmark which is the basis for their request. He said if the Board proceeds in the fashion requested, the City could have contracted with bond counsel for the terms and could have interviewed and selected an underwriter for the terms of this issue by July 18th. He further said having achieved that status would place a substantially greater degree of certainty on getting a positive answer for funding the schools with City sales tax revenues. Simpson said he felt the City, if it proceeded immediately, could contract with an attorney within the framework of a usual and customary fee. He said this would give the School Board an encouraging indication that the firm is willing to take on the responsibility and liability involved in this issue. 221.5 Mayor Martin noted that the citizens voted to extend the sales tax and that some of these revenues would be used for school construction. He said he felt the will of the people is that the Board of Directors provide the School Board with buildings, in some form or fashion, up to $10 million. Martin said the main question, as he sees it, is can this project be done legally. He stated the Board is expecting to receive a report from the Ad Hoc Committee at the next Board meeting. The Mayor said he could see no reason why the School Board and the City won't have the money they want, when they want it, next year. He said if it should appear that there will be a "protracted delay" then the Board does have the option of going ahead with bank qualified or non-bank qualified bonds in a timely fashion which would assure the public that the project is being handled the way it should be. 221.6 Director Lancaster asked what the issue is before this Board and why the Board is discussing this problem. He said the problem hinges on the settlement of the incinerator issue. He noted that the citizens voted $10 million to fund the school, but said they also voted several million dollars over a 20 year period for capital improvements. Lancaster suggested that the School Board place a millage on the ballot, then if it is not needed and the bonds are issued, it can be stricken from the ballot later. Dr. Simpson stated that the purpose for the School Board coming before the Board tonight was to find out whether the City could sell bonds for the purpose of constructing schools. He noted "that question is the same before or after the incinerator problem." July 5, 1989. a" ';tri„-`�, Director Vorsanger noted that when the bonds are issued, it would be a City bond issue, not a School bond issue. He said that all legal procedures must be followed and that in itself would take past. July 18th. He said the most important point is that if the Board: decided to do a $5 million issue now and the other $5 million later, the City would be paying for the same thing twice. Vorsanger said he felt the City should move ahead and think about issuing bonds or advertising and getting ready to sell them either in November or December, but not actually take delivery of the money until January or February of 1990. Mayor Martin moved that consideration of this request be•postponed until receipt of the report from the Ad Hoc Committee on the incinerator disengagement is received, or until July 18th, whichever comes first. The motion was seconded by Director Vorsanger. " " George Blackwell addressed the Board and stated he is disturbed about what is occurring in Fayetteville. He requested that the Board "not agree to anything in reference to this $5 million, prior to the settlement of the situation concerning the incinerator." He stated he opposed the.$5 million bond issue because he has seen no proof that.it is needed. t f Mr. Reus addressed the Board stating he supported the motion to postpone this bond issue until all the questions are answered. He stated if there is an emergency in getting this construction; the School Board should go ahead and place a millage issue on the ballot. Upon roll call, the motion passed 6-0-1 with Director Green abstaining. ' rt SEWER SYSTEM REPORT - 4 •1 The Mayor introduced consideration of a report from the Engineering Consultants 222 McGoodwin Williams & Yates on odor problems in the Fayetteville sewer system. He noted that the consulting firm .had provided the Board with a letter of explanation of odor problems and requested Carl Yates to review their findings. Yates addressed the Board stating',the City hired the firm of Metcalf & Eddie about a year ago to evaluate the cause of the odor problems. He said extensive sampling was done and three suggestions were made to the City which they felt would eliminate the problem. He said they suggested that equipment.be installed to feed a ferrous sulfate solution at the Double Springs and North Gregg lift stations. He noted that the plans and specifications for this project are complete and construction bids have been advertised for and are expected to be received this Friday. He said that, assuming a contract can be awarded by the end of the month, the equipment should be installed by the middle of September. Yates stated that due to complications with storing the ferrous sulfate solution above ground, it would be more economical to store the solution in underground storage tanks. He noted that the delay in starting this project was in part due to newly enacted EPA regulations regarding such underground storage. He said the storage tanks will be double wall fiberglass tanks which will meet EPA regulations. Director Green questioned if the process of injecting the chemical into the sewer system had been monitored enough to know for sure whether it would solve the odor problem. Yates stated Metcalf & Eddie were very comfortable that this process 222 222 222' 222 222 222 222 July 5, 1989 223.1 would take care of the problem but noted that if there are still problems in certain areas, there are other options available. Director Lancaster questioned if this process would also correct the problem at the plant on 265. Yates answered affirmatively. 223.2 Director Spivey asked if the equipment is not installed before the Fall when the temperatures will drop, is it correct to assume we will not know whether the problem has been eliminated until next summer. Yates stated that may be true and noted that the manufacturer of the equipment will run an extensive two week test to help City staff in determining the dosage of the chemical needed to correct the problem. He said if it was too late in the year to properly test it, something could probably be worked out with the manufacturer where they could come back early next summer to test it. OTHER BUSINESS WARD BOUNDARIES 223.3 Director Vorsanger stated he had received a letter in support of the resolution for redistricting the ward boundaries proposed by the Chamber of Commerce Task Force. LANDFILL 223.4 Linebaugh informed the Board that on July 3rd Northwest Arkansas Waste Management turned away fourteen of the City's sanitation trucks and refused to accept the City's solid waste. He noted that at that point a contingency plan was implemented to avoid disruption of sanitation service to the City. He went on to say the contract with Northwest Arkansas Waste Management calls for a renewal year with a cost of living raise which would go through June, 1990. He said Northwest Arkansas Waste Management has chosen to ignore that and has wanted to more than double the City's fees. Linebaugh said that on June 12th the one year renewal was extended by the City by letter. He said that Northwest's claims concerning tires and unpaid bills, etc. are completely contrary to the contract. He said City staff had a meeting on July 3rd with the attorney for Northwest which resulted in the landfill allowing the City to deposit its waste at this time. 223.5 Linebaugh stated staff would like to thank Sunray Landfill "who came to our rescue" in this situation. He said Sunray has requested a letter of indemnification which the staff recommends for approval. 223.6 City Prosecutor Jones read the Indemnification Agreement for the benefit of the Board and public. 223.7 Director Lancaster, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to approve the Indemnification Agreement. 223.8 Director Kelley questioned whether the Board could legally indemnify the liability of a private contractor. City Prosecutor Jones said he could not give a definitive answer to that question. Kelley stated he would like to have that question clarified before extending that coverage under the Indemnification July 5, 1989 Agreement. Kelley went on to say he appreciated Sunray's help in this matter but did not want the Board to go outside its legal limits. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0: Director Lancaster questioned whether 'staff intends to recover all costs the City has incurred on this issue. Linebaugh stated that at the request of Northwest, staff will meet with them to discuss modifications to the.contract. He stated that in discussions with their attorney, Northwest has been put on notice that the City expects to be repaid for damages which have been incurred. • ANNEXATION < 4 224. 224. 224. Linebaugh told the Board that part,of,the property which is in the process of 224. being annexed by the City of Farmington is possibly in'the City of Fayetteville growth area. He said if staff confirms this, they would request the City to go on record formally protesting this action. Director Lancaster, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion that the City of 224. Fayetteville formally protest the annexation of property in the City of Fayetteville growth area by the City of Farmington. . - i a Director Vorsanger pointed out that this proposed,annexation is "three times as large" as Farmington's present city. Mr. Blackwell stated he has spoken with some of the property owners under the proposed annexation and stated he would like to have further information on it. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7-0. HERBICIDE ISSUE • Al Vick addressed the Board stating that Director Lancaster had recommended that people drive by his home and look at the condition of the curtilage outside his house by the walk. He showed the Board a picture of this area and said he hoped that would settle it. He went on to say that the experts from the Weed Science and Agronomy Department at the University are not toxicologists and are not involved in environmental or genetic studies. He said if the Board is going to seek expert help on this issue, they need to go to, people who are experts in this field. Vick said the Weed Science and Agronomy Department is funded in part by grants from chemical companies and are defending their own livelihoods. He noted that when this issue came to a vote last year, 5,863 registered voters .voted for "a total and absolute ban" on the use of herbicides in any public place inside the City. He said the use of herbicides by the City is forcing a substance on other people who don't necessarily feel comfortable with it. He went on to say that, according to a study by the University of Arkansas, ninety percent of the migratory song birds in Central America are no.klonger able to reproduce themselves as a direct result of the use of pesticides and herbicides. Vick said the issue goes beyond the experts and beyond majority rule. He requested that the Board and City staff try to project themselves into the situation and the fears of the five thousand plus people who said they don't want herbicides used here. 224. 224. 224. 224. July 5, 1989 225.1 The Mayor said he thinks the Board is committed to trying to integrate the views of the public into a policy which is responsive to public opinion. 225.2 225.3 2225.4 HILLCREST TOWERS Sam Guido, a resident of Hillcrest Towers, addressed the Board. He questioned why the public doesn't vote for the Mayor in Fayetteville. Mayor Martin explained that the City of Fayetteville is under the City Manager form of government and as such, the City Manager is the Chief Executive Officer of the City. He went on to say that under this form of government, the position of mayor is a ceremonial position having the responsibility of chairing Board meetings and representing the City on other occasions. Guido said he felt the citizens should have the opportunity to elect their mayor. Guido complimented the Mayor in continuing the practice of reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the Board meetings. Guido stated this is the fourth time he has been before the Board in reference to the problems at Hillcrest Towers. He noted that the first time he was before the Board, he presented a petition of 50 names requesting police patrol at Hillcrest Towers. He stated the police department will patrol the area for a couple of days and then stop until he goes in to complain, at which time they patrol for a couple of more days and then stop again. He said that at the November 15th Board meeting, the Board approved of police patrol of this property. Guido said that from November until now he had been dealing with the police department, talking with various individuals about his concerns. He said Lt. Hoyt had sent Officer Forbes to Hillcrest Towers to survey the security situation and Forbes did find security problems. He asked that the Board request the police to patrol the area regularly. Guido told the Board two tires on his van had been slashed on December 27th. He said that another tire had been slashed along with damage to the body of his vehicle on April 20th. Guido noted several other incidents of vandalism to vehicles in this area. He appealed to the Board, on behalf of the citizens who had signed the petition, to request regular police patrol from the Police Department Administration. Guido noted that he patrols the area three hours each night himself and sees a lot during this time which concerns him. He said he feels the people at Hillcrest Towers rate police protection. 225.5 Mayor Martin said the Board would get a report on this situation and get back to Mr. Guido on their findings. He noted the City cannot insure that there will be no more incidents but would do its best to improve the service there. 225.6 Mr. Guido said he has gone to McDonald's Restaurant early in the morning and seen "three police cars out of commission" and questioned why this happens when the Police Department is shorthanded already Mayor Martin said the Board would look into this situation also. Guido also questioned why there are nine to ten police cars "laying dormant" on the Police Department parking lot at times. The Mayor stated this would be checked into also. Guido stated that the Board had already approved of the extra patrol request for the area and questioned why the Chief of Police did not carry out this request. July.5, 1989 LEE STREET Mr. Hamilton addressed the Board and stated cable coverage of Board meetings has improved greatly over the last few4months. He said he.'wanted to thank the Directors for their courage during this difficult time-and;for their courage in resisting pressure to make rapid decisions which may not be warranted. Hamilton questioned whether the Lee Street, situation had been resolved. Mayor Martin said he believes it is planned to chip and seal that street in due course. Bob Kelly concurred. Hamilton stated that if money is not'going to be available to do this "in recent time to come", perhaps that street should be closed until such time as it can be sealed. COLLEGE AVENUE PATROL • Mr. Hamilton requested the Board to. pay particular attention to police patrol in the City. He said it has become apparent through his observation that there is a visible lack of police patrol on College Avenue during most any hour of the evening. He stated he had watched College" Avenue for two, hours on three different days and during that time he didLnot see any police cars on that street. He noted that the Sheriff's.Department is having to patrol Fiesta Square. He suggested there is an administrative problem within the Police Department and suggested the Board approach the Chief'of Police about this. He went on to say officers could be found at the International House of Pancakes and other restaurants, two and three at a time,°fot hours rather than out on the street. Hamilton requested the Mayor to ask the:Board to establish a police sub- station in North Fayetteville. He said the felt this would save an enormous amount of money. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. 226 226. 226 226