HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-10-17 MinutesOctober 17, 1989
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on
Tuesday, October 17, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the City
Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor William Martin; Directors Michael Green, Russ Kelley,
Ernest Lancaster, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Shell Spivey and Fred
Vorsanger; City Manager James Pennington, City Attorney Jerry
Rose, City Clerk Sherry Thomas; members of the staff, press
and audience
CALL TO ORDER
343.1 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.
343.2 The Mayor welcomed the public watching the meeting on television, and those
present in the audience. He said everyone present would have an opportunity to
address the Board on every time under discussion. He asked that those wishing
to speak introduce themselves, give their place of residence, keep their comments
concise and non -repetitive, and address the entire Board. He said any questions
for the Board or staff should be directed to the Mayor.
REPORT TO THE PUBLIC
343.3 The Mayor introduced a report to the public and Board that is presented by the
City Manager at the second Board meeting of each month. This report, for the
month of September, includes financial information, an update on staff activities
and items of general interest.
343.4 City Manager James Pennington addressed the Board stating that he had a number
of major items that he would like to discuss so gave some brief highlights of
the monthly report (each member of the Board has a copy of that report). He
advised the public that a copy of the report is available in the City Manager's
office.
343.5
343.6
343.7
He stated that revenues and expenses have remained basically as they have been
throughout the year, i.e., expenses exceed revenues as was projected at the
beginning of the budget year. He stated that all of the departments had been
very active this past month protecting and serving the citizens.
1. The traffic light at the intersection is up and working at Old Wire Road and
Township.
2. There is a lot of testing being done with the sewage treatment program.
Smoke testing has been delayed due to weather conditions, but when that is
started, the City Manager's office is aware of the testing.
343.8 3. Progress is being made with the Capital Improvement Plan. The board
members have received a copy of the 1990-1994 plan. All of the water line
October 17,1989
replacement engineering contracts are under contract, and the work is proceeding
on those projects.
4. The odor and corrosion control facilities are reasonably complete.
5. The Elderly Taxi Program, which is a very positive program, has grown to 204
participants, and from the original projections, that is a significant increase.
J '3
344.1
344.2
6. The Recycling Rally was very successful in cooperation with the Trash 344.3
Busters. Over 23 tons of recyclables were obtained, and over 3500 cars were
unloaded at the rally.
7. City Manger Pennington discussed the draw -down situation with Lake Sequoyah. 344.4
The City was required to draw -down the lake to augment the flow of the White
River. When the permits were issued several years ago for the plant, the City
could not dispense effluent into the White River if the stream flow falls below
50 cubic feet/second (cfs). This part of the permit had not been in effect
until this year, so that it why the City did not have a problem meeting the cfs
requirements last year even through the drought season. In June the problems
began to occur, and the cfs began to drop. In August a decision had to be made
because there had already been a little over 8 feet of water drawn from Lake
Sequoyah, so the valves were closed on the lake. The flowage in the river at
that time dropped to 6 cfs. Since that time, no effluent has been transmitted
through the White River. Currently, the water is still 2 feet below the level
where the flow of the river could be augmented. The problem is that the flow
of treated effluent from the plant must be split 50-50 between the Illinois
River and the White River. The holding ponds at the treatment plant have been
utilized to hold the 50% not dispersed into the Illinois River. Some of the
treated effluent has been applied to land. However, the holding ponds are
quickly beginning to fill up. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Bond have been working with the
EPA on the 50 cfs requirement. This guideline is practically impossible to
achieve. The Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology has met with
the City, and they are to recommend to the EPA that the cfs flow requirement be
lowered to 5 cfs as long as the river temperature remains at less than 25
degrees. This would be a much better situation for the City and would in no way
damage the White River.
The EPA in Dallas has sent a letter to Mr. Robert Henry, the Attorney General 344.5
of Oklahoma. This letter addresses the issue of keeping the City of Fayetteville
from being able to discharge into the Illinois River. EPA: answered the Oklahoma
Attorney General stating that the "permit does not require that any effluent be
discharged to either receiving stream and indeed prohibits discharge into the
White River when flow therein is less than 50 cfs." (Pennington stated that the
letters are all public and can be inspected in the City Manager's office.) EPA
stated that they will continue monitoring the situation, and if there are
violations of the act, they will be taken care of.
r -
There have been violations during that time period. 4'The'City has made a very 344.6
strong practice this past 18 months making sure that+every potential violation
that occurs and/or sewage overflow in the sewage'collection system be reported
directly to EPA. These reports have to be followed through with conferences and
discussions with EPA, and they have worked closely with the City. Each of the
administrative orders that come from the EPA contain language that sounds and
is very serious. The essence of the reports are that they are requiring the
City of Fayetteville to submit certain types of reports; which this Board has
October 17, 1989
for the most part already authorized engineers to conduct (i.e., developing
critical paths for the telemetry system).
345.1 Pennington continued to explain that the maximum allowable discharge into the
Illinois River is 6.1 million gallons per day averaged over a 30 day time period.
In June of this year, the City discharged 6.25 million gallons. The EPA was
immediately notified and presented with the way to correct the problem. As a
result of this there has been a letter from the EPA to the Attorney General
making it sound like Fayetteville was trying to hide the problem. Fayetteville
is in no way trying to hide anything. However, a permit violation did incur.
An administrative order has been issued to the City asking what corrective
actions have been made. The City has responded to this. The EPA letter also
stated that enforcement action was being pursued against the City for bypasses
and overflows from the sewage conveyance system --which were reported by the
City. The 1990-1994 Capital Improvement Program has also been presented to the
EPA to show the ways the City can deal with the bypasses and overflows. At the
present time, the collection system to get the sewage to the plant is not up to
par. There is projected expenditures over the next five years of over $30
million on the sewer system.
CONSENT AGENDA
345.2 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:
345.3 A. Minutes of the October 3, 1989 regular Board meeting;
345.4 B. Consideration of the award of Bid /89-42, for long distance services
to be provided to all City locations; and approval of a bid waiver.
345.5
RESOLUTION
The staff recommends award to U.S. Sprint Telecommunications Company,
one of the three firms submitting bids. U.S. Sprint was the second
lowest bidder for long distance service with a bid of $980 per month.
Award is recommended to U.S. Sprint because the lowest bidder
provides lower quality service and its rates are not regulated by
the FCC.
The staff also recommends the approval of a bid waiver that would
waive competitive bidding in the future for long distance service
on an annual basis. Due to the fact that any change in long
distance service can be very costly and time consuming, the staff
would request annual quotes to determine any substantial rate
differences.
96-89 APPEARS
ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
C. Authorization to proceed with Phase II of the White River Watershed
Sewer Study
In July the City Board authorized the execution of a contract with
October 17, 1989
McGoodwin, Williams, . and Yates for,. a three phase study of that
portion of the sewer system in the White River Watershed. At that
time authorization for the work in Phase I was approved with Phases
II and III to be authorized at a later date.
Although an abnormally wet August and September have put Phase T 346.1
behind schedule, the City's consultants are requesting authorization
to proceed with Phase II at this time. The Phase II work consists
of wet weather monitoring and associated field supervision and data
analysis to be done for the contract amount of $114,880.00. Because
this work must be done during the fall rainy season, the City Manager
recommends that authorization be granted for Phase II.
RESOLUTION 97-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
There were no changes in the consent agenda items. It was moved by Kelley and 346.2
seconded by Green to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion
passed 7-0.
CD BUDGET
The Mayor introduced consideration and opened a public hearing on the preliminary 346.3
1990 Community Development Block Grant budget.
This is the first of two Board meetings at which the 1990 CD budget will 346.4
be discussed. At this meeting, various requests and suggestions for the
use of approximately $603,880 in CD funding will be presented to the Board
from city departments and staff and from the general public.
The City Board of Directors will be asked to decide on a final list of
items to be funded in the 1990 CD budget at either the November 7 or
November 21 meeting. Listed below is a preliminary list of requests
recommended by the staff:
John Merrill, Planning Management Director, outlined the list.
HOUSING:
Rehabilitation
Property Acquisition
STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
Includes repaving, •sidewalk repair and storm
drainage for Watson, Thompson, Boles and
Rollston Streets. ` 1.
PARKS & RECREATION: - .
Construction of a fitness trail (Walker Park)
Development of nature park Lor senior citizens
and the handicapped (Walker Park)
BABE RUTH BASEBALL:•
_F
Equipment purchase -
Improvements for two fieldsin the Fayetteville
Industrial Park
$175,000
200,000
27,250
14,678
346.5
346.E
October 17, 1989
NOTE: This activity may not be eligible under HUD guidelines; a
determination has been requested from the Little Rock HUD office and
should be received prior to final consideration by the Board of
Directors.
347.1 Merrill stated at this time they had received confirmation by the
HUD office that this project was indeed ineligible for funding and
should be eliminated from the list.
347.2 SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION:
Construction of approximately 2,000 feet of 50,000
sidewalk along the west side of South College
Avenue.
347.3 PUBLIC SERVICES: 85,525 (15% CAP)
347.4
347.5
347.6
347.7
Staff has received two requests:
1) Abilities Unlimited for construction of an
addition to the existing recycling center
for $75,000
2) Council on Aging, Inc. for construction of an
Intergenerational Child Care Facility for the
maximum allowable
ELDERLY TAXI PROGRAM: 5,000
EOA WEATHERIZATION: 5,000
ADMINISTRATION: 83,000
Merrill stated that at the agenda session, a citizen asked about the possibility
of purchasing a park. The staff has reviewed this request and feel that it does
not meet the HUD guidelines.
347.8 In addition, there was a third group under the public services category to
request funding --the Southeast Fayetteville Citizens Action Committee (SEFCAC).
347.9 Mayor Martin stated that it was pointed out that the
$83,000 request for
administration represented 14% of the total budget. He asked what the HUD cap
was on this expenditure. Merrill stated that the HUD cap was 20%, and the staff
was extremely please to be recommending an expenditure significantly below the
cap for the second year in a row.
347.10
Vorsanger stated he had a message from Susan Raymond to bring up two items for
funding consideration: (1) sidewalks for school children at Wedington Drive and
Mt. Comfort Road and (2) a 4 -way stop at Wedington Drive and Sang Avenue for
school children.
347.11 Kelley pointed out that the 15% cap on- public services is a government
requirement --not a city established requirement.
347.12
Robert Anderson, a Fayetteville citizen, addressed the Board requesting that it
October 17, 1989
be made mandatory to stop for,pedestrians in crosswalks.
the City would look into this problem.
Mayor Martin stated
INTERGENERATIONAL CHILD CARE CENTER 348.1
Bob Cooper, representing a planning group for the Intergenerational Child Care
Center, addressed the Board. He introduced other members of the group that had
accompanied him --Judy Goodson, Department of Human Services; Lonnie Vance, Child
Care Specialist at the Department of Human Services; Ivrey Conley, Director of
Headstart; Betty Turner, Director of the Council on Aging; Mary Lee Ravenscroft,
board member of the Council on Aging; Helen Andrew, President of the Board at
the Council on Aging; and Rodney Ryan, board member of the Council on Aging.
He stated intergenerational child care provides a solution for two different
questions (1) how to improve the quality of life of senior citizens and (2) how
to provide high quality, low cost child care to low income working parents. At
this time, Cooper showeda video segment of a 20/20 television program that
explained the intergenerational child care concept highlighting the concept and
benefits of the program Cooper pointed out that the interpersonal relationships
benefit both the children and the elderly. Low income families will be targeted
for this child care program They expect the facility to be self-supporting
without any on-going public assistance once the facility has been built and is
in operation. They anticipate it will take about 18 months to build and begin
operating the facility at an estimated cost of $125,000.
ABILITIES UNLIMITED 348.2
Les Kemp with Abilities Unlimited addressed the Board on behalf of their request
for funding and presented a slide show highlighting the nature of items recycled,
the benefit to the employees of the facility, and the changes and growth over
the history of the facility in Fayetteville. He stated federal and state funding
over the past four years has decreased from 55 to 38%, so Abilities Unlimited
needs the CD funds to assist the funding of their programs and expansion. He
pointed out that the facility would employ an additional four disabled persons
due to the expansion. He introduced some of the facilities board members that
had accompanied him to the City Board meeting: Fran Alexander, Margaret Walker,
Dr. Ann Thompson, Millie Pollock;. Winona Mitchell, H. D. Knight, and Frank
Luther, in addition Lyle Kirkwood from the Abilities Unlimited staff was present.
•
SEFCAC 348.'_
•
Jessie Bryant, of the Southeast Fayetteville Citizens Action Committee (SEFCAC)
accompanied by Dorothy Bryant, a VISTA worker, addressed the Board on behalf of
her organization requesting funds. She stated SEFCAC helped those people who
had no insurance, etc., and really need the help.` All of the people working
in the center are volunteers, and they are anon -profit organization. They are
presently located in the old county jail facility which the county provides them
and no cost. They are requesting $15,000 to assist them in purchasing a
permanent facility. 1
F 1
Martin asked if the $15,000 was`just a start in the funding for a permanent 348.1
location. Ms. Bryant confirmed this.
Greeh asked Ms. Bryant if the facility hada location planned for their permanent 348.`
home. She stated that they did not/yet. `;
October 17, 1989
349.1 RECYCLING
Fran Alexander addressed the Board regarding the success so far on recycling.
She stated that if Abilities Unlimited is denied the funding and thus unable to
expand, she is not sure what the next step would be since the collection of
recyclables is increasing.
349.2 WEATHERIZATION
Bruce Davis, Housing Director for the Economic Opportunity Agency, addressed
the Board requesting continued funding for the weatherization program He stated
that this organization worked on the same houses the City works on in their
housing rehabilitation program. For each dollar the City contributes to the
program, his organization provides matching funds of three additional dollars.
His program also assists homeowners who are involved in the self-help
weatherization program; however, these are not included in this particular
cooperative agreement. The primary target of this program are those people 60
years of age and older.
349.3 There being no further discussion, Mayor Martin declared the public hearing
closed. He stated the City Board would take the requests under consideration
and decide at next agenda meeting when final action will be taken (which is
required by December 1).
349.4 REZONING
The Mayor introduced an ordinance rezoning property as requested in petition R89-
29.
Size of parcel: .75 acres
Location: 6445 Wedington Drive
Petitioner: Faith Investments
Change Requested: From A-1 "Agricultural" to C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial"
Planning Commission Action: Recommended Approval, 7-0
349.5 The petition was considered in a public hearing before the Planning Commission
on October 9, 1989. The Planning Management Director recommended approval of
the rezoning, reporting the following to the Commission:
349.6 The subject property is the site of the "One Stop" convenience store. The
property has been used for commercial purposes (i.e., as a convenience
store) for many years. Overall the property contains about .75 of an acre.
A single-family house is situated at the rear of the property. The land
across the street is undeveloped and zoned A-1. The land diagonally
across the street (i.e., the northeast corner of Wedington and Double
Springs Road) is zoned C-2 and is used as a car repair shop and used car
sales.
349.7 No public opposition was express at the hearing. A motion to recommend approval
passed by a vote of 7-0, Commissioners Ozment and Springborn being absent.
October 17, 1989
The ordinance was read for the first time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Green,
made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the second
time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Green, made a motion to further suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading.
350.1
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 350.2
ORDINANCE N0. 3457 APPEARS ON PAGE /G 0 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK X X V
ALLEY VACATION 350.3
Mayor Martin introduced a request for an ordinance vacating and abandoning a 20'
alley east of South Duncan Avenue between Lot 3 and Lots 1 & 2 in the Parksdale
Addition. -
LeeNeiling, owner of the property at 1531 South Duncan Avenue, requests the
closing of the alley which adjoins his property to the south side of the alley.
The property owners on the north side of the alley have no objections to the
proposed closing. Utility companies have concurred in the request and the City
Manger recommends approval.
350.4
The ordinance was read for the first time. Director Marinoni, seconded by 350.5
Vorsanger, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its
second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read
for the second time. Director Marinoni, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion
to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final
reading.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0. 350.6
ORDINANCE NO. 3458 APPEARS ON PAGE /62 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK ),()0/
EASEMENT VACATION110,
g
Mayor Martin introduced a request from June Davis for.an ordinance vacating and 350.7
abandoning a 10' utility easement -located between Lots 17 & 18 in the Fairview
Heights Addition. t.
•
The vacation is requested because a house (built in 1963)±currently stands over 350.8
the easement. Letters of concurrence are onfile.from all public utilities and
Warner Cable. The City Manager recommends approval of the request.
x i ' -
The ordinance was read for the first time. -Director Kelley, seconded by .350.9
Lancaster, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its
second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read
for the second time. Director Kelley, 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 ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3459 APPEARS ON PAGE /6fr - OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK KK V
350.1
ANIMAL LICENSES
350.1
October 17, 1989
Mayor Martin introduced a request for approval of an ordinance amending Section
4-17 of the City Code of Ordinances to change the valid period of animal licenses
to one year from the date of purchase.
351.1 Currently, animal licenses are valid only for the calendar year in which they
are purchased. The staff and the Humane Society feel that making animal licenses
valid for one full year from the date of purchase will provide an added incentive
for those considering the purchase of licenses in the latter part of the year.
Additionally, the amendment would allow citizens to renew their animal licenses
concurrent with yearly rabies vaccination.
351.2 The ordinance was read 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. The ordinance was read
for 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.
351.3 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3460 APPEARS ON PAGE /44r OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK xi(V
FB0 CONTRACT
351.4 Mayor Martin introduced resolutions authorizing a Release of Claims and a
Modification to Lease and Fixed Based Operations contract with Aero -Tech
Services, Inc., and approval of a budget adjustment.
351.5 The proposed release was negotiated by the City with Aero-Tech's attorney in
settlement of all claims for the retroactive rent adjustments provided for in
their lease with the City for fixed based operations at the Fayetteville Airport.
Approval is recommended for the payment of $7,372 to Aero -Tech in exchange for
the release.
351.6 Approval is recommended of a Modification to Lease and Fixed Based Operators
Contract entered into with Aero -Tech Services in January of 1985. This would
change the rent for the FB0 premises from $1,625.75 to $1,185.78 per month plus
a flowage fee of 5 cents per gallon on all aviation fuel and gasoline fuel
delivered to the fuel farm each month.
351.7 Director Lancaster stated he would abstain from any discussion of these matters.
351.8 Mayor Martin asked the City Attorney to summarize the situation and state what
recommendations, if any, City staff has.
351.9
City Attorney Rose stated the reasons for these negotiations arises from a
modification of the contract that the City has had with Aero -Tech Services, Inc.,
since January 1988 which called for a revision of the rents to be paid. Under
the provisions of that modification, there is to be an appraisal conducted by
the City. This appraisal has been conducted; in addition, there was a
consultant's report. The modification in the contract calls for whatever
adjustments are made to be retroactive to March 1988. He stated that the
figures the Board is being asked to approve are a compromise between what the
consultants and appraisers stated as being fair rental values. The change is
approximately a $388 per month reduction in rent, retroactive to March 1988, a
October 17, 1989
total of $7,372. He further ,stated that it had.;,been discussed that Aero -tech
receive this money in the form of a rate reduction instead of actually cutting
them a check. However, if the Board decides to pay them by check, a budget
adjustment needs to be approved.
Vorsanger made a motion to approve the rent reduction resolution making the 352.1
$7,372 payback a reduction of rents. This was seconded by Director Green.
Marinoni stated that the Board had already approved this modification of rents 352.2
in January 1988. He feels the approval of this has already been done.
Green asked if making the payments reduction is rents had been discussed with 352.3
the Aero -Tech counsel.
Barry Sinex, secretary of the corporation of Aero -Tech Services, Inc., addressed 352.4
the Board requesting the payment be made by an exchange of checks to enable them
to keep their paperwork straight. They have a payment due to the City on Friday,
so there would basically be an exchange of funds.
Vorsanger stated he would prefer a credit to eliminate the need for a budget 352.5
adjustment. He commended the City Attorney for negotiating the rates, as two
out of the three negotiated were for higher amounts that the consultants sought.
Based on these, he plans to approve the resolution.
Kelley asked if this released the City of all claims. Rose stated to the best 352.E
of his knowledge, this was the final payment. Rose stated the release was for
the City to pay Aero -tech $7,372, and they be released from any claim Aero -tech
may have.
•
Spivey agreed with Kelley in that he thought the previous $52,000 settlement had
taken care of this. He does not care to address this^issue again.
Sinex stated that the appraisals were completed over a'year ago by the City, and
Aero -tech has'been waiting patiently,to find out how much they were to pay the
City. This was in no way connected with the letter of termination given to Aero -
tech Services.
iF
Green asked if all four of the pending resolutions were. basically a package. 352.S
City Attorney Rose stated this was°true. These are'an attempt to "clear the
board" and start out from scratch with the new contracts.
352.i
352.£
There being no further discussion on this point,'%the resolution passed by a vote
of 5-1-1, Director Spivey voting against and Director Lancaster abstaining.
RESOLUTION 98-89 APPEARS ON PAGE '• OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
Mayor Martin stated that the next item was
to the lease on the fuel farm changing the
to $1185.78 per month plus a flowage"fee
352.:
a resolution -approving a modification 352.:
rent on the F130 premises from $1625.75
of 5.cents per gallon.
Director Green, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to`approve the modification. 352.:
•
•
Marinoni stated that two weeks ago, there were two rental items that were to 352.
change. City Attorney Rose agreed; stating the second item changes the fuel farm
rent from $448 to $500 per month.`
October 17, 1989
53.1 Martin, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion that the fuel farm rent be adjusted
from $448 to $500 per month.
53.2
53.3
Upon roll call, the amendment to the motion (changing the fuel farm rent) passed
by a vote of 6-1, with Lancaster abstaining.
Upon roll call, the amended motion to approve the resolution passed by a vote
of 5-1-1, Spivey voting against and Lancaster abstaining.
RESOLUTION 99-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
AIRPORT HANGER
153.4 Mayor Martin introduced resolutions authorizing a release of claims and a lease
agreement for aircraft hanger space with Aero -Tech Services, Inc.
553.5 The proposed release was negotiated by the City with Aero-Tech's attorney in
settlement of all claims Aero -Tech may have against the City related to hanger
construction and/or maintenance expenses incurred by Aero -Tech. There would be
no cost to the City, but the release is contingent upon our entering into other
agreements with Aero -Tech.
353.6
353.7
353.8
Approval is requested for a 5 year lease agreement with Aero -Tech Services for
lease of an aircraft hanger at the Fayetteville Airport. The lease differs from
the prior agreement in that:
1) It runs for five years rather than one year.
2) The rent of $2,300 per month is a fixed rental and not tied to debt
services as in the past.
3) Paragraph 9 has been amended to eliminate Aero-Tech's aircraft
rental, sales and flight training (from original lease).
City Attorney Rose stated that the hanger lease is a different lease from the
FBO and fuel farm lease. These rental adjustments are favorable to the City.
Also, these agreements are a package deal. Aero -tech said they had some $4000
of repairs they felt the City was responsible for. The City felt otherwise under
the terms of the lease and were not sure the repairs were even necessary.
However, in the spirit of compromise and in trying to clear the air with Aero -
tech, there has been negotiated a release of any claims by Aero -tech in exchange
for the City entering into this 5 year contract for lease of hanger.
Marinoni asked why Aero -tech performed maintenance that was supposed to be the
responsibility of the City and then expecting the City to pay for them.
353.9 Mr. Sinex stated that these repairs were done on a Friday when there was a
customer needing to get his plane out of the hanger. He stated Mr. Frederick,
Airport Manager, had approved the repairs. He outlined how Aero -tech had
prospered and benefited both the airport and the City and expressed his desire
that the air could be cleared, and the City and Aero -Tech could work in harmony.
353.10
Marinoni asked if Aero -Tech had sent the City a bill for the repairs. Mr. Sinex
stated that they had approximately 2 years ago. In 1987 they were told they
m -
would have to revise their;bill
receive any reimbursement. They
be put off for the past 2 years.
October 17, 1989
to comply with,;city budget to enable them to
did this, but the balance ofthe bill has just
Mayor Martin stated that there was a compromise agreement and favors the
resolution on the airport issue with one exception. However, if for some reason
Aero -tech was unable to continue to operate as FBO operator, that this would be
co -terminus with the hanger lease. Mr. Sinex stated this basically was the case
and agreed with this.
Mayor Martin made a motion to amend the leaseagreement on the hanger to provide
for a fixed rental of $2300 per month for 5 years subject to immediate
termination upon the termination of the terminal and fuel farm lease with
paragraph 9 being amended to eliminate Aero-tech's aircraft rental, sales and
flight training in return for the release from all construction and/or
maintenance expense claims. This was seconded by Director Green.
v
354.1
354.';
Upon roll call, the motion passed 5-1-1, Spivey voting against and Lancaster 354.:
abstaining.
RESOLUTION 100-89 APPEARS ON PAGE
RESOLUTION 100A-89 APPEARS ON PAGE
SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL-USF&G
OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
Mayor Martin stated that an agreement has been made, but the language has not 354.e
been clarified. City staff has requested this item be postponed for two weeks. -
s
BID WAIVER
it
Mayor Martin introduced a request by the Humane Society for`an ordinance waiving
the requirements of competitive bidding on a contract to construct a new animal
shelter facility to be owned jointly by the Humane Society and the City.
The Humane Society opened bids for the construction project on October 5, 1989 354.1
without complying with the City's competitive bidding procedures. They are now
requesting a bid waiver retroactive to October 5. The staff feels that the
circumstances do not warrant a waiver of competitive'bridding.
354.
Mr. Howick, President of the Humane Society of the Ozarks; addressed the Board 354.
giving background information on the city's shelter. :Mayor Martin informed Mr.
Howick that the Board had already approved $150,000 for the construction of a
new animal shelter. Martin further stated that the question before the Board
is why the Humane Society failed to comply with the city's competitive bidding
requirements.
Howick stated the society had come to -the City and offered to do three things 354.
(1) take over and operate shelter, .(2) help support the renovation of current
shelter, and (3) raise money to build a new shelter. Itwas decided that if the
City would donate money to them, they would build a new shelter as well as raise
more funding. _
f
Martin asked if there was an underlying agreement between the City and the Humane 354.
Society. Howick stated they believed there was, and the agreement that was made
did not involve going through the cityts bidding process. Howick further stated
that he had been involved in this process for about three years and had never
October 17, 1989
heard any mention of the bidding process until just a few weeks ago. His society
has paid out approximately $15,000 to bring the plans to their current status.
He referred to part of the agreement stating that if the shelter were not
completed in five years, the City could remove all of their money from the
escrow account. He felt if the City were allowed to control the shelter, the
society would not be willing to come in and help raise funding. He stated he
had looked back at the minutes of the Board meeting where the motion was passed,
and he had looked at the original operations contract, and no bidding process
was mentioned. The reference was to a contribution by the City.
355.1 Kelley asked if the plans had been completed and submitted by the director of
public works. He also asked if at that time any indication had been made
regarding the competitive bidding process. Howick stated the plans had been
submitted, but no reference was every made to the bidding process.
355.2 Lancaster stated that he had been around during this whole process. The society
had first come to the Board with a $500,000 building --then revised their costs
and plans to a $300,000 building. The Board agreed to contribute half of that
cost. Since that time, the City has contributed funds toward the operation of
the shelter separate from the new building allocation. He would like to know
what type of building is being built and if the additional funds have been
received to complete the building once the City releases their funds. He feels
the City should be consulted in these matters since city funds and land are being
utilized.
355.3 Kelley stated that the indications were the City was being consulted. The plans
had been submitted and approved by city staff. He is concerned with a breakdown
in communications that resulted in this problem, and in it slowing down progress
on this project. In this regard, he made a motion to waive the bidding process.
The motion died for lack of a second.
355.4 Vorsanger stated that the City was committed to the $150,000. The five year time
span was included in the contract, so that if the shelter was not built, the City
could get its money returned. He felt that what Howick was asking the Board to
do was what so many people have asked them to do in the past --that is knowingly
break the law. This just sets the City up for another lawsuit. The law clearly
indicates that where public funds are involved of $5000 or more in a construction
project, the project must be publicly bid. In this regard, he could not vote
to break a law to satisfy a requirement he believes the society was told about
prior to any bidding. He agreed it was unfair to Heckathorn Construction, but
it is also unfair to the others who wanted to bid but did not have the
opportunity to do so. Vorsanger made a motion to not waive the bidding
requirements on this project. This motion was seconded by Marinoni.
355.5 Green stated that this was an unfortunate situation. He recommended some
meaningful alteration to the plans upon rebid which would help make the bidding
process fair to all involved.
355.6 Kelley asked City Attorney Rose if the City had any liability in relationship
to the present low bidder. Rose stated he felt there was no liability, and if
so, it would be only minimal.
355.7 Lancaster stated that the City has refused bids in the past and rebid projects.
He feels this situation is no different.
October 17, 1989
Howick asked how the bidding process would come] into play when there were two
governmental bodies with money involved --the City of Fayetteville and Washington
County. It was discussed that the bidding requirements were state law, so
probably both institutions had compliance requirements.
V 1
356.]
Truman•Yancey, attorney for the Humane Society, addressed the Board stating he 356.2
had been a party to many of the discussions with the City regarding their
contribution to the funding, but there had never been a discussion about the
bidding process. When the Humane Society got their financinglined up, they
proceeded with their bid process and accepted a bid. He stated the letter
received by the Humane Society after their bidding process was in progress
suggested that either the competitive bidding process be followed or a waiver
of bidding would be required by the Board. He stated the Society felt this was
an alternative procedure. The Society did not ignore the City or reject any
suggestion or assistance offered by the City. He understands that waiver of the
bidding procedure is an alternative open to the City. He stated if the City
rejects the waiver request, he would like to know the reason why --either based
upon the situation not being appropriate given all of the circumstances or is
a rejection based on it being legally incorrect.
City Attorney Rose stated there were two statutes regarding competitive bidding 356.3
and the waiving of those requirements: (1) The Board by ordinance may waive the
'requirements of competitive bidding'in exceptional situations where the procedure
is not feasible, but lacking such exceptional situations, the Board may not
exempt any particular contract, purchase, or sale from the requirements of
competitive bidding. (2) The governing body by ordinance may waive the
requirements of competitive bidding in exceptional situations where this
procedure is deemed not feasible or practical.
Based on these, Rose stated the City has the right to waive the requirement of 356.4
competitive bidding in those situations they believelare'exceptional in which
the procedure is not feasible or practical.
Marinoni stated that in any event, when the Board waived the.right of competitive 356.5
bidding, it was done prior to any bid letting.
Kelley asked if there were situations where subcontractors would not be subject 356.6
to competitive bidding. For example/if the Humane Society were considered to
be the city's contractor, then the contractor to build becomes a subcontractor.
Rose stated he could envision arguing this but would not be sure how successful
he would be.
Lancaster stated that in letting a bid, you bid the general contractor. It is 356.7
up to that person to provided the services he bid regardless of where they are
obtained. Rose agreed with this.
•
Scott Linebaugh, Assistant City Manger, stated that there had been phone calls 356.8
made to the society in addition to the letter Mr. Yancey discussed. The City
Staff did try to notify the society. He read from the contracts that were passed
in 1987 and 1988 "the City will make its best efforts.to.construct the animal
shelter." He feels this means the City will construct --not the Humane Society.
In answer to Mayor Martin's questions, City Attorney Rose stated he understood 356.9
there was no prohibition keeping the Board from waiving the competitive bidding
requirement if they believe a situation exists as previously discussed.
October 17, 1989
157.1 Therefore, in answer to Mr. Yancey's questions, depending on the Board's
decision, they are either going to find an exceptional situation exists or deny
the waiver.
357.2 Mayor Martin stated he felt there was an exceptional situation since there was
a contractor who had been working for a long period of time under the assumption
that there was not a requirement for competitive bidding.
357.3 Spivey asked if the Board could be sued if they took the position that this
situation was exceptional. Rose stated he did not want to decide this for the
Board, but he would like to be able to explain to the judge how this was an
exceptional situation if the explanation ever became necessary.
357.4 Mayor Martin asked if the contractor being led to believe that he was being
engaged to design and construct a building over a period of a year or more, and
then finding out 9 days before his bid is to go in, the possibility of others
with far less preparation having the same opportunities would constitute an
exceptional situation.
357.5 Vorsanger stated he made his motion strictly on legal grounds.
357.6 Marinoni felt the situation was not exceptional. He felt this was a party who
had taken an action then came before the City Board asking to be excused. This
has been done too often in the past, and he plans to vote against the waiver.
357.7 Green stated he understood the only way the City could legally or morally as a
board waive competitive bidding is if the action is in the best interest of the
e City. He does not feel that in this instance, that it is in the best interest
of the City.
357.8 Mr. Howick stated that the low bid on the project was $300,000 of which the City
will probably utilize 65% of the space for their $150,000.
357.9 Phyllis Rice asked who would own the shelter once it was completed. City
Attorney Rose stated he understood the agreement called for joint ownership
between the City and the Humane Society.
357.10 Truman Yancey understood differently --that the Humane Society would own the
building so long as the lease is in effect and the Humane Society is in
operation. Upon default by the Humane Society, the shelter would revert to the
City with some penalty arrangements for that default.
357.11
Upon roll call, the motion to deny bid waiver passed by a vote of 4-3, with
Directors Kelley, Spivey, and Martin voting in the minority.
FIGHT AGAINST DRUGS
357.12 Mayor Martin introduced that the National League of Cities has requested the
City of Fayetteville join in the national crusade against drugs and crime by
approving a resolution proclaiming December 3 - 9, 1989 as "National Cities Fight
Back Against Drugs Week."
357.13 Kelley, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll
call, the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 101-89 APPEARS ON PAGE
October 17, 1989
OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
Mayor Martin stated the City has proclaimed
"Red Ribbon Campaign Week."
BOND COUNSEL SELECTION
the week of October 22-29, 1989 as
V V
358.1
Mayor Martin introduced the recommendation by the Bond Counsel Selection 358.2
Committee to the Board that the Little Rock law firm of Wallace, Dover & Dixon
be selected to represent the City of Fayetteville as bond counsel on the proposed
Capital Improvement Bond and Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds.
The committee heard presentations from three Little Rock firms seeking to serve 358.3
the City of Fayetteville as bond counsel. These firms were Friday, Eldrege &
Clark; Mitchell, Williams, Selig & Tucker; and Wallace, Dover & Dixon. They
represented the three finalists from a group of six firms which submitted
proposals. Wallace, Dover & Dixon is recommended as the firm which best meets
the needs of the City.
Kelley, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approvetthe recommendation. 358.4
Larry Wallace, of Wallace, Dover & Dixon, addressed the&Board. He introduced 358.5
Jim Pitts who would be the counsel in the Washington office.
Green asked if the firm has the expertise required by the City. Mr. Wallace
stated the firm intended to become•contributing citizens of Fayetteville, and
stated they did possess the required expertise. Membersof their firm include
several ex -city attorneys and currently counsel. theLittle Rock Waste Water
Utility Commission. In addition, -he stated their Washington office contained
several members well qualified to assist in this type,of counsel.
Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously.
RESOLUTION 102-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
CITY MANAGER EVALUATION
The Mayor introduced the
to the performance of his
City of Fayetteville.
Mayor Martin made a
executive session to
evaluation of City Manager'James Pennington relative
duties for the second year of his employment with the
i
1
•
•
358.6
358.7
358.8
motion, seconded by Kelley, for the Board to go into 358.9
consider Mr. Pennington's employment.
The Board recessed at 10:32 p.m.
The Board reconvened at 12:13 a.m.
The Board considered Mr.
expectations of the job.
to his salary.
Pennington's employment and decided he had met all
The Board decided of a 5% cost of living adjustment
358.1
358.1
358.1
October 17, 1989
9.1 Mayor Martin, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the recormnendation.
Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
The Board adjourned at 12:14 a.m.
1