HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989-11-17 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE.CITYtBOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on
Tuesday, January 17, 1989 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the City
Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street.
PRESENT: Mayor Martin; Directors' Marinoni; Spivey, Vorsanger, Green,
Lancaster and Kelley; City 'Manager Pennington, City Prosecutor
Jones, City Clerk• McWethy;' members of the staff, press and
audience
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Mayor William V. Martin. Upon roll call, the 16.1
meeting began with all seven Directors present. The Mayor led those present in
.reciting the Pledge of Allegiance,, and asked that a moment of silence be
observed.
The Mayor welcomed members of the audience, telling them they would have an
opportunity to speak on all questions before the Board. He said that, if the
public wished to speak on an item not on the agenda, they would have an
opportunity under "Other Business."
16.2
Referring to the Board's "Rules of Order and Procedure," Martin explained that, 16.3
in following these, any citizen wishing to speak should state his or her name and
address, and address comments to the Board as a whole,_ and through .the presiding
officer. He asked that they limit their comments to the question and be concise
and not repetitive. He pointed out that observing these rules would ensure that
everyone would have a fair and equal opportunity, and that the Board's business
would be conducted as efficiently as possible.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
The Mayor introduced the City Manager's report to the public and Board for the 16.4
month of December.
City Manager James Pennington reported that 1988 had ended with a positive
financial balance, revenues exceeding $37 million and expenses exceeding $35
million, leaving a balance of revenues over expenses a little over $2 million.
16.5
[The entire report, in written form, is not included in these minutes but is on 16.6
file in the City Clerk's Office.]
Pennington said he would give a report on the solid waste issue under "Other
Business."
16.7
January 17, 1989
17.1 Director Vorsanger remarked that the report included two civilian jailers among
the vacant positions for the month, and asked if any arrangements were being made
to explore the possibility of the City using the County jail. The City Manager
said he was exploring that possibility.
CONSENT AGENDA
17.2 The Mayor introduced consideration of the consent agenda, consisting 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."
17.3
17.4
The Mayor said any Director who wished to discuss any item on the consent agenda
may request its removal from the consent agenda.
The Mayor listed those items contained in the consent agenda as follows:
17.5 A. Minutes of the January 3, 1989 regular Board meeting;
RESOLUTIONS:
17.6
B. Award of Bid 4891 for purchase of a truck to be used by the
recycling pilot program;
RECOMMENDATION: Award to the lowest of two bidders, Bell
International, Inc. of Springdale.
BID: $46,246
BUDGET: $46,300
17.7 C. Approving the destruction of certain records and support documents
which have been microfiched and stored for the required period of
time;
RESOLUTION NO. 5-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
17.8 D. Authorizing award of bid and construction contract for
rehabilitation of 24" outfall sewer in the northeast part of the
city, and a short portion of a line on Far Hunter Road; and
approval of a budget adjustment;
RECOMMENDATION: Award to lowest of two bidders, Garney
Construction Co.
BID: $410,646
BUDGET: $480,000 (after budget adjustment)
The budget adjustment is requested to transfer funds from the
Water and Sewer Revenue Bond Construction Fund (where they were
budgeted in error) to the Sewer Plant Construction Fund.
January 17,-1989
RESOLUTION N0. 6-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
•
E. Authorizing approval of a budget adjustment, related to Item 1D;
$905,000 is requested to be transferred from the Water and Sewer
Fund (where it was; budgeted.`.in4 error) to the Sewer Plant
Construction Fund: $68,500 As requested to be transferred from
unreserved .funds balance for projects which, due to a budgeting
44
error, were omitted.from(the budget.. The total budget adjustment,
if approved, would amount to $973,500.
t
F. Authorizing award of bid and contract'for removal of asbestos from
four buildings (located between West and School Avenues, and
between Spring and 4Dickson Streets) to be demolished for the
Walton Arts Center; ' tY 40
_ rt
RECOMMENDATION:, Award to the lowest qualified bidder,
Mechanical Insulation Systems of Springfield, Missouri,
bidding $17,950.
RESOLUTION NOS.7&8-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
G. Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a one-yearlease
agreement with "new Holiday Inn Springdale" for advertising
display space at the Fayetteville Airport Terminal Building;
The staff recommends approval of the lease, which would be for a
term beginning April 1, 1989 and ending March 31, 1990, at a rate
of $80 per month. The lease contains a provision for extensions
for up to five additional one-year terms.
RESOLUTION NO. 9-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
Authorizing award of bid, contract, and supplemental agreement,
for construction and relocation of facilities at the Fayetteville
Airport;
The contract would include beacon renovation, airfield signs, and
windsock/segmented circle relocation and replacement. . The
supplemental agreement would cover additional cable and distance
remaining signs.
RECOMMENDATION: Award to lowest of three bidders,
Northwest Electric.
BID: $73,116 (contract)
$ 2,694 (supplemental agreement)
$75,810 (total project cost)
BUDGET: $95,414
18.1
18.2
18.3
18.4
January 17, 1989
RESOLUTION NO. 10-89 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
19.1 Director Kelley requested removal of item 1B, award of Bid #891 for purchase of a
truck to be used by the recycling pilot program
19.2
19.3
It was moved by Director Lancaster, and seconded by Kelley, to approve the
consent agenda, with the exception of item IB. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
BID AWARD/RECYCLING PROJECT TRUCK
Item 1B of the consent agenda, award of Bid #891 for purchase of a truck to be
used by the recycling pilot program, was introduced, with the staff
recommendation being to award to the lowest of two bidders, Bell International
Inc. of Springdale. Bid was reported as $46,246, with $46,300 available in the
budget.
19.4 It was moved by Kelley, and seconded by Narinoni, to approve the award of bid.
19.5 Director Kelley asked if this item ought to be considered after the Board hears
the staff's report on the program City Manager Pennington disagreed, commenting
that the purchase of the truck would fit in well with the report.
19.6 Director Green asked if the City was really ready, time -wise, to utilize the
vehicle, or were we trying to moved forward too fast. Pennington responded that
he thought the project was ready, remarking that with a pilot program, you can
wait six months and still end up doing the same thing. He said we were fooling
ourselves by thinking the program would be "cast in stone." He said it would
have to be a very fluid program.
19.7 In answer to a question from Green, Pennington said the vehicle could be used for
commercial pickup as well as residential pickup.
19.8 The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak.
19.9 Bruce Cully, resident of 307 E. Spring, addressed the Board. He said, onck the
City started spending money on a project, it was more or less committed to doing
it as it stands. He said he would like the Board to wait on taking action until
at least the end of this meeting. He remarked that the City had gotten involved
in other projects which it had to back out of later.
19.10 There being no objections from the Directors to postponing action until the end
of the meeting, the Board proceeded to the next item on the agenda.
1
1
WARNER FRANCHISE
The Mayor introduced
Cable Communications,
in Fayetteville.
January 17, 1989
•
-44
4 -
consideration of an ordinance granting a franchise to Warner
Inc. to construct, operate and maintain cable tv services
The City Manager reported that following about 18 months of negotiations by the
'committee appointed by the City Board, a public hearing was held (on November 28,
1988). He said the committee presented a recommendation to the Board for
passage of an ordinance, based on' negotiations which had taken place up until
that time. He said they indicated•then "there were' several other options which
had still not been totally examined. He mentioned one option was to secure an
"overbuild situation", that is, to try to find a company to compete with Warner
Cable. He said all the negotiations were done under the terms of the 1984 Cable
Act. He said the staff had sent out about thirty "requests for proposals"
(drafted in accordance with recommendations from Arnold and Porter, specialists
in cable television) and received eight letters in response from the nation's
largest corporations, all indicating no interest -in competing with Warner Cable
in an overbuild situation. He said the staff is still'exploring the option of a
City -owned cable system. He said the staff was instructed by the Board to go
back into negotiations with Warner Cable over the term of the contract. He
reported the committee was only able to obtain a modification of the 15 -year non-
exclusive franchise, that of a five-year term with an option to renew for ten
years,. if all the requirements of the franchise are met. Pennington said the
committee went on record with some concerns relative to the rate increase,
indicating the committee never discussed rates during its negotiations nor did it
sanction a rate increase.
Pennington said the committee believes the ordinance before the Board is probably
the best the city is going to be able to negotiate at this time, and is the
fastest way to get an improvement in cable service. He said it does not make any
guarantee regarding number of channels or rates. He said although the committee
successfully negotiated the matter of the length of term, he pointed out it is
still a 15 -year term in total.
Jerry DeGrazia, Senior Director of Government Affairs for Warner Cable, addressed
the Board. DeGrazia requested the Board approve the ordinance. He said Warner
Cable had worked in good faith with the City team for over 18 months. Degrazia
said, if the agreement is approved, it would address the following key issues:
It would require Warner to upgrade the system;
It would require Warner to meet stringent standards
It would have an initial term of five years with
Warner's compliance with terms of the agreement;
of customer service;
an extension based on
It provides that Warner live by a set of technical standards;
20.1
20.2
20.3
20.9
20.5
20.E
20.7
20.£
January 17, 1989
21.1 It commits Warner to provide over $300,000 to support public access and
local programming;
21.2
It provides that Warner's commitments be backed by financial guarantees; and
21.3 It provides for the City to reserve its right to regulate rates if the law
provides.
21.4
21.5
21.6
Degrazia said Warner had made significant concessions in the negotiating process,
such as support for public access, customer service standards, technical
standards, and rate regulation issues. He said their largest concession was to
agree to reduce the term from a straight 15 years to an initial term of five
years with an extension. He said it had been their understanding that a
resolution of the term issue was necessary to obtain City Board approval. He
said Warner could not consider further concessions without affecting the level of
service. He said the new agreement provides many safeguards which were not in
the current agreement. He said Warner has complied with its current franchise
agreement and has met the criteria established by the Cable Act for renewal of
their franchise agreement. He said the Board's approval would be the quickest
method of bringing new services to the citizens.
Woody Bell, Warner's General Manager, said he was convinced that the proposal
will address the clear majority of the problems and is based on the maximum
amount of protection available to the City under the Cable Act. He said Warner
presently has a warehouse open with approximately $1 million worth of equipment
in it, and a project manager and staff is on-site and ready to begin the project
within 24 hours after approval.
The Mayor asked the Board if they wished to have the ordinance read or not, or
whether they wished to postpone it indefinitely.
21.7 It was moved by Spivey to table the ordinance.
21.8 Vorsanger asked if tabling the ordinance meant it could not be discussed. The
Mayor stated that, with a motion to postpone it, the public could make comments.
Spivey moved instead to postpone the reading of the ordinance indefinitely. The
motion was seconded by Kelley.
21.9 Director Lancaster said he thought the committee had negotiated the best deal
they could get, within the limits of the Cable Act.
21.10 Director Spivey agreed the committee did a great job and that the City didn't
have "a big stick" other than the pressure the City can exert, and the
exploration of the possibility of building a municipal cable system. He said
that fundamentally he really didn't want to do that, but thought the option
should be explored more thoroughly. He said the City didn't "have to just roll
over and play dead". He said he thought the Cable Act effectively removed cable
companies from the free enterprise system commenting that "it was not right and
it was almost un-American". He said we should write our congressmen and senators
and tell them we object to this. He said because of the Cable Act Warner can
1
January 17, 1989
Y% . • `
charge us anything in the way of rates. He said some states have formed cable
commissions, and he suggested this'mightsbe done on a•,state level. He said it
had been suggested to him that we could begin,documenting service'problems with
Warner Cable. He said he heard Warner's current equipment is at best 1960
architecture and the reason Warner hasn't upgraded it is because the equipment is
on the down side of its life cycle and Warner is waiting to amortize it off. He
said he felt like the Board was being rushed into a decision.- He said he
resented what has been almost threats from Warner that,.if the ordinance is not
approved, they will pull the equipment out.. He said he had been told by Warner
that they will challenge the City in court. if we try to form our own cable
system. He said he thought we should look at our options for a little longer.
He said he didn't want to saddle the citizens with what could become an
antiquated system in ten years.
Director Green said Warner had not done anything to justify renewal of their
•franchise, and hadn't made any particular concessions during the negotiations.
He said, in addition to tabling the ordinance, it'can either be approved or
denied. He said it has been said that the issue of,,.a city -owned system and the
issue of franchise renewal are not: technically and legally connected, but said he
thought they were strategically connected and very interdependent. Green said he
thought four scenarios were options for the City:
Scenario 1: The franchise is approved and the City does not try to build a
competing system - Green said this may result in improved or additional
service, and perhaps reasonable rates. He said he didn't believe we could
count on that, since it's not actually defined in the franchise agreement.
Scenario 2: The franchise is denied and the City does not try to build a
system - Green said he thought service and rate structure would probably
continue as it exists until 1990. He said there could be litigation, and he
understood the City would have to show due cause for not renewing the
franchise. He said there was some question about whether Warner has gone
beyond the due date for applying for extension of their franchise. He said
he didn't think the City has hesitated in the past in seeking legal action
and should not be frightened of legal action from Warner Cable. He said
Warner could abandon their service at the end of their franchise and
litigation could go on for years. He said during that time other companies
may choose to come to Fayetteville.
22.2
22.3
22.4
Scenario 3: The franchise is approved and the City pursues building a 22.5
competing system - Green said the Warner upgraded system would be in place
before the City could build a new system. He said Warner, knowing the City
was building a competing system, would probably exhibit a wonderful display
of service, low rates, and excellent channel selection. He said we would
probably see a "cable war" which would be a mistake for the City. He said
if the City failed, Warner could recoup all the money they lost by raising
the rates.
Scenario 4: The franchise is denied or tabled and the City builds a 22.6
competing system. Green said under this strategy the City's new system
23.1
January 17, 1989
could be in place before Warner's franchise expires, and the City could
capture its share of the market and could compete favorably He said it
would be up to Warner to complete and get their foot back in the door.
23.2 Green said he thought the City's best strategy was the fourth scenario - that the
City not grant the franchise renewal and actively pursue the City building its
own system. He said he didn't feel we needed another $50,000 feasibility study,
and thought this could be determined much easier with input from people
experienced in the area who have expressed a desire to help and who are
available.
23.3 Director Marinoni said he was in favor of the franchise. He said he thought the
proposal was very good and tabling it indefinitely would perpetuate the existing
system for an indefinite period of time, or until the franchise expires. He said
approving the franchise would give people an improved system at an increase in
rates of about $5 a month. He said he thought most people would be willing to
pay that fee for the additional service they would receive. Comparing this to
Springdale's cable service, Marinoni said he read that Springdale residents pay
$15.45 for 27 channels, while Warner is proposing $15.95 for the same thing.
23.4 Mayor Martin said the reason he favored the motion to postpone is that it would
give the City a chance to establish a "hotline" for citizens to air their
concerns and establish how good or bad the service is. He said this would also
give Warner an opportunity to make some effort to restore some credibility.
23.5 Director Vorsanger said he thought the committee acted in good faith for 18
months, and "all of a sudden we're going to spend a week on it and approve it."
He thanked John Watkins who, as a private citizen, worked on the committee for no
pay for 18 months. Vorsanger recommended the City seriously consider setting up
an advisory committee of citizens who know the cable television business to help
us with this problem. He said it would be a wonderful gesture on the part of
Warner to start improving the system before the franchise expires. He said it
would behoove the Board to tell Warner they have two years to prove they will do
what they say they are going to do in the proposed franchise, and if at the end
of two years, Warner has done what they promised, he thought the citizens would
force the City to renew their franchise. He said Warner had not exercised good
faith and their image was bad. He said he had received calls and letters, all of
which say "please don't renew that franchise."
23.6 Vorsanger said Warner claims they are going to give the City $300,000 towards
public access television. He said the people should know they are paying for
public access, not Warner Cable, because it's built into Warner's rates. He said
if Warner didn't turn that money over to the City, obviously they could lower the
rates. Vorsanger said he thought the increase in the franchise fee from 3% to
5%, which is to be used for public access television, should go directly to the
City. Noting that Warner has about 16,000 subscribers, Vorsanger said if most of
us decide to quit subscribing, it would automatically put Warner out of business.
23.7 In answer to a question from Vorsanger, DeGrazia clarified that the five year
term proposed would begin upon its approval, not after the expiration of the
January 17, 1989
current franchise. He said the new franchise would supercede the current 24.1
franchise.
Vorsanger urged Warner to begin an upgrade of the system immediately and said he 24.2
thought the Board would be willing to sign a letter' of intent .saying that if
Warner would do what it promises to-do, the Board would renew their franchise in
1991. 0 ,
4
Mayor Martin told those in the audience he •wanted 'them to have a chance to 24.3
comment, but asked them to keep from repeating comments which had been heard
previously. •
•
Albert Erbach, resident of 2460 Old Wire Road, said he agreed with Vorsanger's 24.4
proposal. He asked why Warner Cable wasn't installing all the equipment it has
in the warehouse. He said Warner could allow the City to set the rates and said
he thought that's what should be done. He said he thought, once the system was
upgraded, there would be "some god -awful rate:increa'ses."
Jim Stewart, resident of 1009 Eastwood, said he had written a letter to the Board
and to Warner. He said he wanted. the citizens to have cable ready television,
and be able to receive all programs including pay channels. He said, if Siloam
Springs can have a system 1ike4 that, he thought we could too. He said he took
exception to' Warner buying equipment presuming their franchise would be renewed.
He asked why the City went out'for competitive proposals and why they didn't
offer an exclusive franchise. He said he thought if the City built its own
system, Warner would lose 100% of their subscribers. The City Manager told the
Mayor the committee negotiated a non-exclusive franchise with Warner, working
under the impression it was not possible to negotiate an exclusive franchise.
Dan Mauritson, resident of 1925 Brower, said he had submitted a proposal to the
City Board for a city -owned and operated cable system. He said Warner had been
taking money out of Fayetteville for years, and asked why the City couldn't use
the money Warner has been taking to pay off City debts. Mauritson said he had
conducted his own survey asking people if they were happy with WArner Cable. He
said everybody told him "no" and people said they would like a city -owned system
even it meant a tax increase.
Jerry DeGrazia said it would be unfortunate if the Board decides to postpone the
ordinance indefinitely. He said he was concerned because, although the Cable Act
requires the renewal be considered separately from the issue of a city -owned
system, he was hearing at this meeting that it is not being considered
independently. He said Warner stands ready to speak with the Board and staff
relative to the benefits of the proposal, but it would be difficult for them to
move forward to build a system based on a letter of intent from the City. He
said Warner would be happy to explain their rationale and why those arrangements
won't work out. He said Warner wanted to work with the City and hoped to resolve
the issue for the benefit of the City and the citizens.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, Marinoni voting in the:minority.
24.5
24.6
24.7
24.8
January 17, 1989
25.1 The Mayor said the Board would be receptive to hearing from the City Manager on
how to incorporate the concerns and interest which had been expressed.
INCINERATOR REPORT
25.2 The Mayor introduced a status report from the law firm of Nixon, Hargrave, Devans
& Doyle on the expenditure of bond proceeds and the alternatives for redemption
of bonds, relative to the incinerator project.
25.3 The Mayor reminded the public that in March of 1988 the citizens voted to
disengage from the project and, on the recommendation of management, the Board
approved the engagement of professional counsel with no vested interest in the
project.
25.4 Tom Ingoldsby, representing the firm, showed slides to the Board and audience
while giving his presentation. He said a report was released last Friday which
provided detailed information on how bond proceeds were expended, and which
estimated future sanitation rates if the bonds were paid off in full at various
points in time.
25.5 He said in 1985 the Northwest Arkansas Resource Recovery Authority issued $22
million in bonds, the proceeds of which were invested. He said no expenditure
was made in 1986, except for $200,000 in issuance costs. He said the profit from
the investment more than equaled the issuance costs. He said the total costs of
the bonds issued in 1985 was $9. He said in 1986 the bonds were re -offered
because that year there was a change in the tax laws. He said the City again
received $22 million in bond proceeds, which were invested and have as of today
earned $1,700,000 in interest, making total funds received approximately $24
million. He said between January 1, 1987 and approximately February of 1988 the
City spent $9,500,000 in bond proceeds. Ingoldsby said the three largest
expenditures of bond proceeds were $1,200,000 in issuance costs, $5,300,000 in
construction and engineering costs, and a $2,157,000 payment of principal and
interest accrued on the bonds. He said of the approximately $24 million of bond
proceeds on hand there is now $14,500,000 available to pay off the bonds. He
said there is today $22 million in bonds outstanding bearing an interest rate of
6.73%. He said there was $2,200,000 in funds the City accumulated since 1984 in
a rate fund in anticipation of meeting some debt service in early years of
operation of the incinerator. He said the City increased sanitation rates in
1984 to create that fund. He said there are currently two bond payments - one
made in December of 1988 for $1 million and one in June for $750,000, totaling
approximately $1,700,000 of bond payments which he said results in $15 million
being available to pay off the bonds. He said that left a $7 million shortfall
to be covered plus interest accruing at 6.73% per year.
25.6 Reporting on sources of repayment, Ingoldsby summarized the report's findings on
estimated sanitation rates. He said the year 1994 was selected as the earliest
time the City could pay off the bonds if it elected to do so. He said this would
require the consent of the bond trustee. He said the second time selected was
1997, and the final period selected was 2003. He said they selected two options
1
January 17, 1989
s
(1) assumed no recycling program and no increase in landfill costs which he said 26.1
they knew was not realistic - and (2) that the city .has a recycling program with
a 4% annual increase in costs and a.10%.annual increase in landfill costs, which
he said they thought was reasonable.
Ingoldsby said the current average household rate was $5.50 per month. Ingoldsby 26.2
gave the following estimates of rates aslshdwin below:'""
- -.
AVERAGE:
HOUSEHOLD RATES - 26.3
""'F
r
1994 ,x 1997' ;2003
Option (1) $13'.29 $11:"05 ' - $9.44.
Option (2) $14.38 $12.33 7 $11.34
f
AVERAGE•CORPORATE RATES 26.4
Option (1) $21.09
Option (2)
$22.82 f
$17.53 „ "114.98
$19.57 $18.00
Ingoldsby noted other revenuesources available were'(1.)-county sales and use tax
revenues, pointing out using these would mean a budget crunch in maintaining
level of services; and (2) cityi sales and'use tax revenues which are to be
directed towards capital improvements. He said using; these would mean other
"
programs would not be able to bedone. • - -
26.5
Director Green asked if the Authority had redeemed some the bonds. Ingoldsby 26.6
said there was a principal payoff in December of 1988, accounting for a
discrepancy between the $22,100,000 of outstanding bonds and the $22,450,000
original issue.
Mayor Martin said at the time of the referendum there were estimates -made of the
.cost of disengagement. He said the voters saw on the ballot an estimated $7.90
sanitationrate for disengaging from the project. Ingoldsby said that was
projected by Coopers and Lybrand who used different assumptions than those used
by his firm. He said Coopers and Lybrand figured that the project would run
through the year 2013, assumed a drop in sanitation rates at the end of the time
period, and found an average which was lower. He said they didn't make an
allowance for a recycling program, and assumed an increase in landfill costs of
only 5%, whereas his firm assumed 10%.
.The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak. No public comments 26.8
'were expressed.
26.7
Ingoldsby said the first step was to determine the cost to terminate the 26.9
'construction contract. He said a proposal was received from MK -Ferguson which
27.1
January 17, 1989
the Authority has accepted. He said a report on the legal obligations to the
City and the ramifications should be forthcoming within the next 60 days.
REZONING APPEAL
27.2 The Mayor introduced an appeal from a decision of the Planning Commission
regarding denial of Rezoning Petition R88-27 which had been tabled on December 20
and January 3.
27.3 The Mayor explained the petitioner, Roy Cate, was requesting the rezoning of
approximately two acres at 4147 Wedington Drive, from A-1 "Agricultural" to C-2
"Thoroughfare Commercial". He reported the Planning Commission on December 12,
1988 had failed to recommend approval by a vote of 3-6.
27.4 Martin said the Board could either grant or deny the appeal, or grant a less
intensive use. He said the petitioner desired to use a refrigeration building
which is presently not allowed under the current zoning. In answer to a question
from Marinoni, the Mayor said no Bill of Assurance had been offered.
27.5
27.6
27.7
27.8
It was moved by Green and seconded by Vorsanger to approve the rezoning.
Petitioner Cate said from 1977 to 1983 the building was used for wholesale and
resale, and in 1984 a freezer was in use in the building. He said the freezer in
the building was not removable and it was about all the building could be used
for. He pointed out that his distributorship would only fit in C-2 zoning. He
distributed a sketch of the property to the Directors and described the
surrounding area.
Cate proposed to change his request to rezone 200' of frontage to C-1 with the
remaining property rezoned to C-2 with a Bill of Assurance including the building
in question he wishes to utilize. He said he would generate the only traffic in
and out of the building and would only use the building once or twice a week.
Director Kelley said Commissioner Hanna had suggested such a change in Cate's
request.
27.9 Lancaster said it was too bad that the Board was discussing rezoning two acres C-
2 in the middle of A-1 zoning.
27.10 Director Vorsanger pointed out the Planning Director had recommended approval of
rezoning the entire parcel with a Bill of Assurance.
27.11 Mayor Martin moved to amend the motion to approve C-1 zoning for the front 210'
with C-2 zoning for the remainder of the property, based on an offer of a Bill of
Assurance that the building would only be used for cold storage. The motion was
seconded by Kelley.
27.12 The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the ordinance. No
public comments were expressed in opposition.
1
January 17, 1989
Planning Commission Chairman Ernest Jacks explained the Planning Commission's 28:1
'position, when they heard the request for C-2 zoning, was caution, in that they
'viewed the character of the intersection as "neighborhood commercial" and not
"thoroughfare commercial": He said C-2 zoning Would have allowed taverns, motels
and liquor stores, for example. He said the commission gave the petitioner the
opportunity to give a guarantee regarding the use of''the property and he didn't
seem willing to do that. He said he believed th& commission would probably vote
in favor of Cate's proposal now.s ,
_a J
Upon.roll call, the motion passed, -7-0.,` 28.2
{ Y
The Mayor asked the Board to vote'on granting the appeal. Upon roll call, the 28.3
vote was 7-0.
•
'The City Prosecutor read the ordinance, as amended, -for the first time. Director 28.4
Martin, seconded by Kelley, 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 Martin, seconded by Kelley,
made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third
and final reading. Upon roll call, the -motion;passed, 7-0. The ordinance was
read for the third time. Upon roll call,.the,ordinance passed, 7-0.
NO. 3401 APPEARS ON PAGE, y
.ORDINANCEOy 3 OF ORDINANCE. AND RESOLUTION BOOK
XXIV i,
4
THE MEETING WAS RECESSED AT 9:50 P.M. & RECONVENED AT 9:55 P.M. 28.5
ODOR CONTROL
The Mayor introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive 28.6
bidding, award of bid and contract extension to McGoodwin, Williams and.Yates,
Inc., for engineering services in -reference to the city's sewer system odor
control project.
The Mayor explained the contract price was a non -to -exceed fee of $14,300 for 28.7
engineering services, plus a 10% contingency fee, for a total not -to -exceed cost
of $15,730. He said the Public Works Director reports there to be funds
available in the budget and recommended approval of the bid waiver because this
would be an extension of an existing contract.
City Prosecutor Jones read the ordinance for the first time. Director Marinoni, 28.8
seconded by Lancaster, moved 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 Lancaster, moved to suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll
call, the motion passed, 7-0. The ordinance was read for the third time.
January 17, 1989
29.1 The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition to the
ordinance.
29.2 Fran Alexander, resident of 1946 Fox Hunter Road, asked if the work would cover
lift stations, treatment plant and vent odors, or if these would be individually
handled. -
29.3 Public Works Director Mike Batie said the work would be directly related to the
collection system, the Double Springs Road and North Gregg pump stations. He
said hopefully this work would alleviate problems in Alexander's area, as well as
the area along Mission Boulevard and the Old Wire Road pump station area.
29.4 Alexander asked who handled the "vent" contracts. She said the vents were
originally installed by McClelland Engineers. She asked who handled installing
and maintaining filters. She said she thought testing should be done on the
vents when filters are in place so the citizens can know what they are breathing
after filters are installed.
29.5 Batie said the city has an engineer at the plant site who monitors and changes
filters, but this task will be the responsibility of OMI in the near future.
Batie said there currently was no testing or sampling taking place. Martin asked
if the staff could see what would be involved in doing that. City Manager
Pennington said he thought that would be a good idea. He said it should be made
clear that the system will not operate as effectively in very warm or humid
weather.
29.6 Alexander said the staff at the facility had been requested to furnish her a
schedule of filter changing which she had not yet received. Pennington said
there would be no problem in getting the schedule to Alexander.
29.7 Upon roll call, the ordinance passed, 7-0.
ORDINANCE NO. 3402 APPEARS ON PAGE 4/9 G OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK
PH
NOMINATING COMMITTEE REPORT
29.8 The Mayor introduced a report from the Board Nominating Committee regarding
appointment of citizens to various positions on citizen committees.
29.9 Martin said the Board had voted to limit the term of office of any appointee
(with the exception of cases when there are insufficient applicants) to two
consecutive terms. He said this rule was adopted after applications had already
been received, and the Board felt that limitation should be applied on an ongoing
basis.
29.10 Director Kelley reported the Nominating Committee met that morning and minutes
were on file in the City Clerk's Office. He recommended the Board vote
1
1
OTHER BUSINESS
January 17, 1989
AUTO ZONE SIGNS
Vorsanger read a letter he received from a citizen who asked that it be called to 32.1
the attention of the Board:
"Every time I drive past the corner of College•and Lafayette I get upset. 32.22
Would'you please check to see if the new business at that cornerviolates
the City Sign Ordinance? The two "Auto Zone" ._signs plus another sign inside
the glass are much larger than I.understand is.legally permitted that close
to the street. Also, the' huge lettering "Discount Auto Parts" along the
side of the building detracts tremendously from the appearance at that
corner. Thank you for checking on this -':and bringing it to the Board of
Directors' attention. Sincerely, '`Wanda Belsong, 1515 Clark Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas."
Planning Director Merrell said he was looking into the compliance and his
preliminary opinion is that they do comply with the ordinance. Merrell said he
would report back to the Board with a final ruling.
In answer to a question from Lancaster, Merrell said "Auto Zone" did not pay
anything (to the City) for the signs they have installed.
GRIMES SETTLEMENT
City Prosecutor Jones said the Board had.;received a letter regarding a possible
.settlement with former City Manager Don Grimes, over the issue of vacation
compensation. Jones said the City Attorney recommended the offer, to pay Grimes
$4,462.52, be accepted. Jones said.the claim was for $5,950.
Martin explained this was a suit" for compensationf for accrued unused vacation
'claimed under the City's personnel. policy. He said'the case was set for trial on
February 6. qt E'
r
Marinoni, seconded by Martin, moved to accept the offer.
Director Kelley asked for the basis of McCord's recommendation. Jones said
McCord's estimation was the City probably owed Grimes the full amount, and
pointed out the settlement offer was for 3/4 that amount. Jones said it was a
case the City probably could not win.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-0-1, Lancaster abstaining.
RECYCLING COMMIITTEE/RECYCLING TRUCK PURCHASE
32.3
32.4
32.5
32.E
32.7
32.6
32.9
City Manager Pennington said his staff had been talking with a lot of groups in 32.1
the community and there have been a number of questions raised regarding the
City's recycling pilot program He said he felt the City had a very effective
program and after discussing it with people who have objections, he thought
January 17, 1989
33.1 everyone had the same objectives in mind. He said he could understand the need
for many citizens to have input into the program. He said whether the program
starts with residential or commercial recycling first, the vehicle which is
proposed to be purchased would be used in either case.
33.2 Pennington recommended the City continue with the program it has, and said he was
not asking for any action from the Board other than on the purchase of the
vehicle. He said he intended to establish a City Manager's Advisory Committee on
Solid Waste, strictly to advise the staff, monitor and evaluate the program. He
said the committee would not be large, consisting of 7-9 members. He said he
would advertise for interested persons to send a letter to the City Manager's
Office, c/o Citizens' Advisory Committee on Solid Waste, City Hall. He asked
that citizens who submit a letter state the reasons they would like to
participate and any particular qualifications they may have. He stressed that
anyone who wished to apply did not have to be an expert.
33.3 Pennington said there were other ideas and the City was not in sole possession of
the things that will work. He said the program was not "cast in stone" and the
City was comfortable in being flexible and moving ahead. He said he would do
everything he could to make sure the committee is not just a "lip service" type
of committee.
33.4 Mayor Martin remarked that at the last meeting the Board approved a $536,000
budget for the recycling pilot program budget. He said during the budgeting
process Director Green had asked and been assured that the budget could be
modified to incorporate new or better ideas. He asked Pennington if that budget
would be amenable to changes as a result of the direction of the new task force.
Pennington said there was no question about that. He said the budget was only a
guide and a planning document and changes could be made along the way.
33.5 Director Green said the utilizing of the natural resources and expertise in the
community was a move in the proper direction. He asked the staff if there was a
Recycling Coordinator answering to Public Works Director Batie. City Manager
Pennington said the City planned to recruit a solid waste administrator and a
recycling coordinator. He said, in the interim, a staff administrator had been
hired to plug gaps in the organization. He said it may be determined during the
process that the recycling coordinator position is not needed. Green said since
the technology is new he thought it took special experience and encouraged the
staff to seek out persons to fill those positions in addition to using the
citizens as resources.
33.6 Director Lancaster said he believed in the program but said he thought we were
"haggling over a truck." He said we weren't going to get anywhere until we got
started and remarked that we had "to learn how to crawl before we can walk."
33.7 The Mayor asked if there were comments from the public.
33.8 Ruth Collier, resident of 1610 Fox Hunter Road, said that Fayetteville has
absolutely got to make the program work. She said people all over the State are
watching us. She said she talks daily with people in Little Rock and keeps
1
1
January 17, 1989
separately on each appointment, due to some recommendations which have been made 30.:
on the Regional Planning Commission and Parks Board.
BOARD'OF AIJUSTMENT
On behalf of the committee, Kelley submitted the namekof Dee Wright for the Board 30.:
of Adjustment. Upon roll call, the appointment was approved, 7-0.
•
CITY HOSPITAL BOARD
Kelleysubmitted the name of Bill Gould for the CityHospital Board. There being
no further nominations, upon roll call, the appointment was approved, 7-0.
30.:
HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION .
Kelley submitted the name of Patricia Page for the Historic District Commission. 30.z
There being no other nominations, upon roll call, the appointment was approved,
7 0.•
PLANNING COMMISSION
Kelley reported the committee recommended the appointment of Jack Cleghorn, J.
David Ozment and Ernest Jacks to three positions on the Planning Commission.
There being no other nominations, upon roll call, the appointments were approved,
7-0.
N.W. ARKANSAS, REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION
Kelley, reporting there were four positions to be filled on the Regional Planning
Commission, said the committee recommended three nominees by a majority vote of
the Board - David Dubbell, E. Murl Meredith, and C. Larry Tompkins. There
being no other nominations, upon roll call, the appointments were approved, 7-0.
30.5
30.E
Kelley explained that the Nominating Committee, when necessary, may present two 30.7
names in nomination for some positions. He reported that, in the Board's
balloting for the fourth position on the Regional Planning Commission, there was
a tie between James Kent Pennington and Marilyn Johnson. The Mayor asked the
Board to vote by name for their selection. Upon voice vote, Pennington was
appointed, by a vote of 5-2, Directors Marinoni and Lancaster voting for Johnson.
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
Kelley reported that, for the Parks Board, the committee recommended the
appointment of Wade Colwell, Chuck Yarbrough and Robert Rodney Ryan. There being
no other nominations, upon roll call, the appointments were approved, 7-0.
Kelley explained there was .a tie for the fourth position between Stephen
Alexander and John York. By voice vote, Alexander was appointed, 4-3, Directors
Marinoni, Lancaster and Martin voting for York.
30.8
January 17, 1989
HOUSING AUTHORITY APPOINTMENT
31.1 The Mayor announced that the Housing Authority Board recommended the
reappointment of Clarence Fries to that Board. It was moved by Marinoni and
seconded by Kelley to confirm the appointment. Upon roll call, the motion
passed, 7-0.
31.2
31.3
SETTLEMENT OFFER/ARTS CENTER PROPERTY
The Mayor introduced consideration of a settlement offer from owners of property
located in the southwest quarter of the block on which the Walton Arts Center is
to be constructed.
He explained the City had condemned approximately the southwest quarter of the
block on which the Walton Arts Center is to be constructed. He said the City's
independent appraiser has appraised the fair market value of the property to be
$218,000, while the landowners have obtained an appraisal of $300,000. Martin
said attorney for the landowners have submitted an oral settlement offer of
$260,000. He said the Board had previously authorized a settlement of $239,800
(ten percent above the City's appraisal). He said a trial on the matter was set
for May 9. He asked for a motion to accept, deny or authorize a counteroffer.
31.4 It was moved by Marinoni and seconded by Lancaster to deny the offer to settle.
31.5 Director Kelley asked for the staff recommendation. The City Manager said the
City Attorney felt this offer was a good settlement, considering litigation
expenses. City Prosecutor Jones said McCord thought a counteroffer from the
Board of $250,000 would be well within the ball park.
31.6
31.7
31.8
31.9
31.10
31.11
The Mayor asked for public comment and none was expressed.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0.
It was moved by Lancaster and seconded by Kelley to counteroffer for $250,000.
Marinoni said this was the third offer which had been made, and he felt the Board
should apply the same rules to this case as they use in other cases. He said he
thought the Board should stick with the offer of 10% above appraisal, commenting
that the only reason a counteroffer was being suggested was because "they are
holding our feet to the fire."
Green expressed a desire to get on with the project and said he didn't think we
should hold up the project in the interests of making this an example. He spoke
in favor of the staff's recommendation. Marinoni said he didn't think this would
hold up the project since the only issue now was the price for the property.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 6-1, Marinoni voting in the minority.
January 17, 1989
assuring them we are on the right track. She said "give the people some places 34.1
to take their things and you'll have your pilot started."
Dan Mauritson addressed the Board, stating he was confused about news reports 34.2
that there are going to be drop off points for recyclables. He asked about
citizens who have difficulty getting around or who have epilepsy orare elderly
and cannot drive a car. Martin said he was enthusiastic about those kinds of
concerns being plugged into the planning. He said the City needed to be
responsive to everyone and he hoped the task force would incorporate comments
like that. He said he hoped Mauritson would make himself available to the task
force.
Joe Robson, Fayetteville citizen, expressed concern'about sentiment expressed 34.3
that no more money be expended ,until we find out about the volunteer citizen
participation. He pointed out that if volunteer participation were a measure of
success for the incinerator it would have been a failure a long time ago.
Bruce Cully said he thought the advisory group was a good idea but said he would 34.4
like the board to be conscious ofthe idea that the committee being formed should
be given the power to completely revamp the program He suggested a pilot
program can .measure citizen response or can be used to initiate a program under
its most effective measures - the point being that recycling will be a necessity
in the future. He said he would .like to change the most expensive part of the
program, which he said was curbside pickup, and redirect..it.,toward an industrial
waste program which would have a major impact on the landfill, for the least
amount of money.
Vickie Kelley, 320 W. Mountain, said she spent about three hours with the City
Manager going through a report she had given the Board. She said she and the
City Manager had found a lot of consensus. She tasked the Board to support the
citizen committee, and said she could accept the compromise of simply being put
on an advisory council. She said if the City just copies other programs from
other cities, how would they know, for example, that Arkansas requires that you
possess a landfill permit, if you compost.
34.5
Director Green asked Kelley if she had any particular comments on things the City 34.6
can do right way in the program, or comments about the proposed purchase of the
truck.
Kelley said she had serviced the natural food coop on a volunteer basis who she 34.7
said has been receiving its customers' recyclables. She said a Fayetteville
business was also bringing the coop beer and wine bottles. She said they are on
the collection route for the program but instead could be a drop off center. She
said if the City truck stops there on the route there is some question about
whether they can even get all the coop's recyclables on the truck.
35.1
35.2
January 17, 1989
Director Kelley said he didn't think a delay in consideration of the truck would
indicate a lack of support for the program. He said the Board had empowered the
staff to make the recommendations and effect the program, but at the same time
there have been comments that priorities which might be set after the money is
spent can be irrelevant if there is no money to fund them. He asked if it would
create a problem if the staff waited on the purchase of the vehicle until after
the committee had met.
Pennington said two things had to be considered - one is we have a bid
outstanding which can expire, and secondly, no matter which way we go we have to
have equipment to do the job. Pennington said it seemed we were just postponing
things. He said we were getting ready to order the containers. He recommended
the Board move ahead with the purchase of the truck.
35.3 Director Kelley said he was concerned that, if changes were made in the program,
he didn't want to cripple those efforts by spending the money. He said some good
questions had been raised regarding the volume on the route and whether the truck
can handle that volume. He said he was opposed to the purchase of the truck
until after the task force meets with City staff. Pennington said it will be at
least two weeks before a committee can be formed and there will be differences of
opinion on the committee. Director Kelley said some of the Directors are "gun-
shy" in that the City has spent some money in the past they wished it hadn't.
35.4 Director Lancaster said the Board voted for the program and asked the staff to
come up with a program He said he felt the Board was trying to tie the City
Manager's hands and stop the program Lancaster moved we buy the truck and get
on with the program.
35.5 Marinoni said every time the City needs a vehicle they buy a brand new one. He
said there were other alternatives to that and he asked if there was a vehicle in
the City fleet which would be used. Public Works Director Batie said the
proposed truck had special compartments, was a dump -loading truck made especially
for recycling and there was no vehicle such as that in the city's fleet.
35.6 Director Kelley said although it was true the Board approved the program, now a
change has been presented by the staff in the form of a task force. He said he
saw it strictly as a matter of keeping options open.
35.7 Vorsanger commented that regardless of which way the program goes - we need a
truck. He said a few months ago Vickie Kelley came to a Board meeting
complaining that the City wasn't doing anything on the program. Vorsanger said
he thought we needed to move ahead.
35.8 Director Kelley said he didn't think the answer to every problem was to hire
another person or buy another piece of equipment. He said he didn't think it
would hurt the City to wait another two weeks or thirty days.
35.9 The Mayor said it had been moved and seconded to approve the award of bid. Upon
IP -
January 17, 1989
roll call, the motion failed, 3-4, Directors Vorsanger, Lancaster and Martin 3.6.1
voting "yes" and Directors Marinoni, Spivey, Green and Kelley voting "no".
City Manager Pennington said the staff was trying to avoid what had just
happened, commenting that "we cannot be in a continual battle over these kinds of
issues." He said he was hoping to get items like this out on the table in the
committee meetings instead of utilizing the Board meeting as a forum.- He said he
had no problem with postponing action but guaranteed that at some point in time
the staff would be right back before the Board with the recommendation.
ADJOURNMENT
,..
I 4
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at
11:12 p.m.
•
•
1
•
•
•
36.2
36.3