Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-04-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A CITY RETREAT BOARD MEETING A Retreat meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Thursday, April 5, 1990 at 8:30 a.m.. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, • Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor William Martin; Directors Michael Green, Ernest Lancaster, Russ Kelley, Paul Marinoni, Jr., Shell 'Spivey, and Fred Vorsanger; Acting City Manager Scott Linebaugh, City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk Sherry Thomas; members of the staff, press, and'audience. AGENDA The meeting was called to order with Mayor Martin who stated the purpose of the meeting iaas to -present the agenda for modification of the City's financial course in the coming year. 1 Linebaugh explained thatthe purpose'of the meeting was to once again acquaint the Board members with the services presently provided, evaluate them for.improvements or deletions, evaluate the City's needs and provide the best possible way to meet those needs. He explained that today's meeting would be a basic review of. services and actual needs of the community, examples of how the City compares to other cities in the region concerning these services and cost and review of departments not mentioned in the first meeting. - Mayor Martin emphasized the informality of the meeting and that questions could be asked at any time, including questions from Staff or the press. Kevin Crosson briefly 'outlined the subjects discussed at the last Retreat meeting; City's mission statement, City's purpose statement, definition of a public policy, identified the four major phases of the policy-making cycle, community needs and current city services provided with statistics about such. He explained that the Board would, at this meeting, be provided with regional comparisons of municipal services for comparative information, hear current levelpresentations on other departments, and work for a completion of community needs analysis, making it possible for the next -Retreat meeting to focus on the program alternatives and available resources. - COMPARISON OF REGIONAL SERVICES First survey done was last summer of about 30 cities, broken into 5 different regions with the criteria of the survey. being population (42,000 to 52,000), and a Council/Manager formof government. Comparisons made included staffing levels (police, fire, water, and sewer departments), total budget, total employees, April 5, 1990 and tax structures. Second survey, compiled by Municipal Analysis Services, Inc. of Little Rock, Arkansas, concerned governments of Arkansas in 1989. The cost per capita comparisons included; sanitation services operating costs, fire protection, police protection and jail facilities, street maintenance, and parks and recreation services. Comparison was also made regarding water and sewer rates, using the 1987 Water and Sewer Survey Report which is compiled by The Arkansas Wastewater Management Association. Rates on both inside and outside the city limits were discussed. Charts were reviewed regarding 1990 budgets for fire, police, street maintenance, and parks and recreation. A schedule of per capita bond indebtedness was presented as compared to cities in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas. It was noted that for the Series A & B 1985, the funds are present to pay them off at the first call date. It was suggested that, as this survey information was presented, it should be realized that some of the comparisons from city to city did not reflect the fact that some cities provided services while others did not (i.e. airport service). DEPARTMENT PRESENTATIONS Dispatch Supervisor of Central Dispatch Operations, Kathy Stocker made the presentation for Central Dispatch, citing the different levels of service provided by that department. They included offering 24 hour -7 days a week operation, handling police and fire calls, 911 calls, as well as numerous other emergency calls for service and police business line calls. Stocker explained that the dispatchers attended computer training in February of this year which enables them to enter and access information from the Chief's computer on a dispatch program. This makes obtaining information and statistical data much easier and quicker than ever before. The Center's teletype system is linked to the National and State Crime Information Centers and is monitored 24 hours a day. This assists law enforcement agencies with information regarding driver's license information, criminal histories, wanted persons, and vehicle license information. All stolen property claims from the City of Fayetteville are entered in the computer which circulates the information all over the United States, allowing much better recovery rates. An additional computer will be installed in the Detective Division of the Police Department, possibly decreasing the number of information requests the Center will have to process in the future. Stocker also described the vast number of reports required to be typed or entered into computer as they provide clerical assistance to the Police Department by keeping track of call histories, hydrant information, routing and intersection information, and hazardous materials information, etc. April 5, 1990: It was brought out that the Dispatch. Center has a tremendous problem with employee turnover, thought to be caused in part by the close space, cramped working conditions and noise factor. Linebaugh stated solutions were being looked into for these problems. CITY PROSECUTOR 1 • Terry Jones made the presentation for the City Prosecutor's office. Services of this office include researching and filing DWI cases and preparing them for trial, filing criminal cases when the Police Department cannot, obtaining sworn affidavits from officers and evaluating the cases and filing charges if necessary. He reminded the Board that his staff hail remained the same size since 1984, and the duty of processing pertinent information from citizens and follow-up investigation was very time consuming. The City Prosecutor's office serves as a "clearinghouse" for various other departments in the City, directing the calls to the proper department to handle the problem or advice on the situation and serve as incidental4. legal counsel to the police, fire and inspection departments.• Jones statedthat he does try to participate in community functions as much as possible. This would include speaking to community groups on such subjects as crime prevention or hot checks, participating in OGC's outpatient programs, drafting laws to•assist citizens in the community, and counseling domestic violence victims. Vorsanger asked Jones,if` he envisioned <the Prosecutor's office becoming a full-time service in the future, and Jones emphatically answered he did due to the ever-expanding caseload. He further described a plea bargainingprocess that has been adopted by several courts in the state, including`Rogers, allowing cases to move more efficiently through the courts. This would allow the Prosecutor to work in the courtroom on cases requiring an attorney, while staff members or paralegals on a lower pay scale could prepare most of the other cases for the office. He stated that he felt his office could handle the expanding caseload if he were allowed to hire additional help. The possibility of using law students as clerks was mentioned, but he reminded the Board that they would require sufficient pay, and this had not been budgeted for this year. Jones presented a Hot Check proposal and explained how it would work. At present, most merchants in the City attempt to collect their hot checks, and when deemed uncollectible, it is then turned over to Jones' office to attempt to collect or prosecute for collection. All hot checks written in the City would be brought directly to Jones' office and processed for a $10 fee, ultimately paid for by the person making restitution for the check. This would allow: 1) City Prosecutor's office to contact the check April 5, 1990 writer, hopefully applying more pressure and collecting quicker; 2) Assimilation of all hot checks written in the City, allowing repeat hot check writers to be identified quickly and arrested; 3) Collection of the $10 fee, and one-half of the fee will be kept by the City as the collection charge. Jones explained that adoption of this hot check program would make approximately $250,000 in revenue for the City. Jones stated that various companies in the area would lose that portion of their business if the City were to implement the Hot Check Program proposed. He urged the Board to consider this along with the proposal. Linebaugh pointed out that the Board would probably be hearing from these people, but this problem has not been taken care of by the current system. Lancaster asked how the extra money charged for writing the hot check would be collected if the person had no money, to which Jones replied that if all available moneys were collected and the amount was still not satisfied, the person would be incarcerated. A work program was discussed, whereby offenders would be required to make restitution by working to clear vacant lots or other chores. It was explained that, on the work program, offenders having special skills would be used in their capacities as much as possible. It was noted that people that don't intentionally write hot checks might be turned over to the City Prosecutor if for some reason their check should happen to bounce. Jones said that for a merchant's regular customer, he could have the option to make a courtesy call to the customer and request they come in and take care of the check without turning them over to the City's Hot Check Program. It was suggested that the best way to prevent problems for the people who don't intend for the check to be insufficient was for the merchant to decide whether the check was uncollectable, in which case it would be turned over to the City, and not be just a matter of beating the deposit to the bank. Three day "grace periods" were also discussed as an option. PLANNING MANAGEMENT John Merrill addressed the Board with his presentation. He outlined the different divisions and their functions and responsibilities. 1) Engineering: reviewal and approval of subdivisions and of developer plans and specifications, inspection of construction projects such as public works projects, review of large scale developments, review of lot -split applications, acquisition and management of engineering contracts, management of construction contracts, engineering for city projects, maintenance of all City mapping, acquisition of utility and street easements, sale and • April 5, 1990 acquisition of other properties, handlingvarious citizen inquiries, researching and writing agenda items to go before the Board .of Directors. There are six people on staff in this division.. 2) Community Development: residential rehabilitation programs, low interest loan programs, rental rehabilitation program (in conjunction. with HUD), sub -recipient lease and contract compliance programs, engineering andconstruction contract administration program (public improvements), elderly resident taxi. program, and the Fair Housing office. 3) City Planning Division: receives many phone calls and in 1989 received about 1,000 calls on zoning violations; assist public coming to the office with permits, etc., assisting contractors and developers, maintain records of development procedures and applications, follow-ups of bills of assurance, review building permits as they apply to zoning, investigation of zoning complaints and enforcement of zoning regulations, issuance of certificates of occupancy for buildings, clerical duties relating to correspondence, minutes of meetings and agenda packets for all the responsible committees, research and write staff reports and make recommendations, and undertaking special studies and projects. • 4) Inspections Division: during 1989 conducted about 16,000 inspections, granted construction permits in 1989 totalling about $30 million, and concentrated code enforcement program involving property clean-ups. Citing the College Park apartment construction as an example, it was questioned whether'or not in the future the City could refuse certain out-of-state builders the necessary permits to build in the City. Merrill related that the instance took place before he came to office and stated that he was unsure what options were available. Attorney Rose stated that it was very difficult to single out a certain group or individual, but not impossible. He cited the time elementsfor due process and obtaining injunctions and court time spent deciding the matter. Merrill assured the Board that if the situation ever arose again, such builders/contractors/investors would .be scrutinized very closely to see that adverse situations were kept to a bare minimum. ADJOURNMENT Linebaugh stated that remaining business would be presented at the next retreat meeting. The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.