Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-05-01 MinutesMINUTES OF AMEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS A Special Meeting of the Fayetteville City Board. of Directors was held on Tuesday, May 1, 1990 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 326 of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street,.Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor William V. Martin; Directors Michael Green, Ernest Lancaster, Russ Kelley, Paul Marinoni, Jr., and Fred Vorsanger; Personnel Officer Don Bailey, and City Clerk Sherry Thomas. ABSENT: Shell Spivey • Mayor Martin called the meeting to order with six Directors present and stated the purpose of the special meeting was to interview Mr. Jerry Lawson, a candidate for the position of City Manager. He explained that the Board would go into Executive Session to conduct the interview. The Board went into Executive Session at 1:32 p.m. The Board reconvened at 3:35, and the Mayor reported that no official action had been taken. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m. 1 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the. Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, May 1, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. in the Director's Room 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; Assistant Administrative Services Director Kevin Crosson,City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk Sherry Thomas; members of the staff, press and audience. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with seven Directors present. The Mayor asked those present to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and then asked that a brief moment of respectful silence be observed. The Mayor welcomed those present in the audience and those watching by television. He reminded • the public that they would have an opportunity to address the Board on every item 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 of Staff should be directed to the Mayor. CONSENT AGENDA The Mayor introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts or leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda". The Mayor explained that there is thought to be unanimous agreement by the Board, but pointed out that any Director may request the removal of an item from the Consent Agenda. The Mayor read the items contained in the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Minutes of the April 17, 1990 Regular Board Meeting; B. A resolution authorizing payment of $17,552.00 for the month of February and $8,721.00 for the month of March to the Niblock Law Firm for services rendered on the incinerator disengagement lawsuit. , seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to approve the consent Upon the roll call, the motion was passed by a vote of 7 • Kelley agenda to O. RESOLUTION 69-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK May 1, 1990 ATTORNEY REPORT Walter Niblock addressed the Board concerning the status of the incinerator disengagement lawsuit. He stated there was hope that the delays will soon be over and motions are scheduled to be heard by Judge Adams on May 29, 1990 in Bentonville. These motions include the motions of Mr. Robson's attorneys to withdraw as attorney in this case and a motion to determine the eligibility of Harold Roudabush to intervene as class plaintiff in the case. He stated as reported earlier, the judge did not order Robson out of the case, but indicated that Robson was in a conflict since he is a justice of the peace for Washington County who has just been made a party defendant. Robson has not voluntarily withdrawn, and because of Robson's resistance to accepting the advice of the judge, this is also causing a delay. Robson's attorneys have asked to be permitted to withdraw as his counsel and to have Mr. Roudabush substituted as the class plaintiff. He explained that these issues did not directly involve the City Board, but that continuing proceedings would be suspended until the Robson/Roudabush matter had been resolved. He stated that the next action to be taken in the case itself would be the filing of an amended complaint by the plaintiff in the case, as was ordered by the Court. The City would then be ready to respond by "joining the issues" and file a motion for summary judgment. He felt the plaintiff's side would most likely file a counter -motion for summary judgment. This will then put all the facts before the court. The court will then take the matter under advisement, but Niblock had no idea how long that would take. Niblock also reported on the upcoming bond payment, due on June 1, 1990, with interest payments totalling $741,943.00 due and payable on that date. He stated that his office had been involved in substantial negotiations with the trustee and FGIC regarding where the money will come from to pay the amount. The trustee is verified to have sufficient funds from interest earnings on hand at this time in order to make the payment due on June 1. Niblock said he had some assurance that the payment would be made, but because this was not in writing, he could not say for certain that payment would be made. The reason for the involvement of the trustee is due to contract requirements between the trustee and FGIC for approval of any payments or transactions made. Niblock stated he felt the trustee would make the payment as they had before. Director Marinoni asked Niblock if Robson's attorney's request for withdrawal was due to conflict of interests or other reasons. Niblock explained that if a lawyer has an instance whereby he has given his client advice and that client refuses to heed that advice, the lawyer has a responsibility to withdraw from the case and this seems to be the case in this instance. Marinoni asked if new counsel enters the case to represent Robson, would they not 1 May 1, 1990 be in the same position. Niblock stated that would be correct, due to the circumstances surrounding Robson's refusal to accept recommendations, including those of the Court to withdraw from the suit. Director Kelley asked if the contract between the trustee and the FGIC concerning payments extended to every payment. Niblock answered that it did. Kelley asked with that being so, why would FGIC not permit the payment. Niblock answered that he couldn't imagine FGIC not paying, partly due to the fact that the payment would be made with the city's money, and he did not anticipate any problems. Kitty Gay, from the Niblock Law Firm, addressed the Board concerning the abstract and brief filed on behalf of the City in the Supreme Court in the Freedom of Information Act Case. She stated that at the same time the abstract and brief was being filed, an organization called the Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association filed an Amicus Brief, explaining their support for the City in this case. The next step will be for Donrey to file their Brief within 30 days of the city's brief filing, then the City will have -15 days in which to file a response in rebuttal. After the Court takes summer break, the case will be set for oral argument, which Gay feels will probably be sometime after Labor Day. Gay also stated that there will be another motion heard by Judge Adams in Bentonville on May 29, 1990 at the same time he hears the motions Niblock discussed. This is regarding the removal of the protective order concerning the attorney's working papers in the case and the possibility of the Judge reconsidering his order. She stated that a report regarding the outcome would be provided to the Board as soon as information became available. Director Kelley asked Gay if she felt any other parties such as the Municipal League would come forth as "friends of the Court" as the Arkansas Trial Lawyer's Association did. She responded that a request was made of the Municipal League and they did not respond. Gay stated that because of the requirements of the filing schedule, amicus briefs must be filed simultaneously with the appellant's, thus ending the opportunity for anyone else to come forward now. However, Gay felt that there might certainly be an amicus brief filed by certain news organizations on behalf of the Appellee's position. She was askedto characterize the Arkansas Trial Lawyer's Association (ATLA) for the Board. Gay explained that it was an organization of independent -minded lawyers, interested in trial work. They represent and/or sue public entities, and their position is one that believes that the right to a fair trial is fundamental to the American justice system and if that is taken away, the whole system will fall apart. May 1, 1990 Mayor Martin asked if the group was prestigious and Gay answered that she felt they were, with membership of over 1,000 lawyers in the State of Arkansas. Director Lancaster asked Gay if she knew the reason why the Municipal League did not get involved. She suggested the reason could have been bad publicity and that perhaps they would work to change the Legislature regarding the law as it is written now. Director Kelley expressed his disappointment in the Municipal League's failure to support the City, as this represents a detriment to every municipality in the State of Arkansas, not just the City of Fayetteville. Mayor Martin agreed with Kelley and suggested that the Board find a way to satisfactorily convey the Board's disappointment at the Municipal League and volunteered to deliver the message personally. Robert Brandon addressed the Board explaining that he was the individual that Niblock and Gay had insisted was involved in the Waste Management Agreement lawsuit, which they refer to as the "Robson lawsuit". He stated that Robson attorney's are charging in the case for his involvement, which he denies ever existed to begin with. He requested a retraction from the City of Fayetteville and the Niblock Law Firm in writing, and withdrawal of his name from Mr. Niblock's motion, and for any allegations by the City of Fayetteville and Mr. Niblock to cease. He stated that the premise in which they allege his involvement is merely a record of a telephone call from an attorney named Evans who had previously represented Brandon in his request for information from the City on the project. Evans had telephoned Robson's attorney to see if proceeding to protect Brandon from the City's lawsuit would involve any inherent conflicts. Brandon said he believed that the City Board was in the same position as Robson, and he suggested the Board members either step down from the City Board or drop the lawsuit. He also stated that Niblock was serving personal interests by insisting that his records remain private. Mayor Martin reminded Brandon that the matter was before the courts. He restated Brandon's requests for a retraction and assured him that City Attorney Rose would be asked to investigate the use of Brandon's name in the lawsuit, and that a recommendation from Rose would be forthcoming. Fran Alexander asked for an explanation of the roles and responsibilities of Niblock, Inglesby and Gay and how they were chosen for those roles in this case. Mayor Martin responded that they were co -counsel in the case and were assigned their roles and responsibilities based on their expertise. May 1, 1990 Niblock stated that they were employed by the City of Fayetteville to act as local counsel" for McDermott, Will and Emery. He explained that Gay, himself and other members of his staff perform services as requested by McDermott, Will and Emery. They are also advised on matters pertaining to litigation process by a member of the. McDermott, Will & Emery Staff, Steve Pflaum, a specialist in municipal litigation matters. Niblock described Inglesby's role as relating to municipal bond matters, dealing with FGIC and the trustee. Niblock described the variety of his 30 year trial experience' and explained .that Gay is a partner, litigator, researcher and brief writer,' involved in"every phase' of this case. He stated that they also act as a "conduit" between McDermott, Will & Emery, the City Board of Directors and the City Attorney. Robert Reus.noted that when the lawsuit began 6-7 months ago, the tentative budget set for the case was approximately half a million dollars. He referred back to the last meeting when it was stated that expenses had reached approximately $360,000, but one of the attorneys for plaintiffs has added up a figure somewhat over a half a million dollars already. He questioned which figure is correct and why the discrepancy between the two. He also asked about plans to cut back expenses from the average $70,000 to $80,000 monthly charges. Mayor Martin stated that he could speculate but the best thing to do would be for Staff to provide an analysis of what has been spent to date and what other expenses might be involved. WALTON ARTS CENTER. Mayor Martin introduced consideration of a resolution awarding a contract for construction of the Walton Arts Center, a joint project between the City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas,. to Carson & Associates of Little Rock in the amount of $5,536,370.00. The contract also contains options in the amount of $1,855,630.00 to complete the building as designed. The City's portion of the $5,536,370 is budgeted in the Arts Center Construction Fund. The contract includes addendums in the amount of $1,855,630 which can be awarded to this contractor by written request of the City and the University within the timeframes as detailed in the contract. Vorsanger, seconded by Kelley, made a motion to approve the resolution to award contract for construction to Carson & Associates. Crosson stated that Bill Mitchell from the Arts Council was present to discuss the contract. He then asked City Attorney Rose for comments. May 1, 1990 Rose explained that the contract provides 5 and one-half million dollars in funds for construction of the Arts Center. He stated that the cost of the addendum are funds which the Arts Center Council believes can be raised. Director Green questioned the open item dates for extension date times regarding the addendum items. Rose explained that the final copy of the contract, which had just arrived, had no blanks and that a certain number of days was provided on each allowance. Green also asked if the Board was comfortable with the compliance of the 20% rule for bid negotiations. Rose explained the details of the 20% rule and stated that the limit was met, and he was very comfortable with the compliance. Director Marinoni directed a question to Mitchell regarding a letter stating that the contractor is not obligated to hold the bid price beyond April 28, 1990. Noting that the April date has already passed, he inquired about implications this might have. William Mitchell, Executive Director of the Arts Center Council, agreed that the contractor is not obligated to hold the price after the April date, but he has been led to believe that the contractor would hold the bid. He mentioned the possibility that the contract has already been signed and may be enroute to Fayetteville at the present time. Marinoni asked that if a change in price structure was chosen, would the change come before the Board as another consideration. Mitchell confirmed that it would, but reminded the Board that the contract reached the contractor prior to the April 28th date for signature. Director Lancaster asked whether the contractors could raise prices at their discretion regarding the addendums numbered 1-5 if the dates were not met or would they be required to re -bid the items. Mitchell stated that most likely the City would need to seek counsel regarding re -bidding after the dates mentioned if the contractor asked for additional renumeration. Director Vorsanger congratulated the people involved for designing a "creative" contract which holds the contractor to finishing various parts of the building project, as additional funds are obtained along the way. He felt that the reason the dates are so close together was that they might coincide with the completion dates of the building. Upon roll call, the resolution was unanimously approved. RESOLUTION 70-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR 1 I K May 1,`1990 COUNTY ROAD PROPERTY Mayor Martin introduced consideration of. an ordinance waiving the minimum lot size for two lot splits for property located off County Roads .894 and 2039 owned by; Kenneth Hatfield. • b City ordinances require a minimum of 1:5 acres for each of the newly created lots when they are not close enough to connect to the City sewer system. The lots created by this split will be approximately 1.2 acres. The Health Department has approved each of the lots for septic tanks and lateral lines. The Planning Commission approved the splits subject to waiver of the lot size by the Board of Directors. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Kelley, seconded by Lancaster, moved to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. The ordinance was read for the second time. Kelley, seconded by Lancaster, moved to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. The ordinance was read for the third time. Doug Hemingway, land surveyor for the site, addressed the Board on behalf of the property owner. Director Marinoni asked about the possibility of sub -dividing the land in such a way that the lots would be closer to the 1.5 acre requirement. Hemingway explained that this had been attempted with the results being encroachment upon the existing driveway to the house. He described the problems associated with the attempts, the results being to split the lots at 107 feet each. Upon roll call, the ordinance was unanimously adopted. ORDINANCE 3481 APPEARS ON PAGE4'1 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XX ✓ SCADA SYSTEM Mayor Martin introduced a resolution approving the Water and Wastewater Telemetry (SCADA System) contract and a budget adjustment. Staff recommends approval of the budgeted item at a total cost of $560,000 be awarded to Motorola C & E. The project was underbudgeted, and rapid changes in technology have caused the cost of the project to increase. The additional funding will be taken from the Sewer Flow Monitoring System that was under budget by $167,000 and from the Sewer Rehab Project. May 1, 1990 Marinoni, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the contract. Crosson explained that the project was originally budgeted for a sewer lift station monitoring system, but upon reviewing the information, it was decided to expand to the water pump stations as well. He also stressed the importance of expanding and modifying the SCADA system to meet the full monitoring needs, controlling the sewer lift stations, pump stations and tanks. Director Kelley asked if this was also necessary to meet the timetables and requirements of the EPA. Crosson stated that this was so. Director Green asked if this new system would replace the Motorola 800 system. Crosson explained that originally it was thought the existing system could be used but that is not the case. Green asked if the Motorola 800 system would be left in place or salvaged. Crosson stated it will remain in place. Mayor Martin described this as a "remote control" system for major parts of the City's sewer system. He read an excerpt from a paragraph in the agenda describing the system's part in the overall sewer system rehabilitation. Crosson added that in emergency situations, stations would have the ability to turn on pumps from remote locations. Upon roll call, the resolution was adopted unanimously. RESOLUTION 71-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK RURAL FIRE CONTRACT RATES Mayor Martin introduced a resolution authorizing the 1990 Rural Fire Contract rates at $157.00 for association members and $314.00 for individual contract holders. The new fees have been calculated using the same formula that has been used in the last several years. Lancaster, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the resolution. Crosson explained that any household within a two mile radius of the city limits is eligible to join the City in a fire contract. An association is required to have three or more adjacent landowners to contract with the City. There are currently 23 rural fire associations, made up of 175 members. 1 • Maydl, 1990 Upon roll call, the resolution was unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION 72-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR UNSAFE STRUCTURE a • i Mayor Martin introduced consideration of an ordinance approving the removal of a vacant, unsafe, and unsightly structure located at 629 Lindell. Demolition was started on October 3, 1988, and then stopped. Parts of the foundations, walls, and floor are still standing and has now become a dumping place for trash and debris. Staff recommends the immediate removal of this unsafe and unsightly structure. Violation notice was mailed February 11,-1988 and acknowledged by the owner on February 12., 1988. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Director Lancaster, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion that the rules be suspended and the ordinance be placed on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. 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 motion passed unanimously. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Green stated that, after touring the site, he felt there were many apparent dangers present to public safety and asked that the matter be solved quickly. David Williamson, owner of the property, addressed the Board. He stated that, after being issued the violation notice, he paid a contractor to begin work on the structure. The wooden structure was taken down to the cement foundation and, at that time, the contractor ceased work on the building and left the remainder of the structure for him to clean up. He stated that he complained twice to the fraternity close by that they must remove all items they had dumped at the site but got no satisfaction. He compared the danger on his property to the old ice house on West and Dickson streets that has been standing for quite some time. He reminded the Board that he had gone to the fraternity house with no results and that because of the rain, had been unable to mow around the property. Mayor Martin inquired as to how long Williamson had before the City would clear the property. Rose answered 10 days to start and 30 days to complete the project. .Director Green made the comment that he had toured the site which was right up against the street with no barricades present to May 1, 1990 prevent vehicles from rolling down into the structure or someone walking along and falling down into the deep basement structure. Director Vorsanger asked Williamson if he had any intention of cleaning up the property. Williamson stated that the job would cost $1,500, and he doesn't have the money. He assured the Board that he did have intentions of cleaning up the property but his work schedule demanded all of his time, and he felt that purchasing this property had been an unwise decision. He added that at this time, he was negotiating with the University of Arkansas for the possible purchase of the property by them. He said that students from the University park their cars on the property all the time. Williamson also mentioned conversations he had with Richard Watson, City Inspector, about taking all wood off of the structure to comply with fire safety regulations. Director Vorsanger asked if he had received any complaints from his neighbors. When Williamson responded no, Vorsanger read a letter from Mr. Liman Hawthorn, a resident across the street from the property, stating that he has requested for two years that the property be cleaned up and had even telephoned Vorsanger prior to the meeting, begging that something be done. Director Marinoni suggested a simple solution to the problem. He stated that the ordinance requires the owner to remove the structure down to the grade or ground level. After viewing the site, he felt there was one room that could be considered having a top on it, providing dangerous cover. Marinoni suggested that a backhoe simply demolish the structure and fill the basement hole with the demolished material and possibly cover the whole thing with topsoil, instead of paying to have the materials cleaned up and hauled away. John Merrill was asked if this could be an option and he responded that, based on the number of citizen complaints received, the location of the property in a residential area and the fact that the property owner has had two years to clean it up, the Staff would most likely have trouble supporting the suggestion. Mayor Martin explained that under the ordinance, the City would clear the property for Williamson, understanding that he was unable to pay for the clean up himself, with the understanding that at such time in the future he should decide to sell the property, he would be required to repay the City for the cost of the clean up before he could sell. Williamson again cited the "Ice House" structure on West Street and asked the Board why the City had not torn it down in the last five 1 May 1, 1990 years, since it fell into'all the criteria the City was using on his property. Director Lancaster explained that the "Ice House" was located in an industrial zone, not in a Class I neighborhood around the University. Director Kelley explained that,he understood Williamson's comments about the West/Dickson Street "ice house" but it must be understood that plans were being formulated. to take'care of that situation. Upon roll call, the resolution was unanimously adopted. ORDINANCE 3482 APPEARS ON1PAGF„?3/ OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK XAV Williamson requested that some follow up information be given him regarding the "ice house" property and Mayor Martin stated that a full report would be given to him concerning historical and archeological considerations of the property to help him better understand why the situations were beinghandled differently. Williamson then asked how to start the City's clean up on his property. Mayor Martin requested John Merrill contact Williamson to begin arrangements for clean up. WATER LINE PROJECT Mayor Martin acknowledged a request by Staff for Item #8 on the agenda to be withdrawn, pending clarification of items in the contract, and brought forward at another Agenda session. AIRLINE RATES • Mayor Martin introduced consideration of an ordinance setting airline rates and charges for Landing Fees, Exclusive Space Rentals, and Non-exclusive Space Rentals. Martin reminded the Board that the ordinance was read for the first time at the April 17, 1990 Board Meeting and that, pending further negotiations, no action was taken on the ordinance at that meeting. Vorsanger, seconded by Martin, made a motion to table the ordinance indefinitely. Upon roll call, the motion to table was adopted with a vote of 7-0. Vorsanger asked for Jerry Rose to read a resolution, authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to enter into a contract with the airlines for the next two years, due to the satisfactory conclusion of rate negotiations. He reviewed the rates for the Board. May 1, 1990 Rates for the two year contract would be retroactive to January 1, 1990 and negotiations would begin again in September of 1991 to finalize items for the new contract to begin on January 1, 1992. Rates are as follows: Exclusive space (1990) - Exclusive space (1991)- Non-excl. space (1990)- Non-excl. space (1991) - Landing fees (1990&91)- $14.62 per square foot or a 7 1/2% increase $15.86 per square foot or a 8 1/2% increase $7.25 per square foot or a 7 1/2% increase $7.86 per square foot or a 8 1/2% increase $0.45 per thousand pounds (substantial increase over present rates) In terms of income to the Airport this means: 1990- $18,513 increase in revenue (if the number of flights remain the same) 1991- $26,097 increase over present rates. Vorsanger pointed out that landing fees are the key because as flights are added, the income goes up. This will make the airport a "breakeven" operation and, in addition, the parking lot will be expanded, and the car rental contracts will be re -negotiated. The airport restaurant is doing quite well also, and Vorsanger summed up by saying that the City and the airlines are very happy that this has been worked out without having to pass an ordinance, thus explaining the reason for the motion to table. City Attorney Rose called attention to a letter from Dennis Payton, dated April 26, 1990, which sets forth the agreement with terms and details Mr. Vorsanger outlined. Rose suggested a resolution authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to enter into an agreement amending the existing contracts with the four major air carriers, establishing rentals and landing fees at the Fayetteville Airport for 1990 and 1991, in accord with Dennis Payton, chairman of Fayetteville Airline Affairs Committee letter of April 26, 1990. Rose stated that contracts have been prepared by Kelly Johnson, the Assistant Airport Director, in conjunction with the agreements by Mr. Payton and Mr. Vorsanger and that he has reviewed the contracts and found them to be in accordance with all previous information. He explained that these will be amendments to the existing contracts with the four major air carriers. Kelley, seconded by Lancaster, made a motion to adopt a resolution amending the existing contracts with the airlines. Upon roll call, the resolution was unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION 73-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR 1 1May 1, 1990 Mayor Martin asked Vorsanger to name the City's negotiating team. They were named as follows: Fred Vorsanger, Bob Kelly, Jerry Rose, Kelly Johnson, Dale Frederick, David, Cox and consultant Pat Bridger. • Mayor Martin commended the team for their excellent work. OTHER BUSINESS PUBLIC SAFETY It was brought forth for consideration by the Board two petitions from the Citizens for Public Safety asking to declare two night clubs a public nuisance.• John Merrill stated that the letter in the petition alleged certain improper activities taking place at the clubs. The activities seem to involve several different City departments with the first issue concerning parking. Other activities fall mostly in the department of law enforcement, and, it was believed that Chief Watson was looking into the matter: Ken Morton, attorney representing one of the property owners, addressed the Board, requesting copies of the petitions received and any and all correspondence to the Board. He stated that attempts to address parking problems with Merrill had previously been made. Director Green stated that the petitions specifically named the clubs known as "River City" and "Doc Murdock's". Lancasterstated that he had inquired as to what action the Board could take in this matter. He related to the letters and petitions calling the clubs a "public nuisance" and asked if those people were required to file a complaint or charges of some kind. Rose answered that certainly a civil lawsuit could be filed by individuals or the City. Mayor Martin hoped that City Staff could mediate and possibly solve the problem. Morton stated that he had heard about the petition approximately 1 1/2 months ago and had telephoned the attorney responsible for drafting the petition, explaining that Morton's clients would be happy to meet with anyone concerning any problems. Morton stated that to present date, they have received no calls or petitions. He felt very strongly that unless the person or persons having the complaints against his client were willing to meet with them to try and reconcile any differences, this should not be a matter for the City Board. May 1, 1990 ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:18 p.m.