Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990-06-05 Minutes• MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE•CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, June 5, 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; City Manager Scott Linebaugh, 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 or 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 as follows: A. Minutes of the April 5, 1990 Retreat Meeting and the May 15, 1990 regular Board Meeting; B. A resolution authorizing the destruction of old documents and records, no longer required to be kept; RESOLUTION No, 88-90 RESOLUTION BOOK APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND C. Approval of a Utility Relocation Agreement with the highway Department for preliminary engineering along Highway 156. This will be an agreement with McGoodwin, Williams and Yates for water relocations on the highway under the Definite Delivery Contract, not to exceed costs June 5, 1990 of 916,349 and is 100% reimbursable by the State Highway Department. RESOLUTION NO. 89-90 RESOLUTION BOOK APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND Kelley, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion was passed unanimously. UTILITY EASEMENT Martin introduced consideration of an ordinance abandoning a portion of a utility easement at Country Club Estates. Staff has no objection to the fifteen foot easement relocation and recommends abandonment. The City Attorney read the ordinance for the first time. Kelley, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Kelley, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7 to 0. The ordinance was then read for the third and final time. City Manager Linebaugh explained that the only reason for the vacation of the easement was to allow the owner to build a house where the current easement is located, and he also stated that the owner will reimburse the City for sewer line relocation. call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7 to 0. 3484 APPEARS ON PAGE)S3 OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION CENTER BUS Upon roll ORDINANCE BOOK XXV ADULT Martin introduced consideration of an ordinance waiving the requirements of formal competitive bidding on a used 14-16 passenger bus to be used for the Adult Center Transportation Program for an amount not to exceed $28,000. This would allow a selection committee to purchase the best available bus they could find under $28,000. If the committee could not agree upon a suitable piece of equipment, then they could utilize the option of formal bidding for the procurement of a new unit. Current bidding requirements are not practical, since dealers will not hold used vehicles for the time necessary to take competitive bids. The $28,000 is currently budgeted by the Parks and Recreation Division and Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. The ordinance was read for the first time. Marinoni, seconded by Kelley, made a motion that the rules be suspended and place the 1 '4 June 5, 1990 ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7 to 0. The ordinance'was read for the second time. Marinoni, 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 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third time. Director Vorsanger asked what a new bus would cost and Linebaugh answered' that it would be approximately $36,000, not including options they would hope to get on a used bus. Upon roll call, the ordinance was unanimously adopted. ORDINANCE -in -APPEARS ON PAGE435"T OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR X X V VEGETATION MANAGEMENT CONTRACT Martin introduced consideration of a resolution to enter into an agreement with the University of Arkansas to provide a study and maintenance regarding roadside vegetation in Fayetteville. In the development of this contract, the University will be performing park and right-of-way maintenance and planting and tending roadside wild flower beds. Cost` of the project is $17,030, and Staff recommends approval of the contract. w Marinoni, seconded by _Kelley, made a. motion to adopt the resolution. Dr. Ron Talburt, from the University, outlined the desire to comply with all regulations concerning herbicides. Also involved with the program are Dr. Gerald Klingamon „ a horticulturist, and Dr. John King, a turf scientist. The foremost person conducting test demonstrations and communicating ideas and data is a PhD student. The program would not take over the complete maintenance job for the City; however, they would be keeping records on maintenance requirements and. using labor -reducing techniques. Vorsanger asked Dr. Talburt if he would be the project director, and he responded that he would. Kelley mentioned the concern over the usage of herbicides. Dr. Talburt explained that all personnel would be very restrictive in the use of the herbicides on the sites and would be using fully approved chemicals in relation to human habitation and the environment. Green questioned Dr. Talburt on the exact focus of the study and he responded by saying that the goal of the program was guidance in the proper use of herbicides and improvement of desirable vegetation habitat. June 5, 1990 Mayor Martin explained that it was expressed at the last Board Agenda meeting that the City's citizens be made aware of what the Program's plans were and be given a chance to respond. He asked if they were going to announce plans to the public and give them a chance to give their input and ask questions before the actual plan was implemented. Dr. Talburt stated that there were no plans for extensive applications and agreed that the public should be better informed regarding the matter. He added that he would be happy for the public to view the procedures as they were being performed and reports would be made available at the end of the study. Martin stated that Staff would be asked to inform the citizens of the program, perhaps by public forum or other means. Linda Telthorst addressed the Board in opposition of the Contract and read a prepared statement. Gareth Smith, Citizens for Clean Air Science Committee, addressed the Board in opposition of the contract and gave an explanation of Dioxin side effects. Nancy Maier addressed the Board in opposition of the contract and showed the Board and public several photographs of evidence of herbicide poisoning on the University campus. She also read a prepared statement. Al Vick first thanked the City for the planting of hardwood trees along his street that very day and then addressed the Board in opposition of the contract. Monty Newmark addressed the Board in opposition to the contract. Roy Dalton addressed the Board in opposition to the contract and read a prepared statement. Dan Coody addressed the Board, suggesting the formation of a combined group of the University and the citizens of Fayetteville to work together to come up with some peaceful alternatives on which everyone agreed. Tim Copeland addressed the Board in favor of a group working out the problems Coody suggested. Colleen Pancake addressed the Board in opposition of the contract. Jamie Hall asked the Board if the use of herbicides was a vital part of the Vegetation Management Contract at all. Martin answered if he understood correctly that this was the main purpose of the study. June 5, 1990 Joy Fox addressed the Board in opposition to the contract and the use of herbicides. Ms. Magnussen addressed the Board in opposition to the contract. Director Marinoni stated that as a farmer, he has used herbicides in the past and has never had any ill effects. He stated that he was in favor of using herbicides in the project. Mayor Martin made a motion: to amend the resolution approving the vegetation management contract to provide'that no herbicides be used until a public hearing could -be held at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Director Green. Director Vorsanger suggested appointing a short term committee to study the problem and discover workable solutions to help the Board set and establish policy:- In the meantime, use the money budgeted for the contract to finance the mechanical maintenance of the City's parks and roadsides. i. Director Green stated that he felt the issue was very sensitive and wanted everyone concerned to know that the Board was very aware and sensitive to public opinions and interests. He mentioned there were three objectives of the proposal: + r 1) to conduct test demonstrations as to the most effective methods of managing grass -covered areas 2) explore alternative vegetation to replace grass -covered areas 3) provide technical expertise and training of city personnel Director Kelley asked if the amendment was passed, would there be a need to work out any additional statements regarding the financial budget, as the amendment would'significantly reduce the need for some items originally planned for in the budget. It was discussed that if the amendment were'passed, there would be no money spent for herbicides rather only on labor. Public Works Director Bob'Kelly explained the regular right-of-way maintenance in the regular Street Department budget and stated that mechanical systems would be operating. Upon roll call, the amendment was adopted by a vote of 5 to 2. Vote was then taken on the amended resolution. Upon roll call, the amended resolution was unanimously adopted. RESOLUTION 90 -APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR The Board took a short recess at 9:31 and reconvened at 9:39. June 5, 1990 COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Chairman of Nominating Committee Director Kelley reported on three committee appointments to be made. First was one position on the Advertising and Promotion Commission. Nominating Committee recommended Richard Pat Henry and Kelley made this in the form of a motion, seconded by Green. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. Second appointment was to the Arts Center Council for three positions. Committee recommended Jim Gilbreath, Steve Adams, and Billie Jo Starr. This was also made in the form of a motion, seconded by Martin. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. The third appointment was one position on the Board of Housing and Construction Appeals. Committee recommended Fred P. Sherman, Jr. This was made in the form of a motion, seconded by Martin. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. REZONING ORDINANCE Martin introduced consideration of an ordinance concerning the re- zoning of property located at 901 North College (Lot 12, Block 13 of the City Park Addition) on the corner of North College and Cleaver Street. Location: Lot 12, Block 13 of City Park Addition, on the corner of North College and Cleaver Streets Property Owner: Linda Eaton Change requested: From R -O "Residential Office" to C-2 "Thoroughfare Commercial" At a public hearing held May 29, 1990, the Planning Commission had recommended rezoning the property to C-1 "Neighborhood Commercial" by a vote of 5 to 1. If the recommendation is denied by the Board of Directors, the Planning Commission recommended granting a variance to the Sign Ordinance. The ordinance was read for the first time. Marinoni, seconded by Martin, made a motion 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. Marinoni, seconded by Martin, 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 and final time. Dan Coody questioned the Board regarding the signs on the property. Martin answered that if the property is rezoned, the signs will stay as they are now. If the property is not rezoned, the property 1 June 5, 1990 owner will be required to get a variance from the Board of Sign Appeals. Director Green stated that he felt it strange to rezone a piece of property so a sign on the property would comply with the sign ordinance. He felt it would be a matter of time before the property would be rezoned C-1, but felt it would be better to let this matter go back for a sign appeal at this time. Director Vorsanger stated that most of the property along the area is already zoned C-1 and, in addition, the Planning Commission has already discussed and voted on what they would recommend. Planning Management Director John Merrell addressed the Board's question regarding the owner's request of zoning. He stated that the owner did request the rezone from R -0 -to C-2, but the Planning Commission voted to recommend rezoning to C-1 because it was the feeling of the Commission that there were certain land uses and businesses that would be allowed in a C-2 zone that could possibly impact the residential neighborhoods.to the west or the rear of the property in a negative manner. Director Green asked if the property owner had concurred with the application from C-2 to C-1. Merrell stated they had not stated either way and their absence from the meeting that night did.,not allow them to speak for themselves. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a -vote of 6 to 1, with Director Green voting in the minority.° ORDINANCE 3'r J' APPEARS ON PAGE a% OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOR XX ✓ BID ON. SANITATION TRUCK CHASSIS r Martin introduced consideration of the approval of the awarding of Bid 90-24 for the purchase of heavy duty truck cab chassis with solid waste disposal bodies installed and a heavy duty truck cab chassis only for dump application in the amount $448,810. This bid is for four new sanitation trucks, one new sanitation truck body and one dump truck and will replace ten vehicles. The bid is to be split with $425,680 to Shipley Motor Equipment Company and $23,130 to Bucy Equipment Company. Director Kelley, seconded by Marinoni, made a motion to award the bid. Director Marinoni stated that he had talked with Bill Oestrich, the Sanitation Shop Supervisor, and it was his personal feeling that June 5, 1990 Mr. Oestrich had done an exceptional job in researching all options and possibilities in the matter. Director Vorsanger asked if any thought had been given to equipping at least one truck with recycling bins to be ready in the likelihood that the City went with curbside recycling later on. Solid Waste Management Administrator Hal Morton addressed the Board in answer to Vorsanger's question. He explained that the trucks brought up in this meeting were part of the routine replacement program for sanitation vehicles. Morton reminded the Board that no replacements were made last year, and some of the vehicles were only marginally safe at this time. He also stated that the curbside recycling option is still open at this time and considered a "luxury item" that would be provided in addition to the drop-off stations now functioning. Upon roll call, the motion to award the bid was passed unanimously. RESOLUTION NO. 91-90 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTION BOOK OTHER BUSINESS AUTHORITY TO FILE INTERPLEADER Attorney Walter Niblock addressed the Board with an update on proceedings in the FGIC case. He stated FGIC had filed suit for declaratory judgment in the U.S. District Court on May 25, 1990 and had served notice to Niblock on June 4, 1990. He explained that the action was anticipated. FGIC is claiming that the Waste Supply Agreement is valid and enforceable, and they are asking the U.S. District Court to enforce the agreement. Niblock stated that he wished to have the Board's permission to file an interpleader in the District Court asking the Court to decide who gets the money --the ratepayer by refund or pay to the trustee (Union National Bank) so the money can be paid out by the trustee to the bondholders. He mentioned that although the case up to this point has proceeded very slowly, it is really just beginning. He assured the public that, if the interpleader is allowed in the U.S. Court, things will speed up considerably. Niblock explained that the interpleader would require the presence of the funds in the Court's coffers for them to determine who it does go to. He asked for the Board to authorize the City Manager to place the funds in the hands of the Court for their decision. The exact amount is unknown, but he felt the very minimum would be the $540,000 that has been collected thus far on the $2.02 monthly payments being collected on people's water, sewer, and sanitation billing. The City is in arrears to FGIC in the amount of $1.7 million, not including the $540,000, for the payments they have made on the accumulated interest. 1 1 June 5, 1990 Director Lancaster, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to authorize the filing of the interpleader. Director Green asked if authorization would also be needed for the transfer of the funds to the Court. It_was explained that the transfer of funds was part of the interpleader. Niblock explained that the Board needed to authorize a range of approximate figures, with the low being $541,000 and the high $1.7 million. Upon roll call, the motion passed unani ously adopted. Resolution 92-90 appears on page of Ordinance and Resolution Book LIQUOR ORDINANCE City Manager Linebaugh reported on the situation dealing with the selling of liquor on the last election day. Following a complaint that the liquor stores .were open on election day, the police department made the rounds to all liquor stores open in the area, informing them of the ordinance. They went again around 6:00 p.m. and issued citations to establishments 'still open. The City Manager's office decided not to prosecute those citations. Linebaugh requested the ordinance'be repealed or some action taken. He stated that his office would send out letters to the bars and liquor stores and enforce the ordinance unless the Board otherwise stated. • Mayor Martin stated thattheremight be,some question about the Attorney General's ruling and that the Board's governing in the matter tended to be somewhat ambiguous legally. He further stated that some clarification 'needed to be done before the run-off election for the citizens as well as the store owners. Martin, seconded by Green, made a motion to stay the enforcement of the ordinance pending 'legal clarificatiorn'by the courts. Terry Harper, attorney representing McBride Distributing, addressed the Board concerning the,Alcoholic Beverage Law. Harper stated that it was the Attorney General's opinion that the repealed law also repealed the sister statute concerning elections, leaving the City ordinance to be dealt with. He stated that he believed that the ordinance, dating back to the 1930's was probably a reflection of the state law prior to the 1989 amendment: Harper also stated that in the section of state law governing what affairs municipalities have direct control over and what affairs are governed by state law, affairs dealing with and pertaining to the sale of alcoholic beverages and alcoholic beverages in general are reserved for the state. He stated that as a result, the City ordinance is in direct conflict with the State law and either needs to repealed or, pending some type of declaratory judgment, the City issue a non -enforcement order. June 5, 1990 1 Director Green asked if there were any other cities in Arkansas who continued to keep their city ordinance concerning alcohol on election day. Harper stated that Springdale had deferred to the Attorney General's opinion but couldn't answer for other cities. Linebaugh stated that his office had conducted a survey of larger cities in the state and found that North Little Rock does have a city ordinance regarding this on their books that they enforce. All other cities surveyed did not have an ordinance on their books basically mirroring state law. Martin stated that Staff and City Attorney would recommend the best way to go about clarifying the issue and give the public a chance to speak their views and opinions. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 2. Resolution 93-90 appears on page of Ordinance and Resolution book PUBLIC HEARING Martin did mention the public hearing on the upcoming budget process scheduled for June 12, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the Director's Room. The hearing will deal with how the 1991 budget should be allocated. A presentation will be given on how the budget process works and also on the funding constraints that the City is under. This will be the first of three public hearings to be held, with the second hearing to be on the CIP and the third hearing to allow the public to see the budget and give input on the actual document before it is taken to the Board. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:34 p.m.