Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-03-17 Minutes15: MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, March 17, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. i • • PRESENT: Mayor Fred Vorsanger; Assistant Mayor Mike Green; Directors Ann Henry, Julie -Nash, Dan Coody, Shell Spivey, and .Bob Blackston; City Manager Scott Linebaugh;'City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry Thomas; Planning Director Alett Little; Public Works Director Kevin Crosson; Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes;` members of Staff, press and audience.. M Director Bob Blackston.; ABSENT: CALL TO ORDER - t ' The meeting was called to order by thefMayor; with six 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 comments on explained that in order to allow the Agenda, the Board requests minutes per person per item and comments made on the same issue. • AWARD PRESENTATION • Mayor Vorsanger announced that the presentation of the Government Distinguished Budget Presentation and Work Program. any item on the Agenda. He equal attention to all items on that comments be limited to 3 a spokesperson be elected for • first order.of business would be Finance Officers Association's Award for the City's 1991 Budget City Manager Linebaugh reported that the City of Fayetteville is greatly honored to receive the "GFOA" Budget Award for the third time. He introduced Kara Bushkell from Fort Smith, Arkansas State Representative for the Government Finance Officers Association ("GFOA") to present the award to Mayor Vorsanger, Kevin Crosson and Ben Mayes. Kara Bushkell, representing the "GFOA" of the United States and Canada, addressed the Board stating that this represents the third year in a row that the City of Fayetteville has received the Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for the 1991 fiscal year. Ms. Bushkell explained that this is the highest award in governmental budgeting and its attainment represents a significant accomplishment by the City Staff. Fayetteville is one of only 1 V'1 three cities in Arkansas to attain the award for 1991. She further explained that in order to receive the award, budgets are submitted to the "GFOA" and reviewed by three independent reviewers, including herself. The extensive review criteria includes the budget as 1) a policy document, 2) a financial plan, 3) an operations guide, and 4) a communications device. Mayor Vorsanger accepted the "GFOA" Award on behalf of the Board of Directors and City Staff stating that the City is proud to win this award for the third year. Vorsanger further stated that this indicates the outstanding caliber of City Staff. REPORT TO TEE PUBLIC A report to the public and Board is presented by the City Manager at the second Board meeting of each month. This report, for the month of February, includes financial information, an update on staff activities, and items of general interest. City Manager Linebaugh announced that there would be one special report by Jim McCord, attorney representing the City of Fayetteville in the Illinois River lawsuit as well as involvement with legislative acts concerning this clean water problem. McCord's report will include the history of the case leading to the recent Supreme Court decision. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Linebaugh reported on the City's balance sheet with assets of $192 million, liabilities of $37 million, and a fund balance of $155 million. For the period ending February 29, 1992, total revenues were $8.9 million and total expenditures of $9.3 million which is in line with the City's budget. Linebaugh stated that it is anticipated that expenditures will outweigh revenues in 1992 using the surplus balance from 1990. GULLEY PARR Linebaugh reported on work completed in Fayetteville's newest park, Gulley Park, 24 acres in the northeast section of Fayetteville purchased by the City for $180,000 in 1988. Work completed on the park in 1991 includes an entryway, rock sign, fencing, and graveling of a parking lot, for a total expenditure of $45,000, funds from sales tax monies and green space funds. Linebaugh reported completion of a trail around the perimeter of the park at a total cost of $63,000. In addition, a sand volleyball court has been constructed at a cost of $14,000. Linebaugh further stated that this has been a community effort, with over $12,000 in donations received from the Civitan and Rotary Clubs, Jim Lindsey, Professional Secretaries Association, Brownie Troop 100 and Mrs. Hendricks, Butterfield Home Extension Club, and First National Bank, including donations of trees and benches for Gulley Park. The Downtown Rotary Club has recently donated the lighting for the park. Plans for 1992 developments for the park include a pavilion, March 17, 1992 adventure playground area, additionalpicnic facilities, and a fitness court. *•� ; FIRE FIGHTERS City..,Manager Linebaugh reported that the`six fire fighters that were recently hired are currently in Camden for a six week training course.• The addition of these fire fighters has already made a tremendous difference in the -efficiency -of the Fire Department with three -men engine companies at'Stations 2 and14 and will allow for an engine and rescue company at Central. Fire Station. TV 'ROUTE TRUCK City Manager Linebaugh reported that the TV route truck has been received and willbe used to make leakage repairs inside the sewer lines without the necessity of•digging >,up the entire line. Linebaugh explained that -the leaks are located with a camera, filled, and the line finished without damaging the'soil. 1 r s YOUTH BRIDGE SHELTER' • City Manager Linebaugh reported that ground breaking took place in February at the Youth Bridge Shelter, a` community development project. Construction has begun on the shelter which will be located off of Crossover Road. • • ILLINOIS RIVER LAWSUIT Jim McCord, attorney representing the City of Fayetteville with Oklahoma in the Illinois River lawsuit, reported that on February 26, the United State Supreme Court delivered a unanimous opinion upholding the EPA's decision to issue Fayetteville a discharge permit authorizing Fayetteville's new waste water treatment plant to discharge a portion of its treated effluent into a tributary of the Illinois River in Arkansas. McCord explained that in the early 1980's, the EPA issued a series of administrative orders requiring Fayetteville to upgrade its waste water treatment plant which at that time was violating Arkansas water quality standards by discharging 100% of its treated effluent into the White River and causing fish kills. The Arkansas Pollution Control Commission mandated that the new plant not discharge 100% into the White River rather split the flow 50% into the White. River and 50% into the Illinois River meeting both Arkansas and Oklahoma water quality standards. In 1985, EPA issued a permit authorizing the split flow discharge, Oklahoma immediately objected to that permit and requested an evidentiary hearing. Their reasons for objection 1) Oklahoma has designated the Illinois River in Oklahoma as a.scenic river, and their water quality standards include a provision that prohibits J 156 March 17, 1992 any new point source discharge to a scenic river or a tributary of a scenic river. Fayetteville is discharging into a tributary of a tributary of the Illinois River in Arkansas and is 39 miles from the point of discharge to the Oklahoma border. The discharge permit is one of the most stringent permits in the United States and the Fayetteville plant is one of the most advanced plants in the U.S. An evidentiary hearing was held before an EPA Administrative Law Judge in August of 1987. An opinion was subsequently issued upholding the permit and concluded from all evidence the Fayetteville discharge would have no detectible impact on water quality, as a result of which, the discharge would not violate the Oklahoma water quality standards. Oklahoma appealed to EPA Chief Judicial Officer who affirmed the Administrative Law Judge's decision. Oklahoma then appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, while Arkansas appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals on the issue of whether the Oklahoma water quality standards even applied. The two appeals were consolidated and heard in the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The case was briefed, argued orally, and the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed EPA, maintaining that under the Clean Water Act, an upstream state is required to comply with downstream water quality standards and made a factual determination, which appellant courts are not supposed to do, that the Illinois River was degraded. This issue was not argued or briefed by the parties before the Administrative Law Judge, and the Court held that because it determined that the Illinois River was degraded and determined that Fayetteville discharge would reach the degraded portion of the Illinois River, the Fayetteville discharge was prohibited. i The Arkansas parties petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review, as did EPA. The review was granted, and the case was briefed and argued in December. The Supreme Court in reversing the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held the EPA properly determined that the Fayetteville discharge would have no detectable impact on water quality of the Illinois River in Oklahoma, much less Arkansas, as a result of which there was no violations of Oklahoma water quality standards. The Supreme Court also held that the water did not reach the point at which the issue of whether the Clean Water Act requires an upstream state to comply with downstream state water quality standards; however, it did hold that the EPA has the discretion under the Clean Water Act to require an upstream state to meet downstream state standards, and EPA has a regulation to that effect. Based on that holding, the Oklahoma Attorney General has declared victory in this case apparently overlooking the fact that the Supreme Court also held that the EPA has the discretion to determine which downstream standards apply and to interpret those standards. In this case, the EPA and Supreme Court both held that The Fayetteville discharge would not violate Oklahoma's antidegradation standard because there was no detectable impact on water quality. ,15 March 17, 1992 McCord further explained that although Fayetteville has won a victory in the Supreme Court, Arkansas and, other upstream states must protect themselves on:the legislative front. The Oklahoma Attorney General has stated ,that she will seek relief from the Oklahoma Congressional delegation, and Senator David Boren from Oklahoma is working on "legislative remedies". Therefore, McCord stated it is important that- Arkansas' seek ;support from their Congressional delegation and avoidanyfadverse amendments to the Clean Water Act. At this; time underr the Clean Water Act, Fayetteville must seek renewal of, its .discharge permit which is renewable every five years. The Fayetteville permit expired in 1990, but has remained. -in..,.. effectbecause of -the litigation. Despite the victory in:the Supreme Court; McCoy expects.Oklahoma to Oppose Fayetteville's renewal permit'application. In closing, McCord quoteds'intpart from a Tulsa World editorial regarding the Supreme Court decision as follows: • "The decision can serve as a reminder.'that the main fight to preserve the Oklahoma 'River mustibe made in Oklahoma, not Arkansas. By any reckoning, the amount of pollution provided by the Fayetteville sewage plant ist minor to the pollution that flows from many sources in this state. Probably the most valuable result of this long dispute with'Arkansas has been an awakening of Oklahoma to the harm done-bypollution in this state. For purposes; of keeping the,•river clean, boundary lines mean nothing. k;:Okiahoma politicians have shown a lot more zeal in fighting pollution in' Arkansas than in discomfiting.Oklahoma voters about Oklahoma pollution. There have been few, if any, big highly publicized state actions against Oklahoma polluters, although much of the pollution comes from Oklahoma communities, farms, and industries." Mayor Vorsanger stated that it is obvious that they need to carefully monitor all Clean Water Act legislation. He stated that Springdale, Rogers, and Siloam Springs are in the same situation as Fayetteville and inquired about Bentonville and Bella Vista's route of discharge. Jim McCord responded that Bentonville and Bella Vista discharge into a tributary of a river flowing into Missouri. Mayor Vorsanger stated that the biggest problem will be with Siloam Springssincethey are located so close to the Oklahoma border. Fayetteville is in a "Catch 22" being 39. miles from the water sampling area, but Siloam Springs is only 400 feetfrom that point. Jim McCord responded that for Oklahoma to successfully defeat the renewal of the Fayetteville permit, it would have to establish that the Fayetteville discharge was having a detectable adverse impact on Oklahoma water quality, and the adverse discharge was not coming from Siloam Springs. ' '"153 March 17, 1992 Director Coody concurred with the editorial stating that Oklahoma needs to take responsibility for their water pollution problems, further stating that everyone, including Arkansas, needs to take responsibility to maintain clean water. In response to Director Coody's question, Jim McCord responded that each city has to apply and obtain a permit renewal based upon its own supporting evidence; therefore, Fayetteville and Siloam Springs water quality are two separate issues. Director Coody further stated that the Resource Conservation Recovery Act contains storm water treatment provisions, and the City will spend a lot of money addressing this particular minute detail of water pollution, but it does not address the agricultural run-off that is a major cause of pollution entering Beaver Lake and Arkansas rivers. Coody suggested that legislation needs to address the major culprit of water pollution as well as the minor culprit. Jim McCord concurred with Director Coody, stating that the water quality standards show that non -point sources are the most significant cause of water pollution in the area streams. Oklahoma water quality standards only require "best management practices for non -point sources." McCord reported that everyone is beginning to recognize that non -point sources are the most important areas to be addressed and regulated, and the experts are looking at the same. Mayor Vorsanger reported that the Governors of Arkansas and Oklahoma have formed a Joint Environmental Task Force, and he was disappointed to learn that no one from Fayetteville or Northwest Arkansas served on the task force. Jim McCord responded that John Elrod from Siloam Springs serves on the Joint Environmental Task Force. He reported that the task force met last week in Fort Smith and report that they will address the "non -point source" issue. Director Henry stated the City's permit is the most stringent permit issued, and the City falls well below the required discharge standards set because of our highly efficient treatment plant. Jim McCord responded that Fayetteville's permit is one of the most stringent in the U.S. The City is in strict compliance with the permit and meets Arkansas water quality standards and their permit, and further, is not violating Oklahoma water quality standards. OLD BUSINESS Items that have been brought before the Board but mere tabled or no decision made to allow for further information to be presented. There was no old business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS CONSENT AGENDA a March 17, 1992 . .f Mayor Mayor Vorsanger introduced' consideration'of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda." \ A. Minutes of the March 3, 1992 regular Board meeting; B. A resolution approving the estimated costs for easement acquisition for the north section of the 36 -inch Beaver water line project in the amount of $201.,250.00; Acquisition has been completedwon'36 of the properties at a cost of $36,515, and there are 52 properties to be acquired. Staff recommends approving this resolution which will allow acquisition of the remaining easements without having to bring individual settlements to the Board for approval. Mayor Vorsanger stated that the City paid $1,000 per easement for the first 36 properties located in an urban area; the remaining properties to be obtained for the new water line are located in a much more populated area, and the land acquisition costs for easements will rise proportionately. RESOLUTION 36-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution approving an engineering contract with Crafton- Tull and Associates in the amount of $15,350.00 for the investigation, analysis, and report for two projects --the parking deck sealing and structural rehabilitation of a bridge on South College near 6th Street, and approval •of a budget adjustment to transfer funds; Funds are coming fromrthe storm drainage study minor bridge repair account. The Arkansas Highway Division has cautioned the City that their inspection of the bridge has found it to be unsafe. Staff recommends approval of the contract. A revised contract will be available at the Agenda Session. RESOLUTION 37-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE D. A resolution approving an engineering contract with Hawkins - Weir in the amount of $17,500.00 for the hydraulic study, design, and construction observation of the replacement culverts at 54th Street and Sang Avenue; Staff recommends approval of the contract. This is a CIP project that was on temporary hold; however, based on the •.IOU March 17, 1992 Bride Inspection Report by the AHTD, this structural repair needs to be done within 6 months. Therefore, staff is requesting this project be approved. RESOLUTION 38-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE E. A resolution approving 1991 year end Budget Adjustments which will reallocate previously budgeted funds to the program or category where the expenditures occurred; Staff recommends approving the budget adjustments which will not change the City's financial status. RESOLUTION 39-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE F. a resolution approving a bid award for the purchase of four (4) cash receipt registers for the Business Office at a price of $18,500.00, and approval of a budget adjustment of $500.00; Staff recommends purchasing the registers which will enable on-line entry and computer generated receipts eliminating the current methods of manually writing out customer receipts. The additional funding will come from remaining funds from previous capital item purchases. RESOLUTION 40-92 A8 RECORDED IN TEE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE G. A resolution awarding Bid 91-65 - Item 1 - eight (8) 1992 Ford Crown Victoria 4 -door Police Vehicles to Lewis Ford Sales at a Dost of $16,403 each for a total of $131,224.00; Staff recommends approving the purchase of these budgeted vehicles. These will be replacement vehicles, and the older vehicles will be either traded in or sold in the next City auction. Mayor Vorsanger explained that $180,000.00 was budgeted for the purchase of police vehicles. He reported that these eight vehicles will cover the needs for 1992, remaining funds will be transferred to the 1993 budget, at which time additional vehicles needed will be purchased. RESOLUTION 41-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ITEM "F" Director Coody referred to Item "F", stating that the four cash registers are costing almost $5,000 each, and inquired whether there was a less expensive instrument that could be utilized by the Business Office. • March 17, 1992 Ben Mayes, Director of Administrative Services, responded that this was offered for competitive.. bidding; however, the bid of $18,500 was the only bid and therefore the lowest bid received for the four cash receipt registers. Mayes further explained that these new cash registers will access and interface with the City's mainframe computer and current software as well as acting as a printer by printing receipts. In addition, these cash registers will eliminate the current method of manual preparation of all receipts and eliminate the need for duplicate entry by'employees. Green, seconded by Nash, made amotion to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion was passed by a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC ACCESS CHANNEL CONTRACT 1 : a .. 1 Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution'awarding a contract for a public/government access television service provider to Access 4 Fayetteville, and approval of a new position for the PEG Access Center and its related budget adjustment. 1'. • The selection committee met March 2 and selected Access 4. The Cable Board met on this but did not vote or make a recommendation to the Board. Staff recommends awarding the contract to Access 4 Fayetteville. Mayor Vorsanger requested that the Chairman of the Selection Committee, Buddy Chaddick, give the committee report, followed by a report from the Chairman of the City's Cable Television Committee, Hoyt Purvis, concluding with comments on the reports from Access 4 and Open Channel representatives. Buddy Chaddick, Attorney with Bassett Law Firm, addressed the Board explaining how he came to serve on the Cable Board and Professional Service Selection Committee through the efforts of John Watkins, his mentor and professor in law school, and Hoyt Purvis. Chaddick reported that his research has concluded that Fayetteville has in effect a very good policy procedure for competitive bidding for professional services. When professional services are requested by the City, the public and media are involved, and there is a bid process wherein therequirements for this proposed service are spelled out in great detail through advertisements for service contractors. Chaddick explained the Selection Committee process, as proposed under professional services in the City's policy, and the members serving on this committee were Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director; Brian Swain, Research Analyst; Yolanda Perez, Internal Auditor; Shea Crain, Cable Administrator and non-voting member; Michael Green, appointed by the Mayor; Roger Haney, community representative; and himself appointed Chairman by Hoyt Purvis. 162 March 17, 1992 Chaddick reported that on February 26, 1992, two "not-for-profit" corporations filed written proposals with the City and were received by the Selection Committee from Fayetteville Open Channel ("FOC") and Access 4. On March 2, 1992, the two groups had 45 minutes to present their proposal in any form or fashion. The criteria used to evaluate the proposed service contractor as set out in RFP 91-17 called for the committee to listen to each group, read proposals, ask questions, and grade accordingly in five categories: (1) Qualifications and relations to specific project to be performed - 20 points, (2) Experience, competence and capacity for performance - 20 points, (3) Assign to proposed method of completing the project - 35 points, (4) Past performance of the provider - 15 points, and (5) Price conformance - 10 points. Chaddick further reported that both "FOC", represented by George Olson and James Gribble, and Access 4, represented by Jim May, Marion Orton and Kathryn Shurlds did good jobs in their presentations, followed by detailed questioning by the committee. The meeting was open to the public; however, it was stipulated that the public would not ask questions and become involved. Following presentations of the proposals, the Selection Committee did not meet, rather each member of the committee completed their own evaluation form for the two groups. Chaddick explained that the point system gives the contract, according to policy and procedure, to the proposing contractor that has the most first place points. Chaddick reported that Access 4 had five first place points. FOC had no first place points; however, they had one committee member that voted neutral. Therefore, it was the Selection Committee's recommendation that the contract be awarded to Access 4. Subsequently, the Cable Board met, from which Hoyt Purvis will report. Director Coody asked why the Cable Board did not make a recommendation. Chaddick responded that is not the procedure as he sees it. He explained that the Cable Board's responsibility is to assist in the contracting after the contractor has been proposed and work with that group. In addition, it was felt that the Cable Board was not responsible for making such recommendations, but rather they should proceed through the City's professional service selection procedure. Director Coody inquired as to the reasoning for weighing the rating scale with "Experience" at 15 points and "Proposal for the Future" at 35 points. He stated this is inconsistent with normal policy where experience is rated high priority. Chaddick responded that the "Proposed Method of Doing Work" is more important. He reported that both groups, FOC and Access 4, had experienced people. Chaddick stated that in his review of the two proposals, Access 4 had a proposed map, going from "A" to "Z". Jim May of Access 4, gave a credible, dazzling video presentation, March 17,P1992 illustrating amazing usei of computers. ; In addition, Access 4 proposed working with the.Walton.Arts Center, the elderly, and the public schools. Chaddick further reported that FOC presented 22 pages of resume., with over 100 years of combined experience. In conclusion, Chaddick stated that it`was a difficult decision, and the fair method forrevaluatingt•the ;two ,groups was for each committee member to individually evaluate each group, rather than discuss and vote as a committee. - -. a . } 4 Hoyt Purvis, Chairman of the 'Cable Board, 'addressed the Board summarizing the situation as seen by;the. Cable Board. Purvis stated that the reason .for not requesting,a=formal recommendation from the Cable Board on the.contract award was primarily due to the fact that the procedure previously agreed to was to refer this matter to the Selection ,Committee, with final authority and decision to be made by the,City Board of Directors. Following their -review of the entire question and presentations from both groups, Purvis summarized .the situation making the following points which represent a consensusof the Cable Board: • (1) It was expected that the access contract would probably be awarded to Access 4, based on ,the strong recommendation of the Selection Committee. (2) Regardless of who receives the contract, it is imperative that public access be completely open and offer programming broadly representative of the diverse elements of the community, including those currently associated, with FOC. FOC in its varied composition has made some very important contributionsto the community. Government programming henceforth will not be seen on the Public Access Channel, but rather on the Government Access Channel. The Cable Board requests that there be no interference or editing with any cable casting of public meetings, including City Board meetings, in the operation of the Government Access Channel, and the majority of city meetings will be telecast live. Purvis stated that the Public Access Channel must ensure broad representation, and involve, welcome, and encourage all elements of the Fayetteville community. It is the view of the Cable Board with regard to the Government Access Channel, that these were the areas of authority assigned to the Cable Board to oversee and advise the Board of Directors in overseeing. Mayor Vorsanger commented that there are a number of people present supporting both groups, that in order to eliminate repetition, he requested that a spokesman be appointed to represent each group. •However, anyone present is welcome to add any item that may have been overlooked by the spokespersons. lb4 March 17, 1992 Mayor Vorsanger further explained that the recommendation of the Selection Committee to award the contract to Access 4 is a resolution before the Board and called for a motion to put the issue on the table. Coody, seconded by Henry made a motion to place the resolution on the table. Director Henry stated that Mr. Purvis' has been involved with public television and public access, along with every member appointed to the Cable Board, and they have made a commitment to public access television. Henry stated the Board of Directors is committed to public access as well and to providing live, unedited coverage of all government meetings. Director Green stated that the motion should be amended to include the requested changes made to the contract as well as the request to approve an operation's coordinator and the corresponding budget request, prior to acting on this resolution. Marion Orton, representing Access 4, pointed out that there were some wording changes made in the contract for clarification, as well as the change, ". . . that it is understood and agreed that the expenses related to the contractor's temporary facility is the whole responsibility of the contractor, not to exceed five months ." as this expense incurred for an unlimited amount of time would be unfair. Ms. Orton reported that Access 4 will be ready to cut cable casts on the evening of April 1, and hopes to commence live programming in late April. Access 4 would like to cooperate with FOC and work together to iron out existing problems. Director Nash asked Ms. Orton if Access 4 will be able to continue to broadcast meetings or if the May elections will produce a lag time. Ms. Orton responded that Access 4 is planning to broadcast the April 7th Board of Directors meeting. Plans are to broadcast live from the new Access 4 studio by the end of April. Mayor Vorsanger reported receiving a citizen inquiry regarding how soon Access 4 will make available the same opportunities that citizens have on the FOC to learn the basic skills of television, producing, etc. Ms. Orton responded that the work plan, depending on acquisition of equipment, includes workshops commencing in May. The workshops will be conducted initially for orientation of the Board, and are anticipated because they lead to new producers and all of the things that public access stands for. Director Green asked Ms. Orton whether the equipment that is needed can be acquired before the April 1 cable cast, to which Ms. Orton March 17, 1992 responded that they will have equipment on loan until their equipment is available. Director Nash asked Ms. Orton where the'Access 4 office would be located. She responded -that a .definite location has been established, and as soon as they have done'the wiring and posted their sign, plans are to hold.a press.. conference and announce the location. 4 J.E. McClelland, citizen of. Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating that he would be the only other person -present speaking in support of Access 4. 1 -McClelland commended the meticulous methodology used by the Selection Committee, working independently to secure professional services. The Selection Committee is made up of some honorable people who have dealt fairly, reasonably, and even-handedly. McClelland reported that in all contracts for engineering, architectural, accounting and legal services that the City contracts for, not one of those selections has been made to the second choice of the group making the proposal. He expressed his concern that a dangerous precedent would be set in selecting someone who was not recommended by the Selection Committee as the most qualified. Therefore, McClelland urged the Board of Directors to award the contract to Access 4. Jimmy Gribble, President of FOC, addressed the Board, reporting that a poll taken by FOC determined that the main issue on the public's mind is that the premature awarding of a cable access contract to Access 4 would present several problems of great concern. Gribble stated that those concerns are not the fact that Access 4 does not have a building to conduct cable casting, that Access 4 does not have an adequate library of programming, that Access 4 does not have any members to produce programs, that Access 4 does not have video equipment necessary to run the operation access t.v., and it is not the fact that Access 4 does not already have the hired staff to have their operations in line by April 1. Rather, the fear of the citizens of Fayetteville is that they will not have a facility where they can come and express their views on any topic for several months if Access 4 is allowed to go on-line prematurely by April 1. Gribble further stated that with the issue of the form of city government on the ballot for May, citizens and their membership are demanding that FOC present a proposal to the Board of Directors so that they as cable subscribers who pay the franchise fees to Warner Cable that this city collects for running access television have their rights to uninterrupted commentary for the pros and cons on this ballot issue. Access 4 will not be able to have their studio available to the public before the conclusion of the May election. The City has wisely determined that no organization operating with public funds can function responsibly without policies and procedures in place. Therefore, if Access 4 will not be submitting JUL; March 17, 1992 their policies until May, he asked how can the public be assured of uninterrupted access services. Gribble stated that based on phone calls and letters that have been circulating regarding the issue of public access for the community, he offers a suggestion for "healing the wounds" opened in Fayetteville as a result of this conflict. This would be a solution that would satisfy the concerns of those citizens who fear that this transition to Access 4 will deny them their voice during this crucial election. Gribble stated that he is not disputing the decision to award the contract to Access 4, but in the interest of fairness and to dispel any suspicions of hidden city agendas, he requested that the contract with FOC be extended for 90 days or until such time as Access 4 is fully operational and able to provide studio facilities to the public for live and taped productions, so as to maintain the continuity of access services for the citizens of Fayetteville. Director Coody stated that he feels uncomfortable voting to award a contract to either FOC or Access 4 tonight and believes it would be premature. He stated that both groups have a lot of attributes with years of experience and dazzling productions. There is no reason to rush and no deadline to meet, so he sees no reason not to extend the FOC contract long enough for Access 4 to be operable. He would like for both groups to come back together in one organization, setting a precedent for all divisive problems of the City. The Board of Directors has a chance to consciously and with extreme effort "bury the hatchet" on these issues, come together and work not as two different camps but as one camp - taking advantage of the "best of both worlds". Mr. Gribble concurred with Director Coody, further stating that FOC has done everything they can to "heal" this situation through discussions with Access 4 board members, formation of a group for negotiations between Access 4 and FOC, and an invitation to Access 4 to join FOC for a live broadcast to discuss these issues, but Access 4 has refused to negotiate or work with FOC toward a possible merging of the two operations. Director Coody stated that with the personality conflicts involved that will prevent an agreement between the two groups, it may take something as radical as forming a cohesive board in order to salvage what they have. Mr. Gribble further stated that members of the FOC board have offered to leave the board if it would help with the healing or save FOC. Director Green stated that Director Coody is dreaming as shotgun weddings are not within the jurisdiction of the City Board. The professional selection request for proposals issued were very specific in what was required. This procedure was adhered to and t 1' March 17,..1992 - 3 has been completed with specific scopes._ expected from the proposals, and now that one; group 'has been selected, they are seeing a proposal to compromise the two groups. If .such a compromise was possible, J.t. should have -been done prior to the selection procedure; therefore, compromise:is;totally a moot point at this time in the selection process. Mr. Gribble asked DirectoryGreenif •he .considered himself a politician, to which Green responded that he does not, but considers himself a citizen looking out .for the future of Fayetteville. Gribble further stated that -he always thought the outcome of politics was compromise. Since this issue has turned into a political nightmare, if the parties -involved would cooperate and compromise, a solution and cohesive unit could be reached. Richard Drake, Vice President the Board of Directors of FOC, addressed the Board stating that an apt description of public access television stations are like a home-grown version of C -Span or CNN. Drake described FOC's programming in the recent past in one word - "immediacy". In addition to providing gavel to gavel coverage of local government meetings, FOC has begun to broadcast a variety of live call-in programs, giving the citizens an opportunity to speak out on a variety of subjects. Drake stated that a public access provider that is either.unable or unwilling to provide live programming does not fit the description of a public access provider, and he urged the Board of Directors to consider this point when making their decision. Faith Delight, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board in support of FOC. One of the few ways left for any citizen to have an immediate and consistent say in taking part in the community is =through FOC. It wouldbe a shame to see a wonderful opportunity such as FOC change hands at such a crucial time politically and otherwise, and Ms. Delight stated that it would be in the best interest of the community if FOC remains structured as it has been for.the,.past 12 years with the board elected by its members in a democratic fashion. Dan Moritson, t.v. producer, addressed the Board urging them to award FOC with the contract to operate the public and government access channels portion of the PEG system. To give Access 4 this contract would be a grave mistake and would put the City ,in violation of several state and federal laws as well as the 1984 Cable Act as interpreted by the federal courts In addition, Moritson stated that Kathryn Shurlds is a poor choice to oversee the operations of the two channels for Access 4 Fayetteville, as she is a full-time law student at the U of A, and the quality of several of her productions leave a lot to be desired. The purchasing of expensive equipment cannot make up for Shurlds' lack of skills and lack of competency of using this new equipment by Jim Mays. Moritson stated that FOC is the oldest public access 158 March 17, 1992 provider still in operation in the U.S., and the current FOC management is the best they have ever had. Elaine Hendra, a producer of FOC, addressed the Board expressing her concerns with the technical aspect that Access 4's organizational structure has only one position for a qualified production expert which has yet to be filled. Hendra stated that Ms. Shurlds does not have the expertise to keep the necessary equipment working and available to the independent producers. Hendra suggested that the best for all involved is to attempt to forge a whole new organization representative of both groups. Nancy Maier, resident of Fayetteville, addressed Director Coody asking whether he had made an alternative motion, to which he responded that he would if allowed to do so. Ms. Maier further stated that as a new member of the Board of FOC, she has looked into the inner workings of FOC, finding a hard working, dedicated staff. Maier stated that the Board of Directors is not qualified, nor do they have the right to take away FOC's access to cable. She believes the proposal was tailor made for Access 4 by allowing them 6 months to have their programming up to optimum capacity. Maier stated that it was written on the agenda that the public access contract would be awarded to Access 4, and she considers this dishonest and undemocratic. Over half of those serving on the Selection Committee work for the City Manager and do not represent the public. Maier stated that this is a question of censorship, when the government tells the media what they can and cannot do. Director Spivey stated that Nancy Maier neglected to state that she is the Editor of the Grapevine, who constantly attacks the City and doesn't hesitate to write as fact on hearsay evidence. He further refuted Ms. Maier's allegation that the City Attorney had instructed camera men not to film certain citizens at governmental meetings. Nancy Maier asked the Mayor how he could award a contract to someone who won't even give their address. John Adams, director and co-producer of FOC, addressed the Board stating that this is a political decision not an engineering decision. Adams stated that FOC has the virtue of a proven track record in nonpartisan freedom of speech, and implored the Board to keep FOC. A video producer addressed the Board stating that FOC has helped him, the FOC staff are dedicated people who have done as good a job, given the resources they have, as could possibly be expected. He further posed the question, why FOC was being basically fired, when they are doing the best job that can possibly be done with the equipment they have. March 17, 1992 Mayor Vorsanger stated that the Board is not firing FOC, but simply looking at contracts and for'the best deal'for the City. Vorsanger further suggested that he .obtain a copy of the Selection Committee's report on why Access 4 was chosen as set out by Buddy Chaddick. • Harley Brigham, county resident, addressed the Board in support of FOC. He stated his concern whenever an attempt is made to diminish the free flow of information, as good judgment requires good information. - Joe Robson addressed the Board stating that in the first 12 years of public access in Fayetteville under the leadership of Marion Orton and others, FOC has been on the air 6 hours a day, 5 days a week, for a total of 30 hours per week. In the last six months under the new board direction, they are producing 55 to 60 hours of mostly original production. Robson expressed his concern that the path this issue has taken will only further divide the city. He stated his opinion that the Selection Committee was a stacked deck against FOC. Robson stated that a democracy is founded on different opinions, and the sign of a healthy democracy is one where the free expression of ideas is not only, allowed but encouraged. Director Green addressed. Mr. Robson stating that if he was convinced that this process was foul and the Selection Committee was stacked, why did FOC and Mr. Robson even bother to participate and go through the proposal and interview requirements, and then once not recommended for selection, call foul? Green stated that they went through an extremely fair procedure. One reason he volunteered to serve on the Selection Committee was to see for himself that the process was fair and that both sides were afforded the same process, amenities, and proper procedures. He further stated that Access 4 had their act together, they had a month by month plan by objective, while FOC did not have their act together. According to the procedure, one particular group will be selected, and it has nothing to do with the misinformation and paranoia spreading on how the City plans to control and censor the media. It is a federal law that the City cannot dictate programming on public access. Green further stated that he was impressed with the ,wide cross section of the public that serves on the board for Access 4. Green, seconded by Henry, made a motion to amend the motion on the floor to include the wording sections in the contract previously discussed in sections 6, 8 and 9, as contained in the Directors' packets and outlined in a memo from Shea Crain, dated March 12, 1992, and to approve an operations coordinator and the corresponding budget adjustment for the contract to Access 4. In response to Director Green's question, Joe Robson responded that the "Catch 22" FOC faced was to play by the City's rules or not 1G • i 170 March 17, 1992 participate at all in which case they would have forfeited any possibility of continuing their service. Director Nash asked City Attorney Rose whether there were any legal problems with spending tax money to pay the salary of the operations coordinator, who will partially staff another organization, to which he responded that this was not his understanding of the job description. Director Nash stated her concern that the operations coordinator would be working part-time for Shea Crain and part-time for Access 4. City Attorney Rose responded that the question is whether or not the person is fulfilling a proper public function. Rose further gave as examples the Chamber of Commerce and Economic Development for which the City provides funding for some employees. In addition, Rose stated that the profit status of the groups would be determinative as to what the proper public purpose was. Shea Crain, Cable Administrator, addressed the Board explaining that the Operations Coordinator under her supervision will be providing administrative services for non-profit corporations. This is a cooperative situation, and this individual will serve Access 4 but under her supervision. Charles Moorman, inquired again whether Director Coody intended to make a substitute motion. Director Coody responded that he will make such an amendment to postpone this matter for 90 days following the vote on Director Green's amendment. Upon roll call, the amendment to the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. Director Coody, seconded by Nash, made a motion to extend the deadline on the contract 90 days. Andrea Mattel, student and citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating that unless a neutral mediator was used, it would be hard to bring these two groups together. Kathryn Shurlds, part-time production assistant for Access 4, addressed the Board stating that Access 4 cannot reach optimum capacity without the Warner Cable equipment currently being used by FOC. Shurlds further reported that Access 4 will have a studio by the second or third week in April. Scott Sinclair addressed the Board stating the he has been involved with FOC for ten years. He disagreed with Director Green that the Selection Committee was fair with three City employees and a City Director involved. Sinclair stated that by awarding this contract to Access 4, the Board of Directors will be taking away 12 years of work by FOC in one night. A ninety day extension would be more than fair to the people involved. March 17, 1992 Kathryn Orvett addressed the Board in support of the ninety day extension stating that with•the controversystill present, it is obvious that there are still some unanswered questions and more study needs to be done. Mary Margaret Bruce addressed the Board and asked for verification that the first contract for FOC with the City was on December 31, 1991, subsequently extended to March 31, 1991, at FOC's request; therefore, Ms. Bruce stated that there have been enough extensions. Richard Drake stated that it really doesn't matter who gets the contract at this point, the only thing worth saving is public access t.v. If Access 4 is awarded the contract, the people at FOC will work with them. David Drewding, member and producer at FOC for 12 years, addressed the Board urging them to postpone awarding the contract to allow the two groups to attempt to negotiate their differences so that Fayetteville can receive the best possible public access television. Eric Johnson addressed the Board urging them to undertake the 90 day extension of the FOC contract in order to continue live broadcasts and workshops until Access 4 is able to do so. Director Green stated that postponing this issue for another 90 days will violate the provisions of the RFP which set -out that the contract would commence on April 1, and the other option being discussed. A 90 day extension of the FOC contract would require starting back at the beginning of the process. Green stated that he doesn't believe a compromise can ever be reached between Access 4 and FOC as these two groups are highly polarized. Robert Reus, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating that he believes the Board has already made its decision. Reus thanked Mayor Vorsanger for his patience in allowing all interested parties to speak on this issue. Mayor Vorsanger called for a vote on the Director Coody's amendment to postpone awarding the contract for 90 days. Upon roll call, the motion failed by a vote of 2 to 4, with Directors Coody and Nash voting for the motion. Charles Moorman, FOC Board member, addressed the Board stating that he does not believe in the FOC board's stated policy of conciliation and attempt to achieve reconciliation with Access 4 because the basic differences in the philosophies of governments of the two boards make any sort of merger between them impossible. Moorman stated that FOC is -governed by its membership, each member of which may vote. The Board is responsible to its membership and looks to them for guidance,, not to its funding agency, the City. 1172 March 17, 1992 This attitude, defined as a devotion to free speech, will in time govern every aspect of its operation. On the other hand, Access 4 has no voting membership, no stockholders, no electorate, its Board is self -appointing, self-perpetuating, and looks only to itself for guidance or perhaps to the City. This attitude, defined as a devotion to maintaining the status quo, will in time govern every aspect of its operation. These differences in philosophy are irreconcilable and the City Board of Directors must vote for what they know is right and just, either entrust freedom of speech to a democratic corporation or to an autocratic corporation. On these principals, Moorman asked the City Board to vote no to the resolution before them. Director Coody stated that he is sorry that it has come to this, and the wedge that has been created will only get broader and deeper. Director Henry stated that she believes Fayetteville will benefit from the best qualities of both groups. It has never been the intent of anyone on the City Board to censor anything. If censorship is constantly discussed, people begin to believe it. Henry stated that she believes it is Access 4's intent to work with everyone. Director Nash stated that she also is sorry that they have developed a "win at all costs" philosophy, and that there is no room for compromise. Director Spivey stated that there is no factual basis for the idea that the City is trying to control open channel. Spivey further stated that contrary to what open channel represents, he believes Joe Robson has taken this and turned it into a political forum. He stated that there is still admiration left on both sides among volunteers and either group can be opened to all points of view. Anytime there is even the appearance that one person is a driving force, there will be disruption and chaos. Joe Robson responded to Director Spivey stating that he has just done what he accused the Grapevine of by not supporting what they write with fact. He referred to the video where Marian Orton stated to the employees that the new cable administrator, Shea Crain, who works directly for City Manager Linebaugh, would have hiring and firing powers over them. It is his prerogative as a citizen of the United States to make the sacrifice to get involved in issues that he sees as wrong. Mayor Vorsanger stated that regardless of who wins and loses, he hopes that the two groups will get together. He concurred with Richard Drake's comment that public access is the issue at hand and everyone wants the best public access that can be obtained, Fayetteville is one of few communities that will provide three channels for programming on the PEG station. is 17 3 March.17, 1992 Mayor Vorsanger called for vote on the resolution. yt Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 4 to 2. RESOLUTION 42-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE A short recess was taken at this time. REZONING R92-12: Mayor,Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 4.39 acres located on the east side of Crossover and south of Mission Boulevard from C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, to R-2 Medium Density Residential, as requested by Dick Keating on behalf of Keith Cearly. In essence this is a down zoning from C-2 to -R-2. :The Planning Commission voted 6-0-0 to recommend rezoning.. Staff also recommends the rezoning. • The ordinance was read for the first time. Green, seconded by Henry, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Green, seconded by Henry, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion was passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0; ORDINANCE 3603 APPEARS ON PAGE/23 OF ORDINANCE BOOK XXV14 REZONING R92-5: Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 3 tracts of land located. at 3500 North College (east of North College, and north of Milisap Road) from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Lamar Pettus on behalf of Citizens Bank of Northwest Arkansas. The Planning Commission voted 5-2-0 to recommend the rezoning. Staff also recommends the rezoning. , r The ordinance was read for the first time. Henry, seconded by Green, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Green, seconded by Nash, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion was passed`by:a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. ..3, • 1171 March 17, 1992 Director Nash asked if this is the rezoning that the Planning Commission stated that C-1 would be better, but that C-2 would not be incompatible, to which Alett Little, Planning Director, responded that C-1 would be a more proper zoning for this area, however it adjoins an area that is primarily C-2. Ms. Little further stated that a representative of the church expressed concern over generation of traffic to Milsap Road and with deed restrictions. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 3605 APPEARS ON PAGE L/7 OF ORDINANCE BOOR AJC O SUNRAY SERVICES. INC. Xayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution approving an amended service agreement with sunray Services, Inc., increasing the City's disposal charges from $4.50 to $5.00 per compacted cubic yard effective March 1, 1992. City Manager Linebaugh explained that the City is on a month to month contract with Sunray. This increase raises the rates somewhere between 11% and 13%. Staff is working with Sunray on a long-term contract and will be reporting to the City Board in the near future. Staff recommends approving the increase which will mean approximately $55,000 in 1992 charges. Staff is continuing to explore waste reduction and resource recovery options; however, at this time, Sunray landfill is the only viable method for solid waste disposal. In response to Director Nash's question, Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, reported that the amount of the increase that would be passed onto the customer if there were a rate increase would be approximately 130 per month. Nash, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the resolution. Director Coody reported that a hot topic at the National League of Cities Conference was requesting that legislators look at a National Bottle Bill. States that have incorporated bottle bills have had tremendous results removing litter from the streets, and taking care of landfill problems. Coody suggested that the Board adopt a resolution and send it to all representatives for their consideration, including the 4 -County Solid Waste District. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 43-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLEATS OFFICE Ltt March 17, 1992 BID WAIVER • Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding for the purchase of Youth Center Bus Equipment. The Shop Fund has $21,500 available, and the Parks and Recreation Division has $20,000 available for the purchase of bus equipment. After conducting an investigation of Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri dealers, staff has found that the used bus market is presently a "buyer's market", and very acceptable equipment should be able to be purchased at greater savings than buying new equipment. Staff recommends waiving the requirements of competitive bidding to allow the purchase of used equipment. The ordinance was read for the first time. Green, seconded by Henry, made a motion tosuspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Henry, 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 was passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. City Manager Linebaugh explained that these are all replacements and not additional buses In response to Director Coody's question, Bill Oestreich, Fleet Maintenance Supervisor, stated that these buses are used only for the children and are not handicapped accessible. Mayor Vorsanger asked if there were any buses available for the Youth Center which are handicapped accessible. Oestreich responded that they do not, and he has received no requests for use by the handicapped. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 3604 APPEARS ON PAGE /02.5r OP ORDINANCE BOOR XX V! COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Mayor Vorsanger introduced a report by the Nominating Committee on members appointed to fill vacancies to the various city boards, committees, and commissions. { Director Spivey, Chairman of the NominatingeCommittee, reported that the following nominations were made: Advertising & Promotion Committee`- Jim Waseleus • Board of Adjustments - Larry D: Perkins and Thad Hanna • 176 March 17, 1992 Board of Housing & Construction Appeals - Jimmy Hill and Mike Parsley Civil Service Commission - J.P. Middleton Electrical Advisory Board - no applicants Historical District Committee - Anne Thomas and Claudette Hunnicutt City Library Board of Trustees - Bobbye Hay Spivey, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the nominations. Director Coody asked about Denny Becker's term on the Board of Adjustments, to which Director Spivey responded that Mr. Becker was advised that he could reapply for the position, but the Board would not automatically extend his term. City Clerk Sherry Thomas explained that Denny Becker initially filled an unexpired term, was then appointed to a two year term, followed by reappointment to a five year term. Upon roll call, the nominations were approved 6 to 0. OTHER BUSINESS City Manager Linebaugh reported that the new bucket truck was available outside City Hall for the Board to view. PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Vorsanger asked for verification whether the meeting on contractors' worker's compensation insurance scheduled for March 24, 1992 was to be a Public Hearing or Special Board Meeting. City Manager Linebaugh stated the March 24 meeting is a public hearing conducted by Staff, and a report will be made to the Board of Directors. Director Henry stated that the law does not require a contractor to have worker's compensation insurance if they have less than 3 full- time employees including themselves. Director Coody reported reading that the Arkansas Homebuilders Association was looking into a group policy, an alternative for those that cannot afford workers' compensation insurance. Alett Little stated that Bill Whitfield's office advised her that they will be available at the Public Hearing to discuss this option. March 17, 1992 BIKEWAY PATHS Director Henry reported receiving calls regarding the bikeway paths. She has discussed this with Alett Little. Little informed her that the Regional Planning Commission has been asked to prepare a master plan regarding the need and location of bike paths. MAXEY LETTER Mayor Vorsanger called the Board's attention to a letter contained in the packet received from Stanton Maxey regarding his service on the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Citizens Advisory Council. ASBEL SCHOOL Director Nash thanked the Public Works Department for the grading work they did at Asbel School. ZION ROAD Director Nash reported receiving several complaints regarding dump truck traffic on Zion Road. Nash requested that this be placed on the next agenda for a recap. SMOKING ORDINANCE Director Green reported that the new Smoking Ordinance goes into effect on March 18, 1992. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m. • • • • • ;17'