Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-06-02 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, June 2, 1992,at 7:30 p.m. in the .Directors' Room of the City Administration Building at'113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.- PRESENT: Mayor Fred Vorsanger; Assistant Mayor Mike Green; Directors Ann Henry, Dan' Coody, Julie Nash and Shell Spivey; City, Manager Scott Linebaugh; City Attorney. Jerry Rose, City Clerk Sherry Thomas; Director of .Planning Alett-.Little; Director of Public Works. Kevin f Crosson; Director of Administrative -Services: Ben Mayes; members of Staff, press and audience. ' ABSENT: Director Blackston. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with six Directors present. The Mayor asked, those present to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and then asked that Aa brief moment of respectful silence be observed. The Mayor welcomed comments on any item on the Agenda. He further stated that in order to allow equal attention to all items, the Board requests that comments be limited to 3 minutes per person per item. He explained that the Agenda for the Board Meeting was set on the Wednesday before the -meeting. Any item a citizen wishes to be presented to the Board not on this Agenda must be presented at the next Agenda session or brought up by a Director at that session for discussion at the following meeting. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS CONSENT AGENDA 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 May 16, 1992 regular Board meeting; Henry, seconded -by Coody, made a motion to approve the minutes. Upon roll call, the motion passed unanimously. B. A resolution approving payment of $26,575.06 to McDermott, Will 8 Emery for the month of February and of $9,865.74 to the '470 June 2, 1992 Niblock Law firm for the months of )larch and April for legal services rendered in the incinerator disengagement and related lawsuits. Green, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve payment of the attorney fees. Director Coody expressed his concern that once again, the bills for legal fees are four months old. For the past two years, these law firms have continued to submit untimely bills, despite the Board's request for the bills to be submitted in a timely manner. City Attorney Jerry Rose stated that he has repeatedly requested that bills be timely submitted. He explained that the date of the billing was March 23, for services rendered in the month of February and would have been received by his office sometime thereafter. Once he receives the bills, they do take some degree of time to process. Mayor Vorsanger recalled an incident last year in which the Board, upon receiving an untimely statement from these law firms, refused to pay the bill. He stated that this alone would speed up their billing process. City Attorney Rose responded that all he can do is approach these law firms once again and request that they accelerate their billing process. In addition, Rose stated that he would ensure that no part of this delay was due to his oversight. He explained that his normal procedure was to process bills, if not on the day received, within a few days. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 4 to 2, with Directors Coody and Nash voting no. RESOLUTION 86-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE REHEARING ON REZONE R92-1 Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning property located on the southwest corner of Sycamore and Leverett (1641 N. Leverett) from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Richard Mayes represented by Lamar Pettus. Vorsanger reported that this item was on the February 4, 1992 Board agenda but was pulled at the request of the petitioner to allow further time to prepare a bill of assurance. Director of Planning Alett Little reported that the Planning Commission voted to deny the rezoning by a vote of 4 to 5. The Planning Commission then voted to table the item for two weeks to allow additional time for the property owners to decide on conditions they accept for the potential rezoning and offer of a 971 June 2, 1992 , bill of assurance. She further reported 'that at their May 26th meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-3-0' to rezone the two lots, subject to the "Letter of Conditions" offered by Lamar Pettus on behalf of the Mayes faintly, as follows: 1) That Mr. and Mrs. Richard Mayes will not [allow the property to be used as an establishment which distributeso or offers for sale alcoholic beverages of any kind and 2). Mr.•"and Mis.' Richard Mayes will not allow the property to be used for'the operation of a night club, private club or dance hall. I The ordinance was read for- the first time.•. Green, seconded by Coody, made a motion to,suspend the-rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon rolltcall, 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 passed by a vote'of 6 to`-0.' The ordinance was read for the third and final time. '.s -` Attorney for Petitioners, Lamar Pettus, ,stated that he had no comments to make other than what has previously been reported. - Director Coody stated that this has been a long ongoing process that he would like to see resolved. He expressed his concerns about the bill of assurance as historically they have been difficult to enforce. Coody asked if by rezoning this property, the Board would be opening the door sometime down the road for a future owner of the Mayes property to use it in an unsatisfactory manner. Alett Little responded that the Planning Commission handles bills of assurance by keeping a copy of the same in the file and a notation is always made on the plat pages of the lot that a "bill of assurance was offered". Any time a •new business moves into a commercial establishment, a certificate of occupancy is required through the Inspection Department, at which time the plat pages are reviewed. Director Coody asked what type of businesses are allowed in "C-2" zoning. Little responded that this category allows for nine use units, including hotels, motels and service stations. She further explained that"C-2" is a typical thoroughfare commercial zone used for large shopping areas. Director Coody stated that the Board wants to do right by the Mayes as they have been owners of this property longer than the zoning laws have been in place. He asked if there was a way in which the Board could give the Mayes a variance on the property for "R-2", giving the scenario that the Mayes could reconstruct buildings on the property in the case of fire or other destruction. 212 June 2, 1992 Little responded that the property has existed as a "non- conforming" use since 1960 having been zoned "industrial" at one time. She reported that the initial building permit was received in 1954. in 1958 and 1960 the zoning was changed to "R-2"; an automobile repair shop is not allowed in an "R-2" zone. Little stated that according to the zoning ordinance, any property of "non -conforming" use that is destroyed to more than 50% of its value, then rebuilding is not allowed in that zone. The Planning Commission has considered several options to be fair to the Mayes and yet meet the City standards; this particular use will not fit into a "C-1" zone, but rather requires to be rezoned as "C-2". In response to Director Coody's question, Little responded that there are other more complex issues to be considered other than the rezoning. In the event that the decision by the Board is challenged by the Mayes, it could conceivably be considered a "spot zoning". She further explained that the flip side is that the City may also be considered to be taking inverse possession of the Mayes' property by requiring the street in this location to be widened, putting them out of business. Director Coody reiterated that this property is surrounded for the most part by residential use; expressing his concern that the City's hands would be tied if a future owner of this property would "use by right" and develop this property in a manner that was incompatible with the neighborhood. Little stated that the surrounding property is a well established multi -family residential area with some older single-family homes constructed in the 1940's and 1950's. She reported that the City plans to widen both streets that front this property, which would open the area up to some additional development. Director Green stated his support for this rezoning; however, he expressed his concern with the practice of "spot rezoning". If the City was not widening the street, the Mayes would not need to seek a rezoning. Green further stated that the City has caused this action through their own planning and to turn around and deny the Mayes a rezoning on property established long before the City had a zoning plan in place for the area, in his mind, is ludicrous. He concurred that widening of this street is necessary; however, the City needs to consider the impact of and assume the responsibility for their actions on these property owners. Director Coody reiterated his previous statement that if the property were to remain zoned as is, with the Mayes receiving a variance to continue to operate their business on this property, this should not harm their business. However, a variance for non- conforming use does not allow rebuilding in the event that the structure burned down, and Coody asked if the Board had the power to assure the Mayes that they could rebuild in such an event. June 2, 1992 Alett Little stated that Director Coody is -asking the Board to grant a variance to a "non -conforming" Fuse, which could be accomplished through an ordinance.- She explained that the Board of Adjustments is not empowered.to grant a variance for a use; their powers extend to bulk and set -back regulations. Therefore, she believes that this should:, proceed to the Board of Directors for approval, and she sees thi`sas-a highly unusual action. 1 Mayor Vorsanger concurredsriith Director1Green.;that to begin with, the City has done an injustice to-the,Mayes' property. As the City's long range plans set -out, this property needs to be acquired for the use of a City street: Whenithis rezoning originally came before the Board, Vorsangerreported that he questioned why the property could not be left,.as is and• was told that the City would be taking the Mayes' property as needed to widen this street to put through the east/west route. The'Mayes are kind enough to give the City a bill of assurance that if,they sell the property, then any other use would require Planning Commission approval. Vorsanger addressed Director Coody*-suggestion to grant a bill of assurance to the Mayes, that if therstructures thereon were destroyed, they could rebuild and stated that he believes. the Mayes' bill of assurance to the City is as -good as the,City's bill of assurance is to the Mayes. In light of -.the fact that the Mayes have been long time residents of this property, he believes -the City owes them some consideration. Little stated that the Mayes have offered a bill of assurance limiting the uses within "C-2" as well as requiring procurement of a certificate of occupancy prior to any .other business being established on this property. Director Henry commented that the size of the property with set- backs would limit the possible uses as established for a "C-2" zoning. Little concurred with Director Henry and stated that in addition, with the taking of the required right-of-way, approximately 40% of the area lot that their business currently sits on would remain. Even if this property were developed under the current zoning of "R-2", this would be a difficult piece of property to work with and would require variances from the Board of Adjustments to be compatible with the zoning. Director Coody expressed his opinion that although he is sympathetic to the Mayes for this injustice against their property, he believes the Board needs to be concerned with the long term potential of creating an injustice against the entire neighborhood. Director Spivey concurred with Director Green's previous comments. He added that especially in the case of a reputable established business-, the location is critical. To ask the Mayes to move their business would be an injustice. - . 274 June 2, 1992 Director Nash stated that she has followed this rezoning through the Planning Commission and agrees with their last vote. Director Coody stated that he didn't believe anyone was being asked to move. Director Spivey responded that if the City takes this right-of-way and does not rezone the property, it is as good as asking the Mayes to move. Gary Ring, resident of 1637 N Leverett, south of the subject property, addressed the Board in opposition to the Mayes' rezoning, stating that of all the neighbors, it would have the greatest impact on his family. Mr. Ring further stated that this rezoning would leave the remaining neighborhood not knowing how they stand with respect to future rezoning. There is no land use plan in effect for this area or followed for guidance of the Planning Commission, which went against Staff's recommendation. Mr. King suggested that this rezoning be set aside until the land use plan is completed. Director Nash commented that the land use plan is 22 years old and this fact often forces the City Board into odd approaches. She stated that the City Board caused this problem and she feels obligated to assist in every way possible to fix it. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Director Coody voting no. ORDINANCE 3614 APPEARS ON PAGE /5'-1 OF ORDINANCE SOON XXVI PEG FACILITIES Mayor vorsangor introduced consideration of a resolution awarding a construction contract for the renovation of the PEG Access Facilities at 101 W. Rock Street, and approval of a budget adjustment. City Manager Linebaugh reported that bids for this contract came in from $25,000 to $40,000 lower than anticipated. He stated that Staff is recommending that this resolution be postponed until the next board meeting to allow time for the City Attorney to work out some additional problems with the contract. Nash, seconded by Coody, made a motion to table this resolution for a period of two weeks. Director Coody inquired as to when the Board would be making a decision on the Ozark Mountain Sports Building. City Manager Linebaugh responded that Staff has proposed that this be postponed until the many uses for this building can be explored. upon roll call, the motion to table the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0. June 2, 1992 . ssi; WATER PURCHASED COST INCREASE Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of a;.resoiution approving a budget adjustment to increase funds for:'purchased water from Beaver Water District in the amount of $175,000 to cover increased water purchase costs from Beaver Water District resulting from the Illinois River lawsuit. Beaver Water District has ,requested the Cityspay an increase in water costs by Beaver Water_District resulting from the Illinois River lawsuit with the State,of Oklahomyya., d e' F • Henry, seconded by Coody, made a motion,toapprove the resolution. et t A % City Attorney Jerry Rose'explained.that among the parties to the Illinois River litigation were the'City of Fayetteville, Beaver Water District and State of Arkansas. The highly reputable law firm of Kirkland & Ellis was hired by Beaver Water District during the appeal of this case to the Supreme Court of the United States. Rose stated that an appeal to°the, U.S. Supreme Court is undoubtedly a very complicated and esoteric matter rand'one which very few law firms in the U.S. have the expertise: Kirkland & Ellis argued the case on behalf of the parties before the Supreme Court. Rose stated that he is unaware of the exact amount of legal fees charged to Beaver Water. District; however,' they far exceeded $500,000. He reported that the City of Fayetteville has now been billed for a portion of the attorneys' fee in the amount of $175,000 as a special assessment. Rose stated that he examined the contract between Beaver Water District and the City of Fayetteville which allows Beaver Water,District to pass on their valid expenses to the City, and he believes there is authority to pay the bill. The bill submitted to the City is similar to any other bill, which the Board may either question or pay under the authority of the contract. City Attorney Rose explained that the specific act before the Board of Directors at this meeting is to do a budget transfer to transfer money into the account necessary to pay the $175,000 fee. Director Nash asked whether there was an agreement between the District and the City at the beginning of this process in that the City would help pay the expenses. She also asked if the City had any input into which attorneys were hired. She expressed a concern that there may be a state statute that deals with using tax monies to pay another parties' legal fees. City Attorney Rose responded that Beaver Water District undoubtedly advised the City that they would be requesting payment of this amount; however, there was no contractual understanding that he is aware of. He further responded that the choice of law firms was entirely at the District's discretion; however, they were very open 276 June 2, 1992 and discussed the matter with the City. Rose further stated that he is unaware of a state statute governing the use of tax funds to pay legal fees; however, the Beaver Water District is asking the City to pay this expense as a one time shot and assuming this is a valid expense, this is simply a pass through of an expense of the District as a billing. In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, City Manager Linebaugh responded that the funds for payment of these attorney fees will come from the City's water and sewer fund. Director Henry stated that just as with any other increased costs of federal statutes which deal with other conditions that the City is required to meet in terms of water quality, in an attempt to protect water quality, the City would be passed along the related fees and expenses. She asked for verification that the City will not bear the entire burden, but rather everyone who buys water from the Beaver Water District will share a portion in the cost of defending the lawsuit. City Attorney Rose responded that he believes all cities will share in the cost of the lawsuit; however, he is not aware of the percentages that other cities have been asked to pay. Mayor Vorsanger stated that it was the City of Fayetteville that went to the Supreme Court, and the lawyers chosen to represent the City were well known for being able to get a case such as this before the Supreme Court. He understands that out of approximately 3,300 appeals filed yearly, the Supreme Court hears roughly 100 cases. Beaver Water District's interest in this appeal was due to the fact that the City's effluent passes into their water supply. Vorsanger stated he doesn't believe any other law firm could have done what Kirkland & Ellis accomplished due to their knowledge and practice in appeals before the Supreme Court. Director Green stated that the economic impact and ramifications to the City of Fayetteville, had they lost the appeal would have been tremendous. This bill is an obligation that the City needs to fulfill. Director Spivey inquired based on the contract with Beaver Water District, what would happen if the City refused to pay the bill. City Attorney Rose responded that they could sue the City to collect on the bill, as long as they could show the bill was a valid expense, or as is done with non-paying customers, they could simply cut off the City's water supply. Henry, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 87-92 AS RECORDED IN TRE CITY CLERE'8 OFFICE tat 1 June 2, 1992, „A AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION REGULATION ORDINANCE Mayor vorsanger introduced consideration of an amendment to the Subdivision Regulation Ordinance Section 159.30(1)(2) that would allow lots of less than 1.5 acres when a permit for a septic system is granted by the. Arkansas Department of Health. The'Planning Commission votedt8-0-0 to recommend this amendment. Planning Director Alett Little stated the section of the ordinance being amended refers to thoseareas where a public sanitary sewer is not reasonably accessable or available for connection and the subdivision has been platted'so that each lot°has a minimum gross area of 1.5 acres and individual sewage disposal system for each lot may be used. While the"area of 1.5 acres is a rather arbitrary figure used, she does not`-propose•to discard that figure in the absence of a permit, however, since the state has the authority to grant a permit for a septic tank system .and it is based on a percolation test being performed on fthe` lot, the State will sometimes approve a septic:tank system on a lot having an area less than 1.5 acres. Staff is recommending that the City yield to the higher authority of the State when•a permit.is-issued and allow for this in the City's regulations. - The amending ordinance was read for the first time. Coody, seconded by Green, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon ro11ca11, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinancewas read -for the second time. Coody, seconded by Green,`made a motion .to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third andfinal time. Director Henry inquired whether the State .Department of Health specifies the times in which "perc" tests are to be performed. Little responded that they do not mainly because development of the lot could occur at any given time of the year, and if the Department of Health believes the results to be unsatisfactory, they have authority to request repeat percolation tests. Director Coody asked if the Department of Health performs the "perc" test during the driest time of the year which checks out okay, and then later on, the area turns out to be more of a wetland and the septic tank does not meet specifications, what remedy does the City have. Little responded that the City's main safeguard is that septic tank systems are not allowed unless the public sewer system is not available, and sewer systems are available in most areas throughout the City. Little reiterated her belief that this is not an area in which the City should assume responsibility, rather the City should yield to their authority as to what will be permitted. June 2, 1992 Director Green stated that even though there may be some "holes" in the percolation test occasionally, he believes that the State Health Department should have the authority and responsibility for administration of the tests. Upon roll call, the amendment to the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 3615 APPEARS ON PAGE /Y1 OP ORDINANTCE DOOR REZONE R92-17 X01' Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance annexing 70 acres and rezoning 112.83 acres located south of *Millen Road and east of Crossover Road from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, LOM Density Residential, as requested by Truman Yancey on behalf of Jamas Riley Skillern. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to annex 70 acres and rezone the whole parcel as requested by the petitioner subject to the developer reaching an agreement with the City to accomplish paving to City standards Skillern Road along the front of the property. The ordinance was read for the first time. Green, seconded by Nash, 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. City Attorney Rose explained that there has been some discrepancy in the acreage, as the original application was for 70 acres and the petition to the Court set forth 80 acres. The 80 acre figure is correct and is the figure before the Board for consideration. Truman Yancey, attorney on behalf of Mr. Skillern, confirmed that the property contains 80 acres and is properly described in the legal description. He further explained that the change in acreage resulted from the survey for which the description wording is slightly altered, even though it refers to the same area. Mayor Vorsanger called attention to a letter received by County Judge Johnson indicating that the County will do their share of the road paving. Little reported that the Planning Commission voted 9-0-0 to annex and rezone the property from "A-1" to "R-1"; however, their approving vote was subject to the developer reaching an agreement with the City to accomplish the paving of Skillern Road to city standards since they would be developing a substantial subdivision of over 100 new lots. Subsequently, the Planning Commission met June 2, 1992 with the County and established an innovative and workable solution for paving of Skillern Road. Ms. Little stated that approximately 1,300 feet of the road is within the Fayetteville City limits. Little reported that the agreement reached between the City and County is that Washington County will set-up the limestone base, the gravel, and haul the asphalt. The developers will pay for the asphalt to overlay the entire road from Old Wire Road to the end of the annexed property, which includes both the City portion and that portion adjacent to the property. Washington County will pay for the asphalt to complete the overlay project.to its intersection with County Road 83, and'the City crews will be responsible for laying the asphalt. Little ,reported that the Public Works Department, Planning Department, and Street Department have consulted on this project-and'report that it is acceptable. Little addressed the capacity of water 'lines in the area and reported that the City Engineer verified that there is an 8 inch line at the intersection of Skillern Roadtand Old Wire Road. An extension of this waterline would be`required in order to serve the subdivision, and it would;be adequate both for`fire protection and domestic purposes without any oversizing required. Mayor Vorsanger asked the.. reason for the discrepancy between the City portion of this:street`at 18 feet in width and the remaining street at 20 feet in width. '4 Little responded that the. City currently does not have the right- of-way, although they are negotiating for.the'extra two feet. A In response to Director Henry's question,qittle stated that the County's end of the street beyond the subdivision is already paved, and the entire length of Skillern Road will be paved. ti , Director Green stated that they did not vote on. the last suspension of rules, and Mayor Vorsanger requested that the ordinance be placed on its third reading. 3 Upon roll call, the motion•passed by a'vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Director Henry stated that once this property is annexed, the City will be required to provide city services and the residents will be eligible fora lower fire insurance rate. She further explained the disadvantage in not annexing this property is that the property can be subdivided and later come in with substandard facilities because the County does not have the same standards as the City. Little reported that at the Planning Commission meeting, there were representatives from three neighborhood families who did not oppose the rezoning. Their main concern was that the area be developed 9 June 2, 1992 residentially as opposed to commercial or as higher density residential uses such as duplexes or multi -family homes. Director Henry pointed out that once this area is developed, it puts the City in a position of passing by houses in the County who are not eligible to this subdivision. Little responded that the annexation will place the north side of Skillern road in the County and the southern side in the City. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 0. ORDINANCE 3616 APPEARS OM PAGE /yy Or ORDINANCE BOON )(X V1I. pOTTLE BILL Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of a resolution in support of "Bottle Bill„ legislation. City Attorney Rose read the resolution. Henry, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the resolution. Mayor Vorsanger questioned a reference in the resolution about sending a copy of it to the federal government since the Senate has already turned down that bill. It will be up to the States to push for a bottle bill. Vorsanger suggested that they drop from the resolution the reference to the federal government and push for state and local adoption. Director Coody disagreed with Mayor Vorsanger, stating that it will only cost the City a few more stamps to send the resolution to everyone involved, including the federal level. He reported that the National League of Cities has put this issue high on their list of priorities, and any show of support would be appreciated. The best way to establish a bottle bill is through a national bottle bill; otherwise there will be 50 states with 50 different variances to a bottle bill. Simply because the Senate turned this bill down once does not mean that it will not be reconsidered. Coody reported that the County has already sent a resolution to the Four County Regional Solid Waste District months ago, and the City would be following the County's footsteps. He encouraged the Board to pass this resolution in support of "Bottle Bill" legislation and send it to national, state, and local levels. In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, Director Coody responded that to date, there have been ten states and one city to enact "Bottle Bill" legislation. Director Green stated his support of legislation for return bottles; however, this resolution does not set -out how much the City is willing to spend for this project. Green further d1 June 2, 1992 questioned how effective a resolution would be at this time and suggested that for the time being, the City should support the efforts of the Four County Solid Waste Management District that has been established to look at the overall waste disposal needs in the area. Director Spivey asked what the position of, the Four County Solid Waste Management District was with regard to "Bottle Bill" legislation. Mayor Vorsanger responded that they are looking at the legislation as a possibility, but it .is obvious that one city cannot do it. Director Spivey stated that the resolution to support "Bottle Bill" legislation conceptually sounds real good; however, there are other implications, such as the cost, and he wants to understand every aspect. To pass this resolution at this time, would simply be cosmetic and premature. He requested input from the Four County Solid Waste Management District with regard to "Bottle Bill" legislation. Director Coody stated that two weeks ago,this"resolution was tabled in order to gather additional information. He asked if any contacts had been made to.gather input on the. issue. Mayor Vorsanger responded that he presented the resolution to the Four County Solid Waste Management.District, and they indicated that they would take a look at it. Dan Edwards addressed the Board and stated that "waste" is not a popular subject, but it doesn't' hurt at any . time to lead in an effort such as this. It would bea""mark.in their favor" if the City Board was to make such,a_decision at the front, rather than follow along at the. back. He does not see the reason for waiting on the Four County Solid Waste Management, District or the federal government to take a stand on a situation which can only get worse. Director of Public Works -Kevin Crosson stated that Staff is in complete agreement with a "Bottle Bill" such as recommended by the resolution. However, the most effective bottle bills are those adopted in the largest geographic areas. Fran Alexander reported that she has been dealing with legislation on bottle bills for the past 22 years both nationally and at a state level. There are pros and cons to bottle bills; however, in the case of Northwest Arkansas and due to our current solid waste crisis situation, Northwest Arkansas is setting standards as the leading edge for Arkansas. Ms. Alexander suggested that the City of Fayetteville take a leadership role in this region and begin the effort to develop a bottle bill. She further stated that bottle bills can be very complicated causing headaches at the administrative level, but with a little creative development of rules and regulations, the bills can be simplified. 2S2 June 2, 1992 Director Coody stated that the City of Columbia, Missouri, is the only city in the country with its own bottle bill. Columbia's bill has been brought to referendum vote three times so far, and each time it has been passed by a larger margin, to continue with the bottle bill. Ms. Alexander stated that it takes a commitment at both the social and political levels to establish the markets. Bill Giese addressed the Board and suggested that the Directors take a walk from Zion Road on Randall Place to Hwy. 265. The roads are full of bottles and in his opinion, an education problem exists. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0. RESOLUTION 88-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DEAVER LAKE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of a resolution opposing the proposed shoreline management changes on Beaver Lake. He reported that a presentation was made at the last board meeting regarding the Corps of Engineers' new regulations for land/brush cutting at Beaver Lake, and public comment was encouraged on this item. He reported that the City Board has been advised that the City should in some way, either by letter or resolution, join forces to protect the water supply for Fayetteville, as well as all Northwest Arkansas cities. Director Coody suggested that the Board send to the Corps of Engineers, a resolution supporting the efforts and position taken by the Beaver Water District since Fayetteville buys their water from them. City Attorney Jerry Rose stated that he had prepared a resolution which tracks the resolution of the City of Eureka Springs. Henry, seconded by Coody, made a motion that the City offer a substitute resolution, going on record in support of the Beaver Water District with regard to shoreline management on Beaver Lake. John Leflar, resident of Rogers and owner of lakefront property on Beaver Lake, addressed the Board urging Fayetteville to join with the City of Eureka Springs, the Arkansas Game & Fish Commission, Beaver Water District, and a host of other political organizations in protecting the water quality of Beaver Lake by asking the Corps of Engineers to maintain the 50 foot limitation of mowing on government land and keep intact the buffer zone surrounding Beaver Reservoir. June 2, 1992 Mayor Vorsanger asked Mr. Leflar to report on the position of Rogers' citizens, and in particular, John Sampier, Mayor of Rogers on the Beaver Lake shoreline management issues. Mr. Leflar responded that he was not sure of the consensus vote in Rogers; however, in talking with Mayor Sampier, his understanding was that heis highly supportive of the Beaver Water District's position on shoreline management at Beaver Lake. Director Nash addressed Mr. Leflar stating that she understood the citizens.of Rogers are being given a "bigger back yard" through the modified shoreline plan by being allowed to mow 200 feet instead of 50 feet from their homes. She explained her concern that this issue does not affect Fayetteville's back yards; therefore, she will abstain as she is uncertain as to why Fayetteville is becoming involved. Mr. Leflar responded to` Director Nash, reiterating that the citizens of Fayetteville are.affected by the water quality issue, just as the 150,000 residents in Northwest 'Arkansas who drink Beaver Lake water. k= Director Coody explained that Fayetteville's.involvement in this issue is important because the Corps of •Engineers' regulations directly affect Fayetteville's drinking water supply. He stated that the proposed increase from a 50&foot to a 200 foot radius of mowing around the homes on Beaver Lake will -increase the lot sizes from approximately one-quarter,acre to four acres. This, in turn, would allow for ten times more chemical fertilizers and pesticides as well as erosion. The path modification from 4 feet to 6 feet would allow trucks and vehicles to'approach the lake. Taking into consideration the number of homeowners on Beaver Lake and how many. acres each homeowner could negatively affect, the water quality would no doubt deteriorate -by allowing this -to happen. C' ! ' Julie King, Chairman for the Ozark Headwaters Group of the.Sierra Club, addressed Ms. Nash regarding her abstention from the issue stating the citizens of Fayetteville cannot•isolate themselves from the problems in Rogers, Eureka Springs, etc.- She expressed her concern that the Corps is considering destroying all the habitat around the lake which supports wildlife. She -further expressed her concern that the modified;regulations would allow the cutting of trees 2 inches in diameter•or more. As a multi-purpose lake, Beaver Lake entertains a wide variety of sporting activities. This is an issue concerning all residents of Northwest Arkansas, who should be concerned about the water quality'and how Beaver Lake is. being used. in response to Ms. King's statement, Mr. Leflar explained that the permitted removal of vegetation around Beaver Lake would include much of the underwater vegetation seen around the lake. Ms. King further stated that with the removal of vegetation, the larger 3 234 June 2, 1992 animals will be discouraged from using Beaver Lake as their habitat, which leaves only the smaller animals, which will eventually destroy the entire ecosystem. Ms. King reported from the public hearings in Rogers, the "emotional issues" of problems with ticks, chiggers and copperheads seemed to be the focus of discussion. She is more concerned about the entire ecosystem and habitat of many living creatures from coyotes and owls to snakes and rats, as well as loons and other migratory water fowl coming into the area. Ms. King suggested that citizens of Northwest Arkansas need to begin looking at the larger issue, the cumulative effect from the proposed shoreline management changes to Beaver Lake which results will surface one to five years in the future. Director Nash stated that if they were talking about issues that would directly impact the citizens of Fayetteville, like regulating the size of boats and motors used on the lake, or impacting Fayetteville's property and yards, she would certainly agree with Fayetteville's involvement. Robert Cossick, a Rogers resident representing the people on Beaver Lake that support the Corps' proposed shoreline management changes on Beaver Lake, addressed the Board. Mr. Cossick presented a lengthy report regarding ticks and lyme disease. He stated ticks prefer brush, tall grass and weeds 3 to 4 feet off the ground and also need the moisture and shade to survive. It is conservatively estimated that controlled mowing reduces tick habitat by more than 80%. Without exception, the recommendation is to remove brush, tall grass and weeds from around homes. Since only approximately 5% of the shoreline can be mowed, this would leave 460 miles of completely natural shoreline. No endangered species are threatened and the habitat is improved for those species of animals and birds that are compatible with man in residential areas. It has been documented that controlled mowing, along with a good stand of grass will not cause lake pollution, but rather improve water quality since less sediment and yard chemical run-off reaches the lakes. Mr. Cossick took exception to Mr. Leflar's statement that the Arkansas Fish & Game Commission is in favor of asking the Corps of Engineers to maintain the 50 foot limitation of mowing on government land; and keeping intact the buffer zone surrounding Beaver Reservoir. He presented a letter from the Arkansas Fish & Game Commission stating that they manage 55 lakes, of which they allow mowing to the shoreline; and in addition, they support vegetation management by adjacent land owners. Mr. Cossick stated that various city councils and quorum courts are going to take a position that protects the health and welfare of its citizens. In the past two years, over 4,000 lakeshore residents and area people have signed petitions or sent written comments to the Corps of Engineers favoring controlled mowing. June 2, 1992 Fred Hanna, resident of Fayetteville and a Beaver Lake property owner, addressed the Board stating that it was inappropriate for the Board of Directors to .consider passing this resolution on behalf of the citizens of Fayetteville. This has been an emotional issue addressed at public hearings in Rogers on two occasions. Mr. Hanna further addressed Director Coody's statements that only 5% of the Beaver Lake shoreline area was mowable and stated that in his opinion, less than 1% is being mowed by homeowners that would be affected by this resolution. The Corps advised Mr. Hanna that they have 1,200 platted lots in subdivisions around Beaver Lake. In comparison, Fayetteville has 18,235 housing units as of 1990. The run-off from at least half of these housing units in Fayetteville go into tributaries of Beaver Lake and into over half of their waste water. Mr. Hanna stated that Beaver Lake Water District has been one of the worst polluters in his section of the lake. When they backwash their filters, the residue from the filters is dumped into a creek that runs directly into Monte Ne. Beaver Lake Water District has claimed to have taken care of this situation? but this particular section of the lake remains polluted due to their actions. Director Coody addressed Mr. Corps' regulation is proposing place 200 feet from a home 160,000 square feet or nearly. Hanna's comments, stating that the modification whereby mowing can take or structure which is conceivably 4 acres. Mr. Hanna responded that'those are the: kind of improper figures that have been used, as the.Corps•.of Engineers does not own the land to the sides and back of properties, but only the land to the front toward the lake. .. » a /1 , . Director Coody stated that the rear issue is protecting the water quality, not just the mowing:issue., The City of Fayetteville does not have jurisdiction over people's actions on Beaver Lake but should have an input into what happens to the drinking water in Fayetteville. The City of Fayetteville is charged with protecting their citizens' health and not necessarily dealing with Beaver Lake residents, unless it comes to affecting 'the water quality in Fayetteville. .i. * t, i x Director Henry addressed Mr. Hanna stating that the Corps of Engineers has had mowing regulations on every federal lake for years, and this is merely an attempt by property owners to get the regulation changed. Mr. Hanna responded that the 50 foot rule has been in effect since Beaver Lake was built, but it has only been enforced erratically. Director Henry stated that the Corps of Engineers has the power to force property owners to replant that which they may have removed 236 June 2, 1992 as well as the authority to incarcerate violators who do not comply with their regulations. Barbara Cossick, a Rogers resident, addressed the Board of Directors stating that it was her understanding that the 200 foot regulation refers to the radius from a residence. This regulation has been used by several area lakes for a number of years. In the mid 70's, people were allowed to mow and given a permit to do so. She stated that high grass and brush on either side of a 4 foot path will grow into the path providing no protection from ticks. Ms. Cossick addressed the Corp's regulations which require a fence or line of brush or trees. They have made allowances to divide private property from public property, and obviously planned on mowing being allowed, or they would not have had this regulation. Ms. Cossick further stated that mowing will increase the populations of deer and geese, as evidenced on her property. Only 5% of the shoreline can be mowed because of the rocks, bluffs and steep topography, leaving approximately 450 miles of unmowed shoreline. The Corps are experts with years of experience and thousands of dollars in study providing data supporting grass as the best medium for stopping erosion and run-off. In addition, the buffer is needed to stop the run-off from applications of fertilizers and insecticides. Ron Duncan, member of the N.W. Arkansas Bass Masters Association, addressed the Board opposed to the Corps of Engineers' proposed shoreline management changes on Beaver Lake. He stated that these proposed changes will have a detrimental effect on sport fishing on the lake. Mr. Duncan, as a counsellor at Central Junior High School in Springdale, has established a 400 member fishing club, and he would rather give these young people the opportunity to experience Beaver Lake in its natural condition rather than the residents' backyards. Although he empathizes with the homeowners on Beaver Lake in wanting to triple the size of their property at no cost, Mr. Duncan stated that he highly recommends for the water quality, as well as for Fayetteville's fishermen and skiers, that Beaver Lake be maintained in its natural state. Ann Hanna, property owner on Beaver Lake, addressed the Board in favor of mowing to help eliminate the problems they encounter with fleas, ticks, and snakes. The proposed mowing regulations will do no harm, as new growth always comes up. On behalf of Mr. Segafuse, a letter was presented to the Board from Steve Wilson, Director of the Game & Fish Commission, opposing legislation to change the current limitation up to 200 feet. Director Green stated that he doesn't believe the City of Fayetteville has any business meddling in Corps of Engineers' affairs, other than to the extent of ensuring that Fayetteville's water supply is protected. Beaver Lake is not within the city limits of Fayetteville, and as a member of Beaver Water District, a3 June 2, 1992 Fayetteville should support the District's position of being opposed to the changes. Director Henry stated the proposed resolution states that the City of Fayetteville supports Beaver Water District position. Upon roll call, the resolution passed 4-1-1, with Director Spivey voting no and Director Nash abstaining. RESOLUTION 89-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE DRAKE FIELD Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of a resolution pertaining to the status of Drake Field as a carrier airport. Ernie Lancaster, Chairman of Fayetteville's Airport Commission, addressed the Board with a report from the Commission. He explained that a year and a half ago, the City Board of Directors created an Airport Board and appointed members charged with the maintenance, operation and welfare of Fayetteville's Municipal Airport, known as Drake Field. Mr. Lancaster introduced members of the Airport Board present: Leo Venda; Rick McKinney, and Harlan Tiffee. Mr. Lancaster reported that'„the Airport .Board wishes to go on .record that they do not approve or disapprove of the regional airport. Drake Field is..debt free and: owned by the City of Fayetteville. The master Plan 'reflects that:the airport can handle. the needs of Fayetteville citizens for twentytyears. Mr. Lancaster reported that the airport has.,,5 major airlines with 40 flights per day, and one recent addition, a,..flight to Europe. .The airport employs 150 people, and is a multi-million'dollar benefit to. the City. E Mr. Lancaster stated that, the- Airport Board was asked to consider the issue of Drake Field being replaced with another airport in another area of Northwest Arkansas. He reported that the Board has concluded that Drake -: Field does, not need.. 'replacement, just the continued support of Fayetteville.- 4 Mr. .Lancaster read the proposed resolution; pertaining to the continuation of Drake Field as a carrier airport, for which the Airport Board unanimously approved. ti +' i Director Henry asked Mr.:Lancaster for, verification that in the event that the voters do not approve & Regional Airport, the present plan for Drake Field*envisions acquiring additional land for expansion, and the City will need to invest additional money for it to remain a viable.airport to meet the'air passenger needs of Fayetteville. 238 June 2, 1992 Mr. Lancaster responded that the twenty year Master Plan sets out that improvements to Drake Field would be required. Drake Field is scheduled for a MLS Landing System. In addition, changes are required to meet safety regulations of the aircraft. Director Coody asked Mr. Lancaster how many of the Drake Field concessionaires, air carriers, car rentals, etc., have expressed a desire to move to a new regional airport. Mr. Lancaster responded that as far as he is aware, no one has approached anyone at Drake Field about moving. The resolution is worded that the City of Fayetteville would assist in the orderly transition of any tenant, one or all, at Drake Field that states their desire to move to a new airport. Mr. Lancaster stated his belief that the tenants of Drake Field would not leave unless they were asked to. Director Coody stated that the twenty year master plan sets out that in 1989, Drake Field brought in $18 million to the City of Fayetteville, and in 1991, revenues were greater than projected at $22 million. If these figures were projected out to the year 2010, Drake Field would bring in over $50 million. On the other hand, if Drake Field was abandoned and used only as a private airport, it would bring in approximately $900,000 per year. Mr. Lancaster stated that the money spent at Drake Field up to now has been 90% federal grant money, and 5% from the state leaving only 5% of the expense for improvements to the City. Director Coody expressed his concern about the enormous economic impact of closing Drake Field and for the projected 320,000 people per year that pass through Fayetteville. If the Regional Airport were built, most passengers would never see Fayetteville, and an enormous amount of revenue would be lost. The City has an enormous investment in Drake Field and it remains feasible as long as the City can continue to improve the master plan to expand the airport. Coody further expressed his concern that on November 6, 1990, when the Board of Directors joined the Airport Authority, Mr. Lindsey made a presentation which made it clear that Drake Field would be a cargo/maintenance facility airport with no mention of passenger facilities. The City joined the Airport Authority with the assumption that Drake Field would not be affected. The results have been that cargo and maintenance have not worked as was anticipated, and now the Authority has requested that the City abandon Drake Field. Coody stated that the situation the City entered into originally has completely reversed to a situation that may not be conducive to the betterment of Fayetteville. Mayor Vorsanger responded that it was unfair for Director Coody to pose these questions to Mr. Lancaster, as he had nothing to do with the feasibility or the new proposed airport. June 2, 1992 Director Coody stated that Mr. Lancaster was a member of the Board of Directors at the time the City voted to join the Airport Authority. Mr. Lancaster responded that the new terminal was built for two airlines, and it took every dollar they could find at the city and state levels, as well as the support and assistance of Governor Pryor at that time who made it possible. Director Henry stated that it was a vision of what Fayetteville felt they could provide since the voters turned down a regional airport. The City was willing to go into debt and took a lot of criticism. Northwest Arkansas has a large number of people traveling to this area for business reasons only, and if that reason disappears, then the passenger service will decrease dramatically. Mr. Lancaster added that if business disappears, then any airport, anywhere would go down. He further reiterated that the Airport Board does not take a position of either approving or disapproving of the Regional Airport. Director Nash stated her support for the Airport Board's draft resolution because it answers and satisfies the FAA concerns. Mayor Vorsanger reported that Fayetteville's two representatives on the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority, Dan Ferriter-and Bill Martin, were unable to be at this meeting; however, Mark Simmons, Chairman of the NWARAA, was present;to address the Board. Mark Simmons, Chairman of the'Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority, addressed the Board and reported that they were in the middle of a feasibility study of a regional airport for Northwest Arkansas and currently are conducting an' environmental impact study. The FAA, prior to giving notice to proceed with this impact study, asked several questions. One question was whether Fayetteville was willing to negotiate on the orderly transition of the air carrier status from Drake -Field to the regional airport. The proposed resolution addresses -"this issue and the NWARRA believes that this -resolution will adequately answer the concerns of the FAA and allow the NWARRA `to'move forward with their environmental impact study.' Mr. Simmons agreed that this resolution is not, in any way, an endorsement of the regional airport. The FAA is asking the City to`eipress a good -faith decision to proceed with negotiations which are critical to provide information to all citizens of .Northwest Arkansas and will be needed when they vote in November. t Director Coody asked Mr. Simmons his'question earlier posed to Mr. Lancaster, that when the City -joined the Authority, the only focus was on cargo and maintenance. -Once locked in to the Authority, the City is advised of the "three-legged stool" theory, whereby they • 230 June 2, 1992 need cargo, maintenance, and passengers. Coody stated from what he reads in the newspaper, cargo and maintenance are questionable, so they are down to a "one -legged stool". He stated that even if they committed all passenger and concessionaires out to the regional airport, this still would not be enough to make it successful. Mr. Simmons responded to Director Coody that when he was asked as an individual to participate as an Authority member, that discussion referred to cargo, maintenance, and passenger service. In addition, when he joined the Authority, he was hopeful that there would be an ability to get jet service into Northwest Arkansas for passengers. Director Coody further expressed his concern that if the City does take the gamble and go with the regional airport, once a supplemental financial agreement is signed, if the airport cannot pay its revenue bonds, then the debt will fall back on the governing bodies, and the taxpayers will be footing the bill for whatever debt the governing bodies owe. In addition, if the regional airport is not financially successful, then the City will not only have lost Drake Field and have to rebuild that, but they would basically be bailing out the remainder of the debt from the regional airport. Mr. Simmons responded that he didn't believe that Director Coody's concerns were valid. First of all, the City would not lose Drake Field as it would remain an obvious viable facility for the substantial private traffic that it now enjoys. The NWARAA has gone on record stating its intention to insulate any of the city and county members of the Authority from any liability towards its debts. His understanding of the law is that the NWARAA has no ability to commit the City and no intention of presenting documents to the City that would allow the City to commit itself to any financial indebtedness. If the regional airport goes forward, it will do so on a self-sustaining basis without financial risk to the cities or counties. Director Coody asked John Elrod, legal counsel for the NWARAA, that if in the event that the Airport Authority did incur debt for the first phase of the project and the City of Fayetteville wanted to withdraw from the Authority at that time, that the City would owe their fair share of the Authority debt. John Elrod responded that the document which created the NWARAA, states that if at some point in the future, after the feasibility study is complete and a decision is made to proceed, a financial plan will be presented to the seven entities. At that point in time, or up until that time, any of the seven entities are free to withdraw their membership in the NWARAA. Mr. Elrod continued that the present agreement, which can be unanimously amended, sets out that once the commitment is made and revenue bonds are issued, the cities are insulated from any negative impact from the revenue i June 2, 1992 bonds and from that point forward, the NWARAA members are locked in. The members would then be asked to make a conscious decision that they will be locked into membership. The point of this theory is that once an Airport Authority issues bonds, takes on contract obligations, builds a field and has contracted with air carriers, it would make no sense from a governmental, business or ethical standpoint, for attrition of the membership of the body to fall to zero and the Authority go into non-existence. Director Coody stated that it is then conceivable that they could have an initiated referendum and in the middle of the project, it could be brought to a vote, and the voters could remove them from the Authority. If this were to happen, then the City would still owe all the money that the Authority was obliged to pay. Mr. Elrod responded that state statutes says that obligations of municipalities and counties that created the Authority will not be behind the revenue bonds, and they will be required to stand on their own. The City does not have to sign a supplemental financial agreement and is free to withdraw at that point. If the City signs a .supplemental financial agreement, they will not be bound or obligated for the revenue bonds. He further explained this concept that as a shareholder of "XYZ" Corporation which goes broke, the shareholders would not be obligated for the debts of that corporation. Director Nash stated that the City is involved in a court case that pertains to the same issues, referring to the incinerator lawsuit. Mr. Elrod responded that at some point in history, the City of Fayetteville made a conscious decision that -they were going to become obligated on those bonds. 4 Mr. Elrod further stated that he believes the resolution drafted by the Airport Board is fair :and will meet»FAA requirements. In addition,'Elrod stated that.. no matter how much the City wants it to occur and no matter how well the citizens of. Northwest Arkansas have been served by Drake Field, the simple truth of the matter is that there will never be jet air service to Drake Field. • Director Green asked Mr. Simmons -what the time line looks like if _Fayetteville does pass this resolution, and whether it will take until November for the feasibility ,studies. to be complete. In addition, he asked how Fayetteville rejecting this resolution would affect that particular time line. 1 Mr. Simmons responded that if the resolution is adopted as presented, the environmental impact study.and master plan study will go forward quickly. .Thereafter, commencing in approximately four weeks, interim reports'will be issued on a 2 week basis and presented to the Authority members, through the end of October. It is anticipated that all 'sub -reports will be heard before the 232 June 2, 1992 November election. The entire report package will have been heard, but not put together as one complete package. On the other hand, if the resolution is not passed, the environmental impact study can not commence, and the information needed for the voters to make an educated decision in November will not be provided. Zola Mhoon addressed the Board stating that she takes exception to many of the points made at this meeting. Ms. Mhoon addressed her concerns with the passenger, cargo, and maintenance feasibility studies. She urged the Board to take careful consideration about the possibility that based on their actions regarding this resolution, a commitment is made by the Airport Authority which might later, after a vote in November, "turn and bite them on the tail". She further urged the Board not to be stampeded into a decision that could bear a good deal more thinking and time to consult among themselves and their constituency. They do not have all the answers, not only about a regional airport, but about the implications of the resolution. Roger Henry, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board comparing the City of Fayetteville to Santa Cruz, California, in their downtown revitalization master plan project, where others want to bypass the downtown and take traffic and business away from their investment. Henry reported that Santa Cruz has been advised not to do anything to take money away from an investment because over the long haul, this action will result in a big loss. In the case of Drake Field, the City has put millions of dollars into this facility, and it would be slily to do anything that would jeopardize that investment. Mr. Henry further stated that the FAA is always looking for ways to save money, and he is sure that they would accept the twenty year master plan. Larry Blowski addressed the Board stating that his understanding was that the FAA had requested a commitment from the City of Fayetteville which places the City on record as agreeing, in essence, to what the FAA has requested, which is to give up or "abandon" Drake Field. With respect to Director Coody's inquiry as to which resolution the Board was considering, Blowski requested that the resolution that the City is considering be read. Mayor Vorsanger responded that the resolution the Board is voting on is the one previously read by Ernie Lancaster. Vorsanger, seconded by Nash, made a motion to adopt the resolution as presented by Ernie Lancaster. Ernie Lancaster reiterated that the proposed resolution, in essence says that, provided another new primary airport is built, and this is not referring to a replacement for Drake Field, if any tenant of Drake Field wishes to leave, the City will, in good faith, help expedite the move. June 2, 1992 40 Larry Blowski stated that he sees no point in a resolution which embodies this language as it is only submitting language to the FAA which will tend to make them indecisive and uncertain about how the City really feels.- He suggested that they put forth a resolution which more directly addresses the FAA requirement and request. Director Coody stated this resolution states that the City will help move anytenant of Drake Field to a new airport, if they so desire. Whether or not it meets the FAA requirement, it is a diplomatic way of saying that the City of Fayetteville will not abandon Drake Field and force the tenants to move if they don't want to. Coody further stated his opinion that the FAA may be looking for a way to get out -of the proposed regional airport, and hoping that Fayetteville will give them an excuse. Bill Giese addressed the Board stating that- the City of Fayetteville joined the NWARAA under a time limit and now FAA is requesting a commitment. Giese quoted Franklin Roosevelt that, "In politics, nothing happens by chance". Giese further stated that he finds it unusual and suspicious having served 30 years in the Air Force and through his involvement with FAA, that they would operate in this manner. Director Coody concurred with Mr. Giese stating that two weeks ago he proposed a toothless resolution in support of a "Bottle Bill", and the Board requested two additional weeks for consideration of the resolution. However, a resolution abandoning Drake Field, appears to carry a lot of emergency, and he also finds this to be a curious situation. Director Green addressed Coody, stating that this was not a resolution abandoning Drake Field or committing the City of Fayetteville. The Board of Directors has never intended to abandon Drake Field, and that is not the issue before them. If the feasibility study proves that a regional airport is economically feasible and passes the environmental impact study, then Green stated he goes on record as stating his support for a regional airport as a great benefit to Northwest Arkansas. He further stated that if this resolution of good faith is not passed, then they may not find out the_results of the study. 4 Director Nash stated her support for the resolution as written by the Airport Board. However, if additional.. time is needed for citizen involvement, she would be willing to table the resolution for an additional two weeks. a Director Henry stated that there is ta difference between the two resolutions. Director Coody's resolution for a "Bottle Bill" was tabled because it was brought up under "Other Business", and it had not been publicized. NThe resolution before the Board has been on the published agenda andin the newspapers. • • 1s Z34 June 2, 1992 Fran Alexander addressed the Board stating that Mr. Simmons received the letter from the FAA on April 29, and the City received the information on May 19. She believes the resolution will probably solve the City's problems diplomatically, if the FAA will accept the resolution. However, she stated her belief that the resolution should be published in the newspaper verbatim, so that citizens do have the opportunity to comment. Ms. Alexander stated that this only adds to some of the problems that have gone on with citizens from the beginning of the inception of the regional airport and only perpetuates public animosity. Director Spivey stated that this resolution and situation is different from those being compared, as the citizens have a chance to vote on this in November. The resolution presented by the Airport Board commits the City of Fayetteville to absolutely nothing. If the public does not like the resolution, they will have a chance to vote on the entire issue in November. Fran Alexander responded that her suggestion that the resolution be tabled for two weeks and that it be published is simply an opportunity for people to not feel like something else has happened too quickly, and they would have an opportunity to comment on a resolution that directly affects Drake Field. Chris Kirby, attorney, addressed the Board stating that the Board's primary role is to the citizens of Fayetteville. The Regional Airport Authority was created for the considerations of a broader region. Mr. Kirby addressed Mayor Vorsanger and Director Henry, as members of the Northwest Arkansas Council, clearly the proponents of the Regional Airport project; as well as Mayor Vorsanger's seat on the Board of Tyson Foods, an avid proponent of the project. He suggested that they let their conscience dictate on whether it was appropriate for them to vote on this issue, given their participation in the issue. Director Henry responded that with respect to "conflicts of interest", she has never felt that providing an opportunity to ensure a vision and to try to ensure better paying jobs with a project which was placed on the ballot, as a conflict of interest, when she has no financial interest, owns no airport stock, and has no service to sell. She is a beneficiary only by means of maybe maintaining her position at the University which is funded only by means of taxpayers who pay taxes to support institutions of higher education. Mr. Kirby responded that the only reason the citizens of Northwest Arkansas will have a chance to vote on this issue is that of the devoted citizens of the cities and counties involved who obtained the petitions worked to guarantee that right for the citizens, and it was certainly not handed to them by their governing bodies. Director Spivey stated thatiMr. Simmons believes that the FAA will accept this resolution. The original resolution, which has never' been introduced, seems to be causing the confusion. If the FAA will accept the resolution before the Board, he does not want to be accused down the road,=:that the City•of Fayetteville balked on this and took no risks for its citizenry, and.therefore the project fell apart. The opponents of:- the regional airport who have spoken tonight are once more creating a._smoke screen or another delay tactic. The citizens will havezan opportunity to vote on the regional airport in November, and.,if.they don't want it, there is no problem. i f Upon roll call, the resolution passed 5 tori, with Director Coody voting no. - RESOLUTION 90-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERIC'S OFFICE - OTHER BUSINESS NOMINATING COMMITTEE Mayor Vorsanger reported that the Board needed to vote on nominations to the Arts Center Council and Arts Foundation. Director Spivey reported that there were two positions open on the Arts Center Council with terms ending on June 30th, for which nominations were Jimmy Hill and Stephen Adams. In addition, there was one position available on the Arts Foundation, formerly held by Scott Linebaugh whose term ends on June 30th, and the Nominating Committee is nominating Scott Linebaugh to serve another term. Nash, seconded by Green made a motion to approve the nominations. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote. SISTER CITY Director Nash requested that an update on Sister Cities Program be placed on the next agenda. City Manager Scott Linebaugh reported that Jerry Cooper has been working on this program and has gathered a lot of information for the Board on this issue. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:39 p.m.