HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-07 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, July 7, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room
of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Fred Vorsanger; Assistant Mayor Mike Green;
Directors Ann Henry, Dan Coody, Bob Blackston; City
Manager Scott Linebaugh; City Attorney Jerry Rose,
City Clerk Sherry Thomas; Director of Planning
Alett Little; Director of Public Works Kevin
Crosson; Director of Administrative Services Ben
Mayes; members of Staff, press and audience.
1°
Directors Julie Nash and Shell Spivey.
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with five 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 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..
RUSSIAN. VISITORS
Bobby Odom introduced four distinguished visitors from Russia,
Deputies Gennadii Veretennikov and .Alexander V. Blokhin, elected by
the citizens of Russia in 1990to serve a five year term on the
Supreme Soviet Parliament of Russia for the district of
metropolitan Moscow; Dr. Boris Mikhailov, Head of the Political
Studies in the Academy of Science. of USA and Canada; and his wife,
Marina Mikhailov, who serves as.a consultant with a firm involved
in the acquisition of medical supplies. Mr. Odom reported that the
Russian visitors arrived in Chicago on the 29th of June and visited
Little Rock before arriving in Fayetteville a week ago. They are
interested in returning to Russia with knowledge of a city manager
form of government.
Dr. Boris Mikhailov addressed the Board of Directors thanking the
City of Fayetteville for their hospitality during their visit. Dr.
Mikhailov reported visiting the United States on several occasions;
however, his visit to Fayetteville has been very special. He
explained that he was in charge of a Committee for the local
government of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation; the
�.,v
July 7, 1992
knowledge he has attained during his visit with City officials will
be of great benefit and use to them in Moscow. Dr. Mikhailov
stated that he has found the major value of a City such as
Fayetteville is its citizens, and he would like to see cities in
Russia becoming like the City of Fayetteville.
Mr. Veretennikov stated meeting city and county representatives
will contribute much to the development of relationships between
the two countries, and stated his support for continued
contributions to these relationships.
On behalf of the City of Fayetteville, Mayor Vorsanger thanked the
Russian visitors for their interest in visiting Fayetteville, and
encouraged them to make return visits in the future.
NOISE ORDINANCE
City Prosecutor Terry Jones gave a report regarding the
interpretation and enforcement of the City's Noise Ordinance. He
distinguished between "sound" and "noise", explaining that "sound"
is the pressure felt on eardrums caused by vibration, while "noise"
is defined in the City's ordinance as "any sound which is
irritating to the human person." Noise can cause irritation such
as stress, high blood pressure, and loss of hearing.
Prosecutor Jones stated "noise" is terribly subjective, depending
on individual preference. Sound level is not the only determinate
of whether or not there is an irritation or "noise". In 1980, the
City conducted a survey of a large number of cities throughout the
U.S., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was consulted, and
sample ordinances were collected. Thereafter, the City adopted an
ordinance similar to that of Norman, Oklahoma, which he believes is
objective, liberal, and fair. Jones reported the sound levels set
by the City are generally higher than for most equivalent cities in
the U.S., and stated he has been an advocate for the higher decibel
limits, in order to accommodate Fayetteville, as a diverse city
with the University and many night clubs.
The rationale for creation of a Noise Ordinance in 1980 was to put
a limitation on the amount of noise which is irritating within the
City. Prosecutor Jones read the ordinance, as follows:
"No person shall operate or cause to be operated on a
public or private property, any source of sound in such
a manner as to create a sound level which exceeds the
decibel limits proscribed for various zones within the
city."
He further explained in an R-1, residential zone, the decibel limit
during evening hours is 60 decibels, 65 decibels in a commercial
zone, and 80 decibels in an industrial zone. The statute was
originally intended to stop sound generation, and designed to limit
.July 7,x1992
the amount of noise arising from various; zones., and allowing
decibel levels to exceed those proscribed would create a harm to
citizens living or working in these environments. ,He reported an
attempt in 1988 by Marty Coats and City Manager Jim Pennington to
reduce the residential decibel level from 60 to 50. -However, after
discussion among the City Board,. Pollee`Department and various.
citizens, this attempt was thwarted.
Prosecutor Jones further statedthe City's decibel system measures
the amount of sound coming from a source through a sound meter,
allowing for the establishment of a maximum decibel level, and
making the City's statute objective. This statutehas been very
workable and satisfactory for Fayetteville inthe sense that
tickets can be issued, following a warning, if sound levels are
exceeded. The only possible weakness Jones sees in the statute is
that it may be too liberal. The amount of sound that leaves a
property line, and the path of sound depends on quirks of nature,
such as valleys, hills, trees, wind velocity, etc. Jones stated
there are emergency sounds such as sirens and church bells which
are excluded from the ordinance.
He gave the example of the City Hall's air conditioner, which when
in operation, creates 70 decibels of sound. If employees were
working around that air conditioner all day, this would create
extreme irritation. However, outside the building and inside the
various offices, the air conditioner can not be heard at all. The
Environmental Protection Agency advises that over a period of time,
at some point between 65 and 85 decibels, permanent hearing loss
begins.
Prosecutor Jones explained in the beginning, decibel levels were
measured at the actual site, which was found to be too restrictive.
Subsequently in 1983, following a controversy over an organization
called "Rock Against Racism", sound measurement was moved to the
property boundary. This change in sound measurement was based on
the opinion that if one wishes to enter an establishment where
permanent hearing damage may occur, that is their privilege;
however, individuals outside that property boundary should not be
required to sustain irritation from the noise. In 99% of the
cases, sound decibel levels are measured in adjoining homes, since
the majority of complaints are made by adjoining property owners.
Prosecutor Jones addressed the topic of receiving land use",
reading from the statute that: "For a transient sound source
emanating in any receiving land use category, the peak noise level
shall not exceed 15 decibels." A "transient sound source" is
defined as a lawn mower, power tool, or revving of an automobile
engine. In any land use category proscribed in the statute, a
transient sound source can exceed 15 decibels above the permitted
limit without violation of the statute.
AS
33Z
July 7, 1992
In response to Director Henry, City Prosecutor Terry Jones
responded he has been in office since August 1981, and participated
in the first EPA workshop given regarding the noise ordinance.
Director Henry recalled the initiation of a noise ordinance
resulted from a problem with multiple amplifiers used at fraternity
houses with the sound traveling through valleys and causing
irritation to citizens. In order to accurately measure decibel
levels, it became necessary to do so from the receiving source,
which in some cases was 3-4 blocks away from the sound source.
Prosecutor Jones added Delila Compton, an authority on sound
engineering, referred to as the "sound lady", attempted to set-up
baffling systems at the fraternity houses to block the sound from
travelling such long distances. He further stated it is mere
coincidence that the City has always measured from the receiving
source, as opposed to the omitting source. Sound decreases with
distance and weather conditions, and even with a decibel level of
only 45 decibels at a receiving end, it can be irritating up to a
half a mile away. In order to decrease the number of people who
find a sound irritating, it is necessary to put the limit at the
source, rather than the location of the complaint. Some
individuals living near highways, for instance, will become attuned
to high decibel levels, while others not used to the sound, become
irritated.
Director Green asked Prosecutor Jones whether based on the
interpretation of the City's noise ordinance and taking George's
Majestic Lounge for instance, what should be the decibel level at
their property line at midnight. Jones responded the statute
provides that after 11:00 p.m., a maximum of 65 decibels is
allowed. He was unsure of the exact zoning at this location, but
believed it to be a commercial zone, and all such zones are set at
a maximum of 65 decibels.
Director Green stated if the intent of this ordinance was for the
noise level to be measured at the property line, it appears that it
would have been simpler to state, "measured at the property line of
a particular zone", rather than referring to the receiving land
use. The complainant would be the receiver in this case. If no
one close to the source of a noise is bothered by it, then it is
not really noise, but rather only a bother to the complainant.
Therefore, Green stated that the noise ordinance cannot truly be
interpreted as being measured at the property line of the emitting
source.
Prosecutor Jones stated the noise ordinance is a "people
protection" ordinance, and the concern is only for people within
the particular zone. Because of the kinds of activities that take
place within a commercial zone, the statute does not contemplate
that people within a commercial zone should be forced to endure
noise beyond 65 decibels. He further read from the ordinance
July 7_, 1992
r, n
pertaining to the. receiving land use category; ".-.::°When measured
at or within the property boundary=of the -receiving land use." His
interpretation of this language is.°that• the; decibel measurement
would either be taken at the source of the sound'or at the property
line. This is also the reason for an -explanation of transient
sounds which includes the —language emanatingL.in, and means
originating from rather than.recipient of. Jonesstated the result
Of Director Green's interpretation would be to make the noise
ordinance a totally useless instrument, andlthis interpretation
would require rewriting the statute for clarification.
In response to Director Green's questionregarding,background sound
level, Prosecutor Jones responded 'there is always passive sound,
and in order to measure sound,.• the operator of. the meter must
determine the "ambient sound level".of the area,‘or take a reading
of the general sound without the: actual noise emanating from the
source. Thereafter, if the emanating source, without other sources
of sound interfering, emits.noise,.in excess of the decibel limits,
this creates a violation of the noise ordinance..'' uThe violation
must be at least 10 decibels abovekthe ambient sound level, or the
measurement is inaccurate. Prosecutor Jones further explained this
is a technique used by the EPA to create an: accurate sound
measurement using the sound devices. There are many factors to
take into consideration such as wind velocity and reflective
surfaces which would interfere with accuracy of the reading.
Director Green stated based on that analogy, any sound readings
taken between George's Majestic Lounge and the old Polk Furniture
building, should not be considered as a reasonable limitation.
These types of sound readings have been taken, and this is creating
an unnecessary burden on limiting the sound level within George's
because of the ambient noises and reflections. It is, therefore,
necessary that the City be careful in measuring sound levels, so
that the ordinance can be applied fairly. If sound intensities are
doubled with this type of reading, the sound decibel increases.
The current sound ordinance does not include an ambient definition
and does not clearly indicate the location of sound measurement.
Green further stated based on his research and understanding, he
believes the reading should be taken at the location of the
recipient of the sound. In other words, the sound source should be
measured at the receiving end. It should not be arbitrarily
limited to a low, level at the property line, if for instance, an
individual three blocks away is receiving 40 decibels as crickets
can create more noise than that. Greenquestioned whether the
method of measurement is reasonable and what and how they should be
measuring sound inorderfor all concerned to concur on the issue.
Currently, the ordinance is confusing, and from his acoustical
background, Green stated his opposition to the ordinance. He
stated that it is unreasonable to expect an establishment such as
George's Majestic Lounge to limit the noise to 65 decibels when all
adjoining property is commercial and generally not used past 11:00
July 7, 1992
p.m. If testing were to occur in the adjacent residential areas,
Green stated he could understand the ordinance as written; however,
an undue penalty is being placed on George's because of the method
of sound measurement.
Prosecutor Jones responded they have speed limit laws in Arkansas
too, and in order to determine the rate of speed, an officer has to
use a radar gun which is certified under proper conditions. In
addition, he must determine the radar equipment is not being
interfered with by microwave and other factors. The same type of
checklist, although not included in the statute, must be followed
by the operator of the sound meter, to ensure that reflective
sources are not interfering, make alterations in areas focused,
using knowledge of the wind, and applying the same scientific
principals that the instrument requires in order for a reading to
be accurate.
Jones reported he tests sound equipment in court by requiring the
operator to go through the exact steps as he would in the field.
He is confident in the accuracy of the sound equipment, and
assuming the operator is certified, these concerns can be
alleviated. Prosecutor Jones reported he currently receives a lot
of citizen complaints, and stated if the maximum decibel level was
increased even 10 decibels, the noise complaints he receives would
increase significantly.
Cyrus Young, a citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
he was asked to attend the Board meetings at which the current
noise ordinance was approved in order to determine compliance, and
he doesn't remember Terry Jones being present. He reported from
those meetings that Staff attempted to explain the levels of
decibels, and there was concern that those levels were relatively
low. He further recalled Board members and Staff at that time
reiterated sound would be measured at the receiving land use and
this was the reason for the low levels.
Mr. Young stated his concern that a noise ordinance adopted by the
City Board ten years ago is somehow now being interpreted
differently from when it was originally adopted. The written word
contained in an ordinance should equal the assurances by the City
government. In his opinion, Ordinance 2873 is clear and does equal
those assurances made to the citizens of Fayetteville 10 years ago.
He read from the ordinance pertaining to receiving land use, the
key to sound measurement. Mr. Young requested if the City Board
does elect to change the ordinance, they should not do so with the
reason of clarification, but rather to change the ordinance.
Charles Howard, resident one-third mile from George's Majestic
Lounge, addressed the Board stating he is one of the many citizens
who have filed complaints over the past several years about the
noise emitted from this lounge to no avail. Mr. Howard stated he
is an advocate of lower noise limits. He addressed the model noise
;•-335
July 7, 1992
:control ordinance propounded by the EPA, which findings indicate
that the average fixed source noise levels allowable at residential
'district boundaries at night is 51.76 decibels, and the average
nighttime decibel level for fixed source noise levels allowable at
business and commercial district boundaries is 59.21, less than the
level provided for these districts in Fayetteville. .Depending on
one's interpretation of the current noise ordinance, the maximum
noise level is either 60 or 65 decibels.
Mr. Howard further stated he favors Terry Jones' interpretation of
the noise ordinance and believes it is too liberal. He added it is
his understanding that anyone located in a commercial zone can
complain about noise for which he has done. In addition, even
though they are attempting to achieve objective standards to
follow, there are some subjective aspects to the problem.
In trying to understand the noise problem created by George's
Majestic Lounge, he stated it is inappropriate for people to be
out-of-doors past 11:00 p.m., playing rock n' roll music, and using
amplifiers and loud speakers. There is a provision in the noise
ordinance which prohibits the use of amplifiers and loud speakers
to project music out into public areas, which'is not being enforced
by the City Police. This area does include residential areas as
close as 150 yards away, and these residents do not appreciate the
annoyance created by these activities..
Director Green responded to Mr. Howard that the ordinance states
that the use of amplifiers cannot .be used for' producing or
reproducing sound cast upon public streets -for the purpose of
commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to
any building or structure.
i • r
Howard stated his concern is for the public's right to rest at
night without the annoyance of loud music. His interpretation of
the amplifier language contained in the ordinance is owners and
managers of the establishment and the musicians•playing the music
are casting the noise out to attract customers. There are
residential neighborhoods in all directions surrounding George's,
and he has personally spoken with several of these residents who
have complaints such as his.
With respect to Director Green's statements regarding inappropriate
locations for taking noise level readings at a location between
George's and the old Polk Furniture building which cause
reflections, Mr. Howard asked what is causing these reflections,
and who is responsible for the 70-75 decibels in this location?
Director Green responded to Mr. Howard asking who on the Polk
Furniture side of George's is complaining about noise, as there are
no complainants in the commercial district. The way the ordinance
is written, if there is no one in the immediate area being damaged,
then there is no reason for placing undue restrictions on George's.
J J u
July 7, 1992
Mr. Howard stated hi is being damaged, as well as others passing up
and down Dickson Street who are receiving the sound.
Mayor Vorsanger stated he saw no useful purpose for this dialogue
and requested Mr. Howard summarize any suggestions he may have for
the Board.
Mr. Howard requested the members of the Board go to George's
Majestic Lounge unannounced at 1:00 a.m. to investigate and listen
to the noise being emitted. In addition, Howard requested the City
bring in experts on this topic as well as asking the City Manager
to request George's complete the form his staff has prepared for
those seeking noise variances which was not done in this case. He
suggested the Board obtain the facts by investigating alleged
attempts by George's to control noise by giving instructions to the
bands performing and controlling settings on amplifiers and decibel
levels produced by the amplifiers. Howard further reported
submitting petitions to the City Manager signed by approximately 40
residents in this area asking the City Manager and Police stop the
amplification at night..
Mr. Howard requested the entire noise ordinance be reviewed, and
the City Board enact a better ordinance which would protect the
citizens who live in the surrounding areas to George's. He stated
his willingness to work with the City in the future to attempt to
solve this problem.
Woody Bassett addressed the Board, stating he represents Bill and
Betty Harrison and Hugh and Margie Wagoner, Co-owners of George's
Majestic Lounge, as well as the employees and thousands of patrons
of George's. He read the noise ordinance, and explained in this
particular incidence, for the residential area from 7:00 to 11:00
p.m., the maximum is 65 decibels and 60 decibels after 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Bassett assured the Board in no way are any of the parties he
represents trying to suggest to the City the maximum decibel levels
be changed. He explained their position of disagreement with the
City as simply with the manner in which the ordinance is being
interpreted and enforced at the present time.
Mr. Bassett gave history on George's Majestic Lounge and stated it
has been an institution in Fayetteville for a number of years which
attracts a very diverse group of people from all over Northwest
Arkansas to enjoy good music and socialize in an outdoor
environment. Anyone that is familiar with George's knows it to be
a good, well-run, well-managed, safe establishment at which a good
time can be had.
Mr. Bassett further explained George's Majestic Lounge wishes
simply to provide a place for people to have a good time, continue
with the music, and at the same time, not to unreasonably interfere
with anyone living in the immediate neighborhoods or area. He
submitted that this could be accomplished if the City's noise
1
July 7, 1992
ordinance is interpreted and enforced in the manner the Board
intended when originally passed. Bassett reported the police, have
:been reasonable and diplomatic whenever they receive a complaint,
but disagreed with their measuring the decibel level from the
property boundary of George's.
It is George's contention, based on the ordinance itself, in order
to be fair and reasonableto all concerned, the decibel level
should be measured from the property on which the person lives who
makes the complaint, and somewhere along the line, this has
changed. At one time, the ordinance was enforced and George's
operated in the fashion they are. suggesting. If the City Board
directs the City Prosecutor and Police Department to handle the
noise ordinance in this fashion;- Bassett stated he has every
confidence in the world that not 'only will George's be able to
continue to offer good music at'a reasonable sound level in which
its patrons can enjoy, and at the;same time, not unreasonably or
unnecessarily interfere with the peace and quiet the surrounding
neighbors ought to expect and receive. In his, judgment, Bassett
stated the manner in which the ordinance is currently being handled
is not only unfair, but may be•unconstitutional;rdue to the fact
this discussion is taking place and there is disagreement as to
where the sound should be measured from:
Mr. Bassett requested
interpretation of this
George's can take the
ordinance on the basis
interpretation, it is
the parties concerned
issue.
4
a resolution as' soon as possible of the
ordinance in akfair and reasonable manner.
position that thisris an` unconstitutional
that:.it.Js vague,;. subject to'more than one
a violation of due process because none of
seem to know the,law'with regard to this
• ' N
.yln.. •M i
Bassett reported since this dispute arose;2-3•months ago, George's
has taken a number of steps to,alleviate the..problem by:
1) sound proofing the stage; .2);keeping the dooi to the stage
closed at all times; and 3) keeping the amps of the bands turned
down to a level at which they Can still play their,music and the
patrons can enjoy. Since these steps were taken,•the frequency of.
complaints have dropped dramatically with no tickets issued in the
past 11 months, and there are other steps the management of
George's intends to take to correct the problem.
Director Coody stated Mr. Howard has admitted the sound level has
decreased and the situation improved since these steps were
recently taken by George's. He suggested if George's continues to
operate in this manner, which seems to be somewhat effective, this
may be a good middle ground to keep the noise at an acceptable
level for the patrons, but not unacceptable to the neighbors.
Charles Howard responded before the steps at noise control -were
taken at George's, the noise level was outrageous, and now it is
bad.
July 7, 1992
Woody Bassett stated it seems to him the intent of the City Board
in the early 80's when the ordinance was initially passed and later
amended was to protect the citizens and residents of Fayetteville
in the privacy of their homes from unreasonable and excessive
noise. He reiterated George's main contention that when a
complaint is phoned in to the Police Department, they should
immediately go to the complainant's residence and measure the noise
from that point. Mr. Bassett reported complaints have been phoned
in during the past 4-5 weeks in which people have alleged noise
coming from George's, when in fact George's had no outdoor music.
He reported noise has been coming from a warehouse just south of
George's where bands practice from time to time.
In response to Director Green's question, Woody Bassett responded
police officers have been measuring the noise level from the
western boundary of George's next to the Polk building. He further
stated his belief that the sound coming from the beer garden tends
to bounce off the concrete wall of the Polk building which he
believes increases the decibel level. He further reported George's
has purchased their own decibel machine to measure and monitor the
sound level themselves, and reports the decibel level on the
western edge of the property line is 3-5 decibels higher than the
measurement taken on the eastern edge of the property.
Dr. Bill Harrison, a major stockholder of George's Corporation,
addressed the Board and citizens of Fayetteville and apologized for
George's offending them in any way. He admitted during the period
in which Mr. Howard moved to the neighborhood, George's was making
a lot of noise. However, in the last three months, they have made
a very concerted effort to lower the decibel level, not only on the
street outside and neighborhoods, but inside George's itself. Dr.
Harrison reported the majority of decibel measurements they have
taken have been less than 65 decibels. He further reiterated Mr.
Bassett's statement that there are other noise makers within
Fayetteville, and George's is not the only noise source in this
area.
Rosa Robinson, resident for 20 years one block north of George's,
addressed the Board refuting previous statements regarding other
noise makers, stating there is no comparison whatsoever to the
outdoor amplified music coming from George's. Common sense tells
her if the music from George's can be heard at City Park, which is
four blocks away and over a hill, at her house one block from
George's, the music is too loud to sleep. Her children have grown
up struggling to sleep at night from the music emitted from
George's 5 nights a week.
Ms. Robinson reported an effort on her part made two years ago to
get George's to lower their music, and while this did occur for
awhile, the sound level gradually crept back up again. Since that
time, her attempts have been futile when making such a request of
George's. Living next door to a fraternity for 20 years, Ms.
1
3 /vJ
July 7, 1992
Robinson can attest that a loud fraternity party may occur twice a
year. Her family can leave home during these parties; however,
they can not; leave home 3-5 nights a week to escape the noise
coming from George's. She further stated that George's music seems
to get louder after 11:00 p.m. and causes her windows to shake a
block away.
She further reported following a complaint she made on May 1st, the
police arrived at 12:30 and took a noise reading from her property
line which read at 65 decibels. There are problems with the noise
machine in that they cannot get it to the location when needed to
take a reading. In addition, the ordinance requires the reading be
taken from ground level. She does not sleep on'ground level, and
noise travels upward and is louder at second stories and above.
Ms. Robinson suggested the reason for George's recent heroic
efforts is due to the pressure applied to them by Mr. Howard. Ms.
Robinson further stated her belief the new roofing George's
purports to have installed for sound reasons was installed to be
able to operate their business outdoors in foul weather. Ms.
Robinson submitted to Mr. Bassett the surrounding residents of
George's Majestic Lounge are unduly annoyed by the noise emitted
from George's and questioned why George's did not make these
improvements years ago.
Robert Reus, resident 2s blocks from George's Majestic Lounge,
addressed the Board stating he .stands;.somewhere between the
extremes on this matter. There..are some nights when the noise from
George's has kept him awake and temporary solutions were taken
whenever he complained; however, he has;not heard:any noise coming
from George's in the past 2-3 months. Reus stated as a whole, he
enjoys the music at George's and the ambiance of the establishment.
However, he believes some of the Bands:performing at George's try
to make up in volume what they lack in talent as it.seems to be the
worst bands that are the loudest.!,In addition „ he the music does
seem to get louder as the evening:progresses, and he has suggested
the loudest music be played before 11:00 p.m., and then lower the
volume at that point. Reus .stated he wants to see George's
continue to have live music and believes this is possible if
George's is responsible and keeps -tin touch with what is happening
late at night. He further stated his belief that`residents would
have no protection at all if the ordinance was interpreted to read
that the noise readings should not be taken at the offended party's
home because if that were the case, George's would have some
latitude to increase the volume.
Director Green suggested for a two week trial period, noise
measurements be taken from the nearest residential property line
one block away as well as taking a corresponding reading at
George's property line and report at the next Board meeting. If it
can be verified that the noise limits can be kept within the levels
proscribed at a residential property one block away, this will be
well within limits the residents can live with.
July 7, 1992
Sam Guido, resident and volunteer night security officer of
Hillcrest Towers, addressed the Board stating the noise coming from
George's has been considerably lower in the past two months.
However, since he works at night and sleeps during the day, he is
bothered by train whistles as are other elderly residents living at
Hillcrest Towers. Mr. Guido suggested there are federal and state
grants available to the City to install guard arms at railroad
crossings which would eliminate the use of train whistles.
Mayor Vorsanger stated they will request the police monitor the
sound levels emitted from George's for the next two weeks as
suggested by Director Green, and report the results at the next
regular Board meeting.
OLD BUSINESS
Removed from the Agenda at the Board Agenda Session.
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 June 16, 1992 regular Board meeting and the
February 26, 1992 Board retreat;
B. A resolution approving Task Order No. 2 in an amount not to
exceed $15,160 for additional engineering and construction
observation work with McClelland Consulting Engineers on
Airport Federal Grant 63-05-0020-16, the Airfield Lighting
Renovation Project.
This change will provide for the sign plan and construction
observation work necessary to install new and/or renovate the
airfield signs to comply with new FAA regulations. Funds are
available in the grant for this work, and the project is still
under budget after this task order. Both the FAA and Airport
Board concur with this Task Order.
RESOLUTION 98-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERR'S OFFICE
C. A resolution approving Supplemental Agreement 61 with Merit
Electric, Inc., for $37,155 for the installation of new signs
and renovated signage panels to meet new FAA airfield sign
regulations on Airport Federal Grant $3-05-0020-16, the
Airfield Lighting Renovation Project.
1
July 74 1992 r -
07
•f.
i
This was not bid with the original project because the new
sign regulations were not.yet complete. Thiflgreement will
cover all materials and construction expenses.related to this
signage renovation. Funds are available inthe grant for this
work, and the project is:still under budget after this task
order. Both the FAA and Airport,Board concur with this Task
Order.•" , .' •
r
RESOLUTION 99-92 AS RECORDED IN -THE CITY=CLERR'S OFFICE.
:D. Removed from the Consent Agenda;' "+•
$. A renovation approving ..a.. contract' with' Bob Callans and
Associates for the design documents ;for landscaping the new 32
acre addition to Walker Park in the,amount of.$17,766 plus a
contingency of $1,777 for atotal of.$19,543;
These landscape architects will be coordinating the new design
with the existing recreational -facilities-located in Walker
Park and Walker Park North. 'They will hold several public
meetings, prepare a site analysis, prepare a design plan for
the park, study the parking needs and safety$of the 75 acre
tract, and the possible usage of the existing house taking
into consideration a grave yard that is on the property.
F. A resolution approving,a contract with •Crafton, Tull and
Associates in the amount.of $20,250 plus a contingency of
$2,025 for a total of $22,275 for the design and construction
management for .sealing, waterproofing, and performing
miscellaneous rehabilitation as needed to the Municipal
Parking Garage; (A copy of the Crafton, Tull and Associates
assessment of condition and recommended repairs is available
for inspection in the City Clerk's Office.)
This rehabilitation was part of the 1992. budget in the Off-
Street Parking Fund. Crafton, Tull and Associates found no
major structural problems with the facility during the
investigation and analysis phase of the engineering contract;
however, there are major water infiltration and leakage
problems•which effect both the life and serviceability of the
structure.
RESOLUTION 100-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Blackston, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the Consent
Agenda.
Director Coody requested that Item "E" be removed from the Consent
Agenda, on behalf of Robert Reus, in order that he can address this
item.
+-1 d ,:v'4
July 7, 1992
Upon roll call, the motion to approve the Consent Agenda passed by
a vote of 5 to 0.
"ITEM "E"
Robert Reus addressed the Board stating there has been a petition
drawn up by the citizens in the neighborhood surrounding the Walker
Park annex recently purchased and will be presented to the City
Attorney for his approval next week. This petition will
essentially turn the annex into a forest/nature preserve area,
limiting development to a jogging trail, exercise areas, picnic
area, and restricting the parking to diagonal along Block Street.
Reus stated that this initiative is essentially from the citizens
living adjacent to the Walker Park annex and in the neighborhood,
and that he had nothing to do with this action, other than giving
his suggestions regarding various legal technicalities with writing
the ordinance.
Reus reported that the ordinance is planned for presentation to the
City Board at their next agenda session, at which time a press
conference will be held. Reus suggested that due to these
developments, that this item regarding the landscape contracts for
the Walker Park annex be tabled until the next board meeting to
allow these citizens time to present and explain their proposal as
well as to save $18,000 in a landscaping contract in the event that
this matter is put to a vote in November.
Mayor Vorsanger asked City Attorney Rose to explain the legal
ramifications involved with such a petition, such as the number of
signatures required. Rose responded that he was not sure, but he
would research the matter.
Robert Reus responded to Mayor Vorsanger that 1586 signatures were
required or 15 percent.
City Attorney Rose stated this was an initiated ordinance by the
citizens and handled in the same manner as any citizen initiated
ordinance.
Director Green stated he was unclear as to what Robert Reus was
suggesting other than a possible addition to the landscape contract
program. He requested comments from a Park & Recreation
representative regarding their reaction to this petition and how it
would impact the landscaping contract.
Dale Clark, Parks & Recreation Director, addressed the Board
stating that the contract with the landscape architects was to
obtain their opinion on the best use of the property. In addition,
a number of public hearings were to be held involving the citizens
to determine their needs and desires for the use of this property.
Clark further stated that they have several interests for the use
of this property, but currently have no definite plans. These
1
July 7,41992'
interests include nature,'softball, soccer, and u'se:of the house by
the community, and these various interests should come into play
before any final decisions would or should be made.
Director Coody asked whether the petitioners would°be invited to
attend planned public meetings on the Walker Park annex and have an
opportunity to give their input and ideas. Lallans & Associates
could then incorporate their ideas into the site analysis and plan.
Clark responded the petitioners would have"such an opportunity, and
these public meetings would be-held`inclose vicinity to the
neighborhood possibly at JeffefSom-Elementary School
4
Mayor Vorsanger stated one of his concerns with not moving ahead on
this project is that they are faced with taking everything to the
public for a vote. He findsrthis ridiculous -as -these actions
create a referendum at every turn, and the City 'Board's role is to
make these kinds of decisions. 4
Vorsanger, seconded by Green,• made a motion. to accept the
resolution.
Director Blackston commented that it is only logical that before
such a project commences, they must rely on the expertise of
.consultants in establishing a plan. He suggested that they proceed
with the resolution in order to collect study and input regarding
development of the annex; thereafter, followed by public hearings,
at which time citizens can express their agreement or disagreement
of the proposed plan.
A lady in the audience addressed the Board stating she believes
this procedure is turned around, and it would be more advantageous
to collect input from residents in the Walker Park area regarding
their concerns and desires for this property.. It would be a waste
of money, time and energy for the City to proceed to invest in
these landscaping plans that may not be acceptable to citizens who
enjoy this wooded area.
Mayor Vorsanger stated this was the purpose of public hearings.
When a referendum is, requested, then a vote of the people is
required. Since that vote would be in November, this project would
be put on hold until then. He -reiterated that part of the planning
process is to collect input from citizens as to the use of this
!area.
Katherine Adam, resident on the south side of Walker Park,
addressed the Board stating the public is tired of being "taken to
the cleaners" in public hearings. This proposed annex is presently
a natural area and in her view, should not be turned into another
play field for citizens from other parts of the City. The City
Board should listen to the wishes of residents in the)Walker Park
area as this park belongs to them.
July 7, 1992
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
RESOLUTION 101-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution approving Change Order No.
5 with Branco Enterprises in the amount of $10,721 for the
Fayetteville High School Construction Project.
The City will not make any payments in excess of the $2,760,000 in
escrow at this time. This change revises grading and site concrete
between the addition and the existing building, credit for revision
in the scope of the fire proofing portion of the work, and site
revisions to minimize the disturbance to existing vegetation, rock
excavation, and planting of some green space areas.
Mayor Vorsanger reported that Director Green has worked on the
plans for this project, and it was removed from the Consent Agenda
in order that Director Green could abstain from a vote.
Blackston, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 4-0-1, with
Director Green abstaining.
RESOLUTION 102-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REZONE R92-21
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning the portion of
7.32 acres that is zoned A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density
Residential, and is located south of Old Wire Road and west of Oak
Bailey as requested by Curtis Wray on behalf of Dr. Carmella
Montes.
The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the
rezoning, and the Board has toured the property.
Director of Planning Alett Little explained a portion of this
property is currently zoned A-1, Agricultural, although a two-
thirds majority of the land is zoned R-1, single family
residential. The request for rezoning is simply to make the entire
parcel which is currently under one ownership a common zone, R-1,
single family residential, in order that it can be developed as a
subdivision. The entire area surrounding this property has
developed as residential property although some of the land is also
zoned A-1.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, seconded by
Henry, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
1
July -.7, 'I992
on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote
of 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Blackston,
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 passed by a -vote of 5.to 0. The ordinance was
read for the third and final time.+
-4. •k
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by -a vote of 5 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3619 APPEARS ON PAGE JS y •OF:ORDINANCE.BOOR (XVII
RECESS
F.
Mayor Vorsanger requested a 5 minute recess be taken at this time.
• a
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICIES. AND PROCEDURES
•
Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution amending the Vegetation
Management Plan.
The proposed amendment is a result of two years of meetings of the
Vegetation Management Advisory Committee, and it is proposed as a
"workable" policy for the City. The cost to implement the policy
will be $105,000 for 1993 and will be contingent upon funding in
the 1993 budget.
Jerry Cooper, Staff Administrator, addressed the Board stating he
has been working with the Herbicide Task Force, established in
1990, and the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee, established
last year. He reported the process for development of this
vegetation management policy for the City has been very
challenging. Cooper stated he would be highlighting a couple of
concepts identified in the vegetation management plan, reviewing
the provisions of the plan, and outlining the major areas of
concern that have been addressed.
Cooper reported the proposed vegetation management plan utilizes an
integrated vegetation management concept. He explained through
this concept, cultural, natural, and herbicide treatments are
utilized. However, herbicide treatments are only used when an
identified threshold has been exceeded in a specific area.
In order to make the plan successful, a process has been outlined
and utilized that was developed in Eugene, Oregon by Mr. Tim Ray,
Parks Specialist. Mr. Ray advocates controlling vegetation on a
small scale basis rather than implementing alternative method(s) of
controlling vegetation city-wide.
Cooper reported one area of concern has been with turf
and the proposed plan advocates sprigging and sodding,
with cool -season turf grasses, coring 5-6 times
fertilizing 3-4 times per year, liming to a proper
maintenance,
over -seeding
per season,
Ph balance,
�•_
July 7, 1992
watering regularly, mulching with compost and/or sand, and mowing
to heights of 2 inches. He stated this is a very comprehensive
plan which sets out a threshold of 30% weed infestation. Cooper
explained this threshold can subsequently be raised or lowered
based upon experience and citizen requests. If the 30% threshold
is not maintained, the option is available for spot treatment with
approved herbicides, which are listed in category 3 and 4.
Cooper further stated the cost of turf maintenance is the most
costly portion of the entire vegetation management plan. Several
pieces of equipment are required in order to implement the plan,
including a turf maintenance roller and mowers at a capital cost of
approximately $24,500. The sprigging program is outlined at a cost
of approximately $12,500, fertilizing program at $4,100, watering
costs of $2,200, and additional labor at $11,400.
Another area of concern in the City is with fence rows, sign posts,
and fire hydrants. In order to present the magnitude of problems
possible, Cooper reported the City has 17,900 linear feet of
chainlink fencing in parks, 5,000 traffic signs, 1,090 fire
hydrants, and 17,800 linear feet of chain-link fence at the
Airport. Cooper explained they are attempting to find long-term
solutions for these problems with a reduction in the cost while
short-term costs may be extensive.
He stated the proposed plan advocates the "Building Down Approach"
which suggests a concrete underlay to a portion of the fence at the
Wilson Park ballfields. The test area would be observed and
assuming no problems are encountered, concrete underlay is a long-
term solution which would alleviate any use of herbicides along
fence rows and could be implemented city-wide. In addition, Cooper
outlined another alternative for establishing alternative
vegetation along fence rows. These demonstrations will be
conducted at Wilson Park tennis courts, Walker Park exterior, Lake
Fayetteville North, and the boat dock area. There are a number of
vegetation alternatives, such as crown vetch and bermuda grasses,
which could reduce edging and trimming costs.
Cooper explained a problem exists at the Airport due to FAA
regulations, and the proposed plan advocates the Airport use any
method available to maintain their fence rows. With regard to sign
posts and fire hydrants, the plan advocates the use of a mulching
program on one problem site, followed by close monitoring to
determine whether this option is workable.
A number of problems identified with road-side maintenance include
cross-walks with line-of-sight problems. Safety of children in
cross-walks must be considered and certain areas must be maintained
in the best way possible utilizing the most appropriate method.
This same type of problem exists at intersections, such as the
Wedington/Sunset intersection, and the planned objective is to
1
July •7., 1992
eliminate the problem in;sorder to prevent accidents at such
intersections.
Cooper stated the problem of road and sidewalk cracks has been
addressed and without the identified herbicide methods, there is no
method that could work. The normal method for problem areas only
would be to remove grasses from -cracks .during the wet season,
followed by impregnation with approved herbicides,4and sealing of
the cracks with a tar sealant. A.demonstration listed in the plan
is to conduct the same process without the use of herbicides. Both
processes would then be monitored in order to determine changes and
cost differentials with the two methods. Another demonstration
outlined was to burn the grass with a propane burner, although this
method cannot be used in an area of high travel by the public, as
it is extremely hazardous.
Poison ivy control is considered by weighing the use of herbicides,
which some argue have effects on humans and animals against the
effects of contact with poison ivy. The proposed plan suggests a
demonstration project utilizing a cultural method of poison ivy
control by grubbing out and replacing poison ivy with alternative
vegetation and monitoring to determine whether it is working. A
zero tolerance for poison ivy is set in the proposed plan, and due
to this process, complaints of poison ivy would hopefully be
diminished. If the use of herbicides is necessary, Round -up is
advocated to control the poison ivy.
With regard to ornamental plots, the plan advocates removing weeds
prior to mulching during the wet season, apply 4" mulch, observe
and monitor the plot which purports to keep the weeds at a 20%
tolerance level. If this level cannot be maintained, then
herbicides can be added to the plan.
Jerry Cooper explained the proposed vegetation management plan
contains an extensive notification process, and there are a number
of methods for notifying the public one week prior to any
application of herbicides. This process includes notification
through the news media and Government Access channel, mail notices
when requested, and placement of signs on the treatment sites one
week prior and removed three days later.
The plan further suggests Ordinance 2076 be enforced which requires
that private property owners maintain the rights-of-way adjacent
and in front of their property. Management would need the
discretion to control the unique problems of weed control by
elderly and disabled property owners.
Dr. Edward Dale, Chairman of the Vegetation Management Advisory
Committee, addressed the Board explaining the 'purpose of this
committee was to develop a plan to emphasize management methods
which do not use herbicide control initially. In preparing the
proposed vegetation management plan, Dale stated the committee
%J9
•
July 7, 1992
attempted to consider all available information, including
statements made at the public hearing, letters from concerned
citizens, and the scientific literature.
The greatest amount of controversy and majority of contention
received by the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee came about
concerning the use of herbicides. Dale believes this controversy
is based on emotion, rather than fact; there is a lot of ignorance
regarding modern herbicide technology, and many people have had a
bad experience due to the misuse of these agents. Safeguards have
been built into the plan so that citizens desiring herbicides not
be sprayed near their property simply need to request that spraying
not take place. Dr. Dale further reported members of the committee
have been working with these substances for years and have
extensive training and experience. He suggested the undesirable
alternatives be considered such as the danger to city employees by
mowers, burners, etc.
Dr. Dale stated he doubts the proposed Vegetation Management Plan
will please everybody. However, he feels assured the Committee has
put their very best effort into this plan, meeting in weekly
workshops for four months. Dr. Dale stated his support for the
proposed plan and recommended that the same be adopted by the City
of Fayetteville.
Mayor Vorsanger thanked the Vegetation Management Advisory
Committee for the materials provided to the Board on this project
and commended them for their work on this two year effort.
Linda Telthorst addressed the Board stating in the past four years,
she has spent a great deal of time educating the public about the
effects of chemical herbicides. This education has occurred
through the only available channels by participating in city
government, writing letters to editors, calling press conferences,
placing the use of herbicides on the ballot, and working with the
very people who would like to see toxic chemicals used in the City
on a regular basis. She reported since 1988, the U of A Agronomy
Department has lost $2 million in grants from chemical companies
for research programs.
Ms. Telthorst reported the Weed Science Society of America is
working to bring a proposal before Congress that would override any
state, city or community law banning local government use of
herbicides. The residents of Fayetteville are underestimating the
efforts of chemical companies on the sales and use of herbicides in
the U.S., with pesticide sales down by 10 to 15% from the $8
billion annual sales of 1990.
In 1988 the City of Fayetteville received a warning from the State
Plant Board for violating the Pesticide Use and Application Act,
and citizens petitioned for placement of this issue on the ballot,
with 5,800 votes to ban herbicides. In 1990, 487 gallons of
1
1
July 7, 1992
herbicides were sprayed on the' -3 of 'A Old Main campus which
included 2-4-D and resulted in another warning from the State Plant
Board .urging U of A maintenance to read herbicide labels for
:correct use procedures. Ms. Telthorst further reported an incident
in 1990 where children became•ill•.after playing.;in a, park in the
sand where herbicides had been sprayed“
Ms. Telthorst stated in 1990, the City of Fayetteville voted to
lift the herbicide moratorium in order to conduct: experimentation
with herbicides with the U of A,Agronomy Department.t This contract
between the U.of A and the City included Drs. Ron Talbert and John
King and student David Rupp were paid $14,000 in :tax dollars for
less than a year's work with nothing to show for their efforts but
a projection of what herbicides should have been used to make their
work easier. Drs. Ron Talbert and John King arelexperts in the use
of herbicides and sit on the Vegetation Management Advisory
Committee. Dr. Ron Talbert is not a resident of the City and both
men are in direct conflict of interest for being named on the
contract with the U of A. Ms. Telthorst reported that Dr. Charlie
Amlander, a Zoologist at the U of A who also sits on the Committee,
has been asked to serve on a national task force studying the
effects of pesticides on birds.
Ms. Telthorst reported Dr. Edward Dale, the VMAC Chairman, has
personally threatened her twice with removal from the Committee for
a conflict of interest for representing the environmentally ill and
voters wanting a ban on herbicides. However, Ms. Telthorst, in her
application to serve on the VMAC, stated if chosen to serve on the
committee, she would serve this public viewpoint. A toxicologist
was supposed to serve on VMAC, but none applied for the position.
Therefore, the Vegetation Management Advisory Committee is made up
of two experts on toxins, referring to Drs. Talbert and King, with
no one to balance the committee to represent how toxins react in
the human body or in the environment.
The first action of VMAC was to takeaway the least toxic category
that the Herbicide Task Force has specifically outlined as the only
herbicides to be used in the City. Herbicide levels 3 and 4 are
now open for use, and these two levels include 2-4-D which was
banned by VMAC for use in Fayetteville, but Drs. King and Talbert
are pushing for the use_of this herbicide. Ms. Telthorst stated
Dr. King has distributed literature funded by chemical companies
disputing the study of the National Cancer Institute confirming
that 2-4-D caused cancer in dogs.
Secondly, VMAC voted for removal on the moratorium on herbicide
spraying in Fayetteville which has allowed experimental spraying of
herbicides to take place in the City this summer by Drs. Talbert
and King. This experimentation helps both men in their resumes,
meaning increased grants from chemical companies for the U of A
Agronomy Department. It is recorded that both men have stated all
July 7, 1992
herbicides used in 1992 in Fayetteville experiments have been
provided as free samples from chemical companies.
Telthorst further addressed notices sent by Drs. Talbert and King
in June of 1992, with theLapproval of Jerry Cooper and Scott
Linebaugh, stating they planned to use the herbicide Dimension in
Walker Park. Dimension is registered as an experimental herbicide
only, and is such a new product from Monsanto, and it is not yet
listed in the herbicide handbook, nor is this herbicide listed
among the 27 herbicides condoned for use by the majority of the
VMAC. Through the efforts of Barbara Moorman, this toxic chemical
was removed for use in Walker Park.
Director Coody asked Staff Administrator Jerry Cooper for
confirmation that Ms. Telthorst's allegation of the planned use of
Dimension was correct.
Jerry Cooper responded the label copied was an old label from the
U of A, dated in 1990. Dimension has an EPA registration and is no
longer an experiment.
Ms. Telthorst responded in other words, Barbara Moorman was given
misleading and outdated information which also seems to be part of
the ongoing problem VMAC has had with the City.
She further reported within the last month, the Baseball League
Association, in conjunction with the Parks Department, and Drs.
Talbert and King sent out petitions for parents to sign whose
children attended city sports programs. The petition stated the
undersigned wanted a vegetation management program approved in
Fayetteville. Of course, everyone wants such a program; however,
none of the parents signing the petition were aware that the
vegetation manual in question contained 27 herbicides slated for
use in Fayetteville and on ball fields. The VMAC manual was voted
into being before all committee members had discussed changes and
herbicide. Experts King and Talbert and Vice -Chairman Al Vick, out
of a 7 member committee, voted to send the manual with 27
herbicides included for use in Fayetteville to the Board. Ms.
Telthorst then read the list of 27 herbicides and the dangers
associated with the herbicides included in the manual to be
approved by the Board of Directors and slated for use in
Fayetteville. The acceptable limits which the citizens of
Fayetteville will be exposed to will build up over time in human or
animal bodies eventually causing death by cancers or immune
dysfunction.
Ms. Telthorst stated in her opinion, 90% of all comments made at
the public hearing regarding vegetation management were dismissed,
and none of the suggestions were implemented in the manual. When
Jerry Cooper was requested to provide the names of Fayetteville
residents writing to the City asking that no herbicides be used
near their property, he provided VMAC with eleven names. However,
•
July; 7; =1992
when Barbara Moorman requested the,samerinformataon from City Clerk
Sherry Thomas, she provided a list of 151 citizens making this
request. Telthorst stated each Member'sfinput•.from„the VMAC was to
be incorporated into the manual,* yet heriinput isnot included.
3
When asked why she went so far •with her efforts to protect the
environment or why she .did 'not stand in ;solidarity with
environmentalists on the VMAC, Telthorst responded if she threatens
their peace of. mind, they should~question whether it's because she
is a�.woman or because she has.more courage than:'other committee
members to face opposition even.though it means thinking beyond
:preordained, accepted behavior bycpolitical activists in the VMAC.
:Her anger comes from years of frustration working in a law abiding
'manner to change a way of thinking that can no longer exist, if we
are to survive on this planet.,
Mayor Vorsanger stated he resents Ms. Telthorst's constant
references to these outstanding faculty members in their field and
prize-winning scientists at the U of A as being the type of people
who are dishonest and without integrity. In. addition, Ms.
Telthorst continues to refer to the 5,863 people who voted against
the use of herbicides in 1988, but fails to mention that 6,720
people voted to use herbicides. Finally, regarding Ms. Telthorst's
continued reference to 2-4-D, Vorsanger stated he has reviewed the
manual and as a layman, he cannot pronounce the majority of the
language used; however, it was clearly indicated that the VMAC did
not recommend the use of 2-4-D. He further stated he appreciates
the work Ms. Telthorst has done on the VMAC and believes the Board
of Directors and Committee members have done her justice in
listening to her over the past months and years.
Linda•Telthorst stated it is her job to inform the Board of the
activities of these committees and task force. Mayor Vorsanger
stated these gentlemen from the U of A are not liars. However, she
feels they have repeatedly broken the law in the manner in which
:they have advised people to use herbicides, and in the way
herbicides were used on their own campus. She questions why the
.Board continues to go back to these same gentlemen who seem to love
using maximum approved doses of EPA herbicides and consistently go
against labelling.
Wilbur Watson, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating although he offered to serve on the VMAC, after what he had
just heard, he thanked whoever kept him off of the committee. He
further stated without the use of herbicides and pesticides, the
cost of our food supply would be astronomical. He has kept up with
the VMAC and reviewed a copy of their proposed vegetation
management plan and recommends approval.
John King, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board with a
statement outlining 11 history of the herbicide controversy in
Fayetteville. :He reported that in June of 1988 the spraying of
July 7, 1992
herbicides was protested and the use of these herbicides ceased in
late June. To the best of his knowledge, very little if any
herbicide spraying has been done by the City since that time. The
vegetation management plan is a product of more than twenty long,
arduous meetings, considers all points of view and relevant
scientific safety data, and contains many compromises. King
further stated demonstrations, employee training, safety
procedures, and integrated vegetation management decision processes
are both conservative and progressive. Due process and
deliberation have been achieved during the four years leading up to
the current meeting. King urged the Board of Directors to pass the
proposed vegetation management plan.
Richard Forsythe, resident of Fayetteville and employee of Campbell
Soup in a research and technical service capacity, addressed the
Board stating the majority of his responsibilities dealt with the
development of programs relating to the safe and sufficient use of
materials to control vegetation around poultry houses and
processing operations. Since retiring from Campbell Soup in 1988,
Dr. Forsythe stated he has been employed by the U of A in the
Department of Poultry Science with the responsibility of
coordinating a 3-State Animal Product Food Safety Program.
Scientists in this arena have studied a variety of chemical
substances to improve safety of the animal food supply.
Although he is not an expert in vegetation management, Dr. Forsythe
stated he has had extensive experience in evaluating procedures to
improve the safety of our environment and food supply. As a member
of the Vegetation Management Task Force since 1990, Dr. Forsythe
stated he has carefully studied the proposed plan. Although it is
not a perfect plan, it is effective and describes cost-efficient
programs for the management of undesirable vegetation on City
property. He stated he personally believes the plan contains too
many demonstration plots and doesn't believe the use of herbicides
should be used at Wilson Park. Herbicide-free is a term he cannot
believe is a part of modern technology. In any discussion of risk
management, two components should be considered, the hazards vs.
the exposure of people to the herbicide. The members of VMAC are
experts in their field and have made their recommendations to the
Board. Dr. Forsythe urged the Board to accept the proposed
vegetation management plan and develop a program to communicate the
principles and practices of risk assessment and the management of
herbicides to the citizens of Fayetteville.
Gary Brodenax addressed the Board stating if herbicides are to be
used in Fayetteville, he suggested the following amendments to the
vegetation management plan:
1. Herbicides not be used within the city parks in May
through September while the parks are in heavy use.
While areas of herbicidal use may be a limited percentage
1
•
July.7, 1992
of the park, unpleasant fumes from the use of these
chemicals can be noticed over•a much larger area.
2. Areas of herbicidal application be posted with warning
signs on all perimeters:
3. Some symbol of the use of poisonous chemicals be featured
conspicuously on the posted warning signs, and the City
see to it school children are instructed as to the
meaning of these signs.
4. Parking areas at city parks where herbicides are in use
be posted so that persons may have the option to leave.
the area before being exposed to herbicidal chemicals
and/or fumes.
These four suggestions result from his personal observations at
Walker Park since recent herbicide applications have begun. Mr.
Brodenax stated the vegetation management plan should not be
approved until at least these concerns are adequately addressed
within the plan and herbicide application at Walker Park should be
suspended.
Bill Waite, Vice -Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board,
addressed the Board advising that the PRAB voted unanimously and
strongly to endorse the integrated vegetation management plan and
recommends its adoption. This plan is a compromise between very
strongly held opposing beliefs and is a reasonable and workable
solution to the large problem with vegetation management in City
parks. Mr. Waite stated the PRAB appeals to everyone involved in
the process to arrive at a decision involving this matter as soon
as possible. They are currently operating under the worst of both
worlds with the prohibition of herbicide use for two years and no
increase in funds and personnel for alternative procedures, and the
situation is progressively getting out -of -hand. A compromise is
needed to attempt to regain control over the playing fields and
vegetation they are managing, and the proposed plan offers this
opportunity.
Larry Tabor, President of the Fayetteville Soccer Association,
addressed the Board stating the FSA has been actively pursuing a
plan in conjunction with the City which is totally in line with the
playing field portion of the plan and identifies the use of
sprigging, sodding, over -seeding, fertilizing, etc. They have
committed considerable resources to implement these procedures
which are still not adequate. With regard to the 30% weed
tolerance infestation before herbicide use can be considered, Tabor
stated it would be better if they could address this before the
weeds reached that point and apply pre -emergent to allow the grass
to become established before the weeds.
July 7, 1992
Mr. Tabor stated his perception of the statements made at the
public hearings regarding vegetation management are much different
than those of Ms. Telthorst. One suggestion made was to use
volunteers to pull weeds; however, he does not see this as an
option considering the size and number of soccer fields to be
maintained. Even with the endorsement of this vegetation plan,
those people still have the opportunity to volunteer to attempt to
keep the weed infestation below 30%. Tabor reported they already
have thousands of hours of parent volunteer time invested in
running the Soccer Association. The FSA believes the proposed plan
would be effective and provide their children with quality and
safe playing areas.
Pete Jenkins, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
disputing Ms. Telthorst's statement that the petition submitted by
the Baseball Association was connected with the City Park &
Recreation Department; rather this petition was a totally volunteer
action. He stated he is present to represent over 1,200 kids who
are actively enjoying playing baseball as summertime recreation at
Walker Park and at the Industrial Park. The Parks & Recreation
maintenance personnel do the best they can with what they have, but
even so, the weeds are so tall in the playing fields that the ball
is sometimes impossible to locate. As a citizen of Fayetteville,
Jenkins stated he will be embarrassed during the upcoming district
youth baseball tournament where most cities in Northwest Arkansas
will be represented, and attendance will exceed 1000 per day
because of the weeds, clumps, and extra mounds in the outfields
which cause injuries, broken legs, and makes for an unpleasant
playing area.
Mr. Jenkins stated he depends on the City's elected officials and
experts at the U of A and others who study and work continuously in
this area. He doubted any one of those officials or professors
would want their children playing baseball in an unsafe area. If
Fayetteville is to be a leader in Northwest Arkansas, they need to
act like leaders and provide the best conditions available.
Jenkins presented the Board with a petition signed by over 300
parents and members of the Fayetteville Baseball Association which
urged the City Board to provide the City Park & Recreation
Department of Fayetteville with an appropriate vegetation
management program and personnel to accomplish such a program. He
urged the Board to accept the proposed vegetation plan.
Al Vick, Vice -Chairman of the Vegetation Management Advisory
Committee, addressed the Board stating the names of many of the
members of the VMAC have been dragged through the mud and
misquoted, and what was witnessed tonight, has gone on week after
week on the VMAC. He stated his personal sentiment with regard to
herbicide use has not changed. However, he supports the proposed
vegetation management plan because he believes it is progressive,
and the need for chemicals will eventually be eliminated or
1
July 7, 1992.
drastically reduced. The plan,.due'to,the'number of demonstration
:projects using alternatives to chemicals, addresses environmental
concerns. Everyone will have.to give a little`for the plan to
work, and it strives to reduce herbicide use to the greatest extent
possible but still allows for judgment calls and discretion. Mr.
Vick stated the VMAC has worked extremely hard:on this proposed
'plan, and he requested that the Board approve it.
•
Robert Reus responded to Pete Jenkins' comments with regard to the
grass growth in the playing fields by stating herbicide use will
not kill the grass, but rather the grass needs to be cut. People
and children have been playing ball a lot longer than there have
been herbicides which came into general use in the 50's and 60's
with extreme use in the 70's. People tend to jump on new
scientific innovations long before the safety factors have been
addressed. In the last 40 years in which the use of herbicides and
pesticides have increased, cancer rates have also increased.
Reus stated with the change in government taking place in four
months, they may well see a number of candidates running for office
who are opposed to the use of herbicides as is he. Nothing the
opponents can say will stop the Board from passing the proposed
vegetation management plan. However, his concern is that the City
will spend a large amount of money on herbicides for next year, and
a new city government will either vote to extend the moratorium or
a mayor will refuse to use these toxic chemicals. Reus urged the
Board to use restraint in the purchase of chemicals until the new
elected officials take office.
Gayle O'Donnell, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating she has carefully reviewed the proposed vegetation
management plan and although she realizes this is acompromise on
all parts and looks really good on paper, her concerns will not be
happening on paper. Ms. O'Donnell stated she signed the Walker
Park petition with the comment that she did not want poisonous
herbicides placed on playing fields where her son plays ball. She
realizes herbicides will need to be used and hopefully phased out
over time within the experimental plots. She is against
experimentation with the use of new herbicides for chemical
companies as was expressed by Ms. Telthorst.
In response to Ms. O'Donnell., City Manager Linebaugh stated the
City is currently under a ban on the use of herbicides with the
exception of test plots such as at Walker Park.
Ms. O'Donnell questioned whether the use of experimental herbicides
shows good faith on the part of the demonstration team. Being a
high standing member of an academic community doesn't give her much
faith in these individuals and only shows her that they have the
ability to obtain grants.
•
July 7, 1992
In addition, Ms. O'Donnell questioned the need for 27 different
herbicides on the list and whether the number of herbicides can be
reduced to just those that are the safest that they can use. Can
they guarantee that the birds, insects, and pets will not be
affected by the use of herbicides? The plan states that toxicity
will be based on information from the EPA and herbicide labels.
Ms. O'Donnell questioned whether it would be possible for other
studies and sources of toxicity studies to be included in the plan?
She believes the toxicity information provided is too limited in
VMAC's report. With respect to the statement that the City would
honor written requests by citizens to not spray rights-of-way
adjoining their property, Ms. O'Donnell suggested that the City
facilitate this citizen right by mailing a notice to all citizens
which would give them this opportunity as well as annual employee
training on the use of herbicides.
Director Coody stated Ms. O'Donnell brings up some interesting
questions. Can the City facilitate the list of citizens who don't
want herbicides sprayed?
Mayor Vorsanger responded the proposed plan sets out that any
property owner not wishing to have herbicides sprayed in their
rights -of -ways are then responsible for maintaining these areas.
Barbara Moorman addressed the Board stating that 2-4-D is not
included in the proposed vegetation management plan is false. She
attended the VMAC meeting where Dr. Talbert started to make a
motion to reinstate 2-4-D in the plan and to not limit the City to
the 28 formulations/products listed. It was suggested by another
committee member that Dr. Talbert make his motion at a later time
to reinstate 2-4-D to the plan, once the plan was passed, and she
had been advised that Dr. Talbert has made the statement that he
does plan to have 2-4-D reinstated on the list. Ms. Moorman stated
the only way to forestall this would be if this vegetation
management plan is a one-year plan, as set out by the Policies &
Procedures document. Ms. Moorman suggested language be added to
the plan to the effect that no additions can be made to the plan,
and that 2-4-D will not be reinstated in this version of the plan.
Ms. Moorman addressed Mayor Vorsanger's statements which took Ms.
Telthorst to task for being critical of professors at the
University and stated he should make clear his standing with the U
of A which is Vice -President Emeritus. In all fairness, they must
look at the situation as it is. She referred to a 1986 publication
by Yale University Press, Biotechnology - The University Industrial
Complex stating some colleagues of Drs. Talbert and King are
currently involved in biotechnology, specifically with some of the
chemical companies mentioned in the book.
With regard to the question of expertise, Ms. Moorman stated the
data she has provided to the VMAC was taken from scientific
July 7, 1992
articles produced by experts and is therefore not a question of
popular press as Dr. King and others would like it to appear.
Ms. Moorman stated her biggest problem with the proposed vegetation
management plan is with the 28 herbicide formulations listed. If
this plan is a compromise, she sees no reason for.this number of
herbicides. Another issue , of concern is ,with herbicide
demonstrations that might include'chemicals not on the list. At
all VMAC meetings, Drs. King and Talbert have insisted the City had
all the paperwork available on every chemical they ever plan to
use. When she approached Jerry Cooper requesting information on
Dithiapear, he had no information whatsoever and requested it be
faxed from the University. When she received this information, the
experimental use pages were absolutely illegible. When she finally
received a legible copy, it turned out she was given outdated
information. Ms. Moorman stated as long as the City relies totally
on these individuals from the U of A for their information, this
will be a continual problem.
The plan contains several prescriptions for herbicide applications,
such as filling sidewalks with tar impregnated with several
different chemicals, or applying 4-5 different chemicals at one
time on one bed of flowers or one ball field. According to the
'U.S. Forest Service, Ms. Moorman stated there is no data on the
effects of using several different herbicides at the same time in
one spot.
Ms. Moorman further stated the proposed vegetation management plan
.is short on mechanics for implementation. For instance, citizens
are responsible for the upkeep of rights-of-way adjoining their
property. Will the City assist these citizens in finding non -
chemical methods for taking care of this? If a citizen does use
herbicides to maintain these city rights-of-way, is he required to
post notification signs, and if not, what happens if he lives next
door to a chemically -sensitive person? Is the citizen or the City
liable for damages? Ms. Moorman stated many questions such as
these have been asked by City Staff members, as well as herself,
and have been ignored.
Another of her concerns is either the naivete or the bad faith of
the planners referring to VMAC plans to make Finger Park, but not
Gulley Park, herbicide -free. She referred to a particular fire
hydrant mentioned in the plan, shown in a slide to the VMAC, and
presented as a typical problem. If this is a hazard and a problem,
then it needs to be addressed rather than sitting back and using it
as an example of rampant vegetation. If it is not a problem, then
why bring it up to the VMAC. Ms. Moorman stated her belief this
sort of neglect is to some extent created. Regarding notification
of no -spray requests by citizens, Ms. Moorman reported in 1989 and
1990, 150 people asked that their property or adjoining property
not be sprayed. When the City was asked for a list of these names,
only 11 names were produced, and no one could seem to find the list
July 7, 1992
containing 150 names, which they all knew existed. The list that
was eventually provided still lacked some 58 names. Although the
City has been under a herbicide ban, herbicides have been sprayed
in demonstration plots, and residents living near these areas could
not have been notified because the City did not have their hands on
the no -spray requests. Ms. Moorman stated it is the mechanics of
this notification process that will cause problems.
Ms. Moorman stated when toxic chemicals are used, especially when
used for frivolous and made-up reasons or when there are other ways
of getting the job done, they take on responsibility for the
ongoing destruction of nature, birth defects and immune
deficiencies, reproductive problems, cancers, and the useless and
horrifying tests done on animals, that are all part of the chemical
package. It is sad when a public body allows itself to be a public
relations arm of the chemical industry by officially approving the
use of toxic chemicals on public property. Ms. Moorman stated if
the Board votes to approve the proposed vegetation management plan,
with its 28 herbicide formulations, they are voting for herbicides
and against nature and common sense, and their false economy and
suburban aesthetic standards are more important than a healthy
environment and population.
Johnny Quinn, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
this issue has been an emotional issue. As a father of three
children who frequently use the athletic fields and city parks, he
is concerned about their health. He is concerned about the issue
of herbicides, but when he hears the report from City Staff and
reads the fact sheet, he is surprised to see that herbicides play,
what he considers to be, a relatively minor role in the overall
program. Based on what he had read in the press, he had expected
herbicides to play a much more significant role plan. In addition
to the health of his children, Quinn stated he is concerned about
the appearance of the City. As a host of those who visit
Fayetteville and those who are considering becoming residents, he
is concerned about the poor appearance they sometimes have along
the city streets and sidewalks with weeds literally growing in the
gutters. Mr. Quinn stated his concern with the cost of whatever
effective vegetation management program the City undertakes.
Whatever this choice may be, he encouraged the City to get on with
a plan that works, whether it be manual or mechanical removal of
weeds or herbicidal control. An indirect cost of what the current
vegetation management problem is doing to the faces of their
gutters and streets is creating degrading of pavement.
Mr. Quinn stated when there are so many pros and cons with an issue
and so many disadvantages and advantages, the only reasonable
solution is to compromise. In his opinion, the program presented
in the proposed management plan is in fact a good step toward
compromise, and he encouraged the Board to adopt the plan.
July 7, 1992
Marcia Donnelly, a member of the Vegetation Management Committee,
addressed the Board stating the proposed plan is a result of many
difficult and contentious meetings which represents an uneasy
compromise between two desperate positions. She stated her
disappointment that so many chemicals are permitted within the plan
and believes the chemicals allowed and application methods should
be more severely limited. The proposed plan as presented leaves
the ultimate decision to use herbicides up to City employees. Ms.
Donnelly encouraged the City to allocate money to send these
employees to seminars on municipal integrated vegetation
management. The success of reducing the dependence on herbicides
depends on these employees' enthusiasm and commitment to that goal.
Colleen Pancake, a Fayetteville citizen, addressed the Board
stating she is not certain how the problem of vegetation management
should be approached, but she is opposed to the use of herbicides.
She stated her distrust with the "experts" and would like to see a
lifetime of research because they are experimenting with her life.
This issue has long lasting effects, and the decision made by the
Board is a decision to experiment on the citizens of Fayetteville.
The majority of citizens do not know enough to be worried about the
chemicals, and many are stupid enough to believe the propaganda
bombarding them these chemicals are safe. Ms. Pancake stated the
notification process creates too many questions and problems. She
suggested the good points contained in the plan need to be
emphasized and get away from the use of poisonous herbicides. She
questioned that the methods proscribed are the least expensive as
weed eaters could accomplish a lot more easier and safer than
spraying of herbicides.
Tracey Hill, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
she does not currently have a job and is willing to work for $5 per
hour to weed the softball fields. She is willing to organize
volunteers of ballpark players and teach them what they need to
know about taking care of what they have been given.
Charles Moorman, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating the real issue is the danger the chemicals pose to the
health of the citizens of Fayetteville, particularly to the
children. This is the one issue VMAC has not been able to
correctly address since VMAC lacked the one person who one would
think to be absolutely necessary to the committee's work, a trained
toxicologist. Therefore, the Board has before them a plan,
ludicrously called a compromise, which urges the virtually
unrestricted use of 28 admittedly poisonous substances on public
land. The self-styled experts on the VMAC who have dominated the
committee's agenda and final report are weed scientists and are
able to determine what effect their recommended chemicals will have
on weeds, but not on the enduring fertility of the -earth, nor on
its ground water, and not on the health of the persons coming into
contact with the poisonous chemicals. Mr. Moorman,reported when
asked for a guarantee for the safety of the recommended chemicals
July 7, 1992
to human health, one member of VMAC responded as a scientist, he
could make no such guarantees, but as a scientist, he would say
there were always risks present in the use of such materials.
Mr. Moorman stated when DDT was introduced to eliminate insects and
pests and increase crop production, the manufacturers assured
people DDT was safe to man and beast alike. Now, DDT is banned as
a health hazard with its effect on wildlife, farm animals, and on
the immune and hormonal systems of humans still to be fully
recognized. Moorman asked who is to guarantee that 5, 10 or 20
years from now, the 28 chemicals judged to be safe by their
manufacturers which makes up the components of the proposed
vegetation management plan, will not prove to be just as poisonous
at DDT. Therefore, Mr. Moorman asked the Board to vote on the
proposed plan, not as City Directors with predetermined priorities
and agendas, but rather as sane and rational, free -thinking,
individual men and women and to put aside the expert, ill-
considered, self-serving advice received from the VMAC and Staff.
He encouraged the Board in good conscience to refuse to sanction
the use of poisonous chemicals that could in time damage severely
the health of citizens who they have pledged to govern and protect.
Director Green stated VMAC should be commended, not only for their
time and efforts, but also for the coordination and compromises
they have been able to achieve in developing the proposed plan. He
stated his belief that they cannot improve on the proposed plan nor
amend the plan, but rather implement and move forward with it.
Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the
Vegetation Management Plan as presented.
Director Coody stated as the City government's token
environmentalist, he does not approve or encourage the use of
herbicides. He further stated he would vote to approve the
proposed plan simply because it has been in the making for 2-4
years. He doesn't understand why 28 herbicides are being approved
and why 14 herbicides cannot do the job; nor does he know whether
this proposed plan will be a 1 -year plan or ongoing. However, he
wants this plan to be a starting point where the City can begin to
wean itself from the poisons being put into the environment.
Hopefully with good faith, the use of herbicides will be decreased,
and non-toxic maintenance of vegetation will be implemented.
Director Blackston stated he doesn't believe there is anyone
present who doesn't have some question about the long-range effect
of herbicides as well as many other substances that are used and
consumed, but there are no guarantees in life. He stated the VMAC
should be commended for their work, and it is time to move forward
and act on this issue.
Director Henry stated her concern and hope that citizens will be
willing to serve on committees when they are subject to being
July 7,.1992
maligned by the opposite points of view. The hoursspent by VMAC
to arrive at a good -faith effort, only to be accused of bad faith
and deception is very discouraging and does not set well for future
potential committees..
Mayor Vorsanger thanked the Vegetation Management Advisory
Committee and citizens for their participation in this matter.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
RESOLUTION 103-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
EASEMENT VACATION
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance vacating a utility easement
on property owned by Grady King at 5745 Wedington Drive.
This easement was granted in 1976, and there have been no utilities
constructed within the easement since that date and none are
planned. There is a garage on the easement, and it was built prior
to the granting of the easement in 1976.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, 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 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Blackston,
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 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for
the third and final time.
Grady King addressed the Board stating he has been trying to get
this utility easement vacated for three years and thanked the City
for their efforts in doing so.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3620 APPEARS ON PAGE 454 OF ORDINANCE BOOK KJCVj(
CONDEMNATION. OF. TRACT #149 .FOR THE 361_, WATER TRANSMISSION LINE
PROJECT
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance condemning Tract #149 owned
by May Burk consisting of .03 acres with an appraised value of
$780.
Mrs. Burk is confined to a nursing home and
conducting this transaction. This should
"friendly" condemnation in order to obtain
property under conditions where the property
conduct business and there has been•no power of
t 9
is:„not capable of
Lbe jconsidered a
ownership of the
owner' is unable to
attorney appointed.
July 7, 1992
Condemnation and an emergency clause are requested to avoid delays
in the project.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Green, seconded by
Blackston, 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 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Blackston, 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 5 to 0. The ordinance
was read for the third and final time.
City Manager Scott Linebaugh reported this item and the next agenda
item are the last two easements needed to be able to complete the
north portion of the 36 inch water line by the summer of 1993.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the
emergency clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
5 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3621 APPEARS ON PAGE /✓meg OF ORDINANCE BOOK X X Vl'
CONDEMNATION OF TRACT #178 FOR THE 36" WATER TRANSMISSION LINE
PROJECT
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance condemning Tract 4178 owned
by John N. and Sharon X. Faubus.
Tract #178 consists of a permanent easement of .45 acres and a
temporary easement of .76 acres. The appraised value is $2,085.
The owners have made a counteroffer of $4,000 The counteroffer is
excessive considering the easement costs of nearby property.
Condemnation and an emergency clause are requested to avoid delays
in the project.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Henry, seconded by
Blackston, 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 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Henry, seconded by Blackston, 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 5 to 0. The ordinance
was read for the third and final time.
City Manager Scott Linebaugh reported this is a situation of not
being able to reach a price compromise. In the event the City
cannot reach an agreement with the Faubus', the Court will decide
a fair price.
Sharon Faubus, owner of the subject property, addressed the Board
stating they have no objection to the City crossing their property
July ,7, 1992
with the water line. However, they have asked in years past to be
allowed to be on the existing 36 inch water line that runs to the
east of their property and were denied permission on the basis that
no one was being allowed on the line, which is not a. true
statement. Now the City is asking to run this new 36 inch water
line across their property, and Mrs. Faubus stated they are simply
asking for fair treatment. She reported they have been offered
$15,000 per acre for their property and have refused the offer as
they believe it is worth more than that. Mrs. Faubus stated it is
their understanding normal procedure is to pay 75% of the worth of
the property for an easement of this type. She stated they
initially asked for two water taps and a fair market value for the
easement and have been denied this. The Faubus' have been told the
City of Springdale did not want them on Fayetteville's water line
because they are located in Springdale. Mrs. Faubus reported after
discussions with Springdale, this is not the case. The change
would merely entail a different way of billing. One way or
another, the Faubus' want water out of this action, either with
enough money to tap onto the Springdale line or water from this
line and enough money to make it worththeir while for the line to
cross their property.
Mayor Vorsanger asked Staff whether there was a possibility to work
this out with the Faubus'. Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson
responded there exist working service agreements between the City
of Springdale and Fayetteville where they do not violate each
other's service areas. He is unaware of what Mrs. Faubus may have
been told by Springdale and would need to check into the matter;
however, traditionally this has not happened in the past.
:Ms. Faubus responded their neighbors to the north are getting water
off of this line, and they are also located in Springdale.
Mayor Vorsanger wondered whether the City of Fayetteville could
assist the Faubus' in getting water through Springdale. Mrs.
Faubus responded this would cost at least $3,750.
Ed Connell, Land Agent, explained the appraisal of the Faubus
property was done by an independent appraiser and valued at $4,000.
The City's initial offer as established by this independent
appraiser was $2,083. Whenever a property owner is located in
-Springdale, the arrangement with the City of Springdale is that
they have the say-so as to whether they want the resident tapped
into their line or Fayetteville's 36" water line. Mr. Connell
reported the residents who do currently have taps off of the 36
inch water line in Fayetteville are located across the street from
the Faubus'.
Mrs.
they
so.
Faubus reported when the existing water line was installed,
were offered a tap, but at that time could not afford to do
Since that time, they have,been denied such access, even
r
1
bst
July 7, 1992
though other residents up and down the line have been allowed
access.
Mayor Vorsanger requested City Staff attempt to work out a mutual
agreement with the Faubus' and if nothing else, at least provide
them with water.
Director Green suggested in the interest of time, they pass the
ordinance with the understanding that an agreement will be worked
out with the Faubus'.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 0.
Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the
emergency clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
5 to O.
ORDINANCE 3622 APPEARS ON PAGE /66 0 OF ORDINANCE BOOR p( V 1
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:05 p.m.