Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-07-21 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING,OF THE CITY BOARD;OF DIRECTORS 1.1 A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, July 21, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Assistant Mayor Mike Green; Directors Bob Blackston, Ann Henry, Julie Nash, and Shell Spivey; City Manager Scott Linebaugh; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry Thomas; Director of Planning Alett Little; Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson; Director of Administrative Services Ben Mayes; members of Staff, press and audience. ABSENT: CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fred Vorsanger and Director Dan Coody. The meeting was called to order by the Assistant Mayor Mike Green, with five Directors present. The Assistant 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 Assistant Mayor welcomed comments on any item on the Agenda. He explained that in order to allow equal attention to all items on the Agenda, the Board requests that comments be limited to 3 minutes per person per item, and a spokesperson be elected for comments made on the same issue. REPORT TO THE PUBLIC A report to the public and Board is presented by the City Manager at the second Board meeting of each month. This report, for the month of June, includes financial information, an update on staff activities, and items of general interest. City Manager Scott Linebaugh announced that the City Manager's Report would be given by Director of Planning Alett Little. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Little reported that the balance sheet at the;. end of June showed assets of $194 million, and', liabilities of,$37'million, for a fund balance of $157 million. For the period ending June 30th, there were total operating/non-operating revenues ,of $25.7 million, compared with this same time last year with total revenues of $25.1 million. For the period ending June 30th, operating/non-operating expenditures were $26.5 million, compared to expenditures of $30.5 million for this time last.year. She explained that this increase in expenditures can be attributed to depreciation and capital. .* . .a - • COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM Little highlighted the Community Development Block Grant Program for the Dickson Street area initiated in May which includes improvements to streets, sidewalks, and the addition of storm drainage on Watson, Boles and Rollston Streets. She reported that the storm sewer and sidewalk reconstruction on Watson Street is nearly completed. The surface of Boles and Rollston Streets and sidewalks have been removed, the grade has been set, and concrete work has begun. FIRE DEPARTMENT Ms. Little reported that the City has received delivery of the new pumper ladder fire truck. This truck was purchased with 1991 bond issue for capital improvement programs at a total cost of $325,000. The unit will have the capabilities of a conventional pumping engine, plus for multi -story buildings, fire fighting and rescue capabilities, with a ladder 65 feet tall when fully extended. The truck also offers a 500 gallon water tank, 1,500 gallon per minute pump, and 6 self-contained breathing apparatuses, and is currently located at Central Fire Station. Little further reported that the training officer for this unit will be arriving on July 22. The Fire Department will receive 3-4 days of training and hope to have the unit operational within a week. The unit will be available at the August 4 Board meeting for inspection by the Board and public. POLICE DEPARTMENT Ms. Little reported statistics for the month of June that officers arrested 811 adults and 38 juveniles. Of the 811 arrests, 12 were adults in drug-related cases resulting in 27 drug-related charges. A new Neighborhood Watch Group was added in June bringing a total for the City of Fayetteville to 108 active groups. During June, the Police Department made presentations to the University of Arkansas with reference to the juvenile justice system and to the University Youth Sports Camp with program topics on police procedures, D.A.R.E., D.W.I., and drugs. COMPOSTING/RECYCLING Alett Little reported that June was a heavy composting facility, taking in 546 cubic yards of yards of leaves, and 247 cubic yards of grass. collections of 36 tons of glass, 62 tons of paper, aluminum were received for recycling. The Solid Waste Department has developed a "Hazard Waste Disposal" program, and Ms. Little reported established disposal sites as month for the brush, 2 cubic In addition, and 2.5 tons of July 21, 1992 follows: 1) car batteries Vaughn Battery and 2) car Mart, and Sears. AP • at K -Mart, Wal Mart, Sears, Sams, and oil containers at the City Shop, Wal BUILDING INSPECTIONS Ms. Little reported the Inspection Department issued 62 building permits during the month of June, including 5 permits for new commercial buildings,. and 9 permits for commercial building renovations. She stated two of the .renovation permits were for buildings located on Dickson Street. For the period January through June, building permits totalled 898 and represent over $29 million in investments within Fayetteville, compared to this time in 1991, the City had issued 833 permits for $30 million of investments. OLD BUSINESS Items that have been brought before the Board but were tabled or no decision made to allow for further information to be presented. NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE Assistant Mayor Green reintroduced for further review and consideration of changes, the Noise Control Ordinance. City Manager Linebaugh presented a report on noise readings taken at 210 West Lafayette and at George's Majestic Lounge. These readings were taken on July 14 and 18 and ranged from 58 and 65 decibels at the West Lafayette location, with the majority ranging from 48 to 63. The readings taken at George's Majestic Lounge range between 58 and 72 decibels with an average of 58 to 60. The high reading of 72 decibels was received when noise was also coming from the 225 Studio, southwest of George's; therefore, a ticket was not issued for this incident. Linebaugh stated that the readings taken fall within the limits allowed. Linebaugh further presented a report from City Attorney Jerry Rose which deals with the noise ordinance and its ambiguities. In his report, Rose gave four alternative methods_that could be used to clear up any ambiguity. +n f Assistant Mayor Green stated'a great deal, of input was received from the public at the last.Board meeting; however, he invited anyone else who desired to.comment on the noise ordinance to do so at this time. L Director Henry asked how many police officers were certified to take these decibel readings. City Manager-Linebaugh responded there are 6 officers certified to:.use the City's two meters. In addition, Henry asked,if there was'always a certified officer on duty after 11:00 p.m. when th'e majority of the complaints are made. July 21, 1992 Mark Hanna, a City police officer, responded that although there is a certified officer on duty after 11:00 p.m. the majority of the time, due to staffing, there are occasionally times when a certified officer is not available to take the readings. Assistant Mayor Green commented on the four alternatives offered by City Attorney Rose in an attempt to clarify the noise control ordinance. After studying both sides of this issue, Green felt the City does not want to eliminate the option of a police officer to enforce the noise ordinance without a complaint which would eliminate the first three options offered. Another priority is in commercial areas, such as George's Majestic Lounge, the establishments may or may not conduct their business during specific hours. Green stated this ordinance and most model ordinances he has reviewed are set-up for a cut-off time such as 11:00 p.m., allowing neighboring residents to sleep without noise interruption. Therefore, the artificial cut-off time for commercial noise limits, not necessarily related to the public's retirement, is ambiguous. The decibel limits for residential properties occurring at 11:00 p.m. are different. There is no change in decibel limits for industrial properties which is allowed to carry on at 80 decibels day or night. He sees no logical reason why commercial property has the same time limitation as residential property. Assistant Mayor Green proposed for consideration the decibel difference between daytime and evening readings be deleted for commercial property, but leave the residential property noise limits the same. This would solve several problems: 1) give police officers the capability of enforcing excessive noise above 70 decibels at commercial property limits and 2) give residential property owners the capability of complaining and having noise readings taken at their boundaries to ensure the noise levels are reduced after 11:00 p.m. Green stated this would solve several problems by giving the commercial areas more flexibility in the evenings to maintain the activities they are allowed to carry on during the daytime, while not jeopardizing residential areas. Director Nash stated she understood in option #1 the police can use their own initiative to take noise readings on site. Assistant Mayor Green agreed with Ms. Nash's assessment of option #1, further explaining this issue had only been presented for discussion and an amendment has yet to be proposed. This is the reason for his desire to offer clarification of the ordinance through his proposal. Director Henry asked if Green was proposing they raise the commercial noise level from 65 to 70 decibels, 24 hours a day. He responded that was his intent. In addition, he verified that with his proposal, the noise measurements would be taken at both the •_v 1 July 21, 1992 .-4 source and the receiving end.' Therefore, if the reading is 60•in the residential area and 70 decibels at the source, there would be no violation.` '1 - Director Nash asked if a violation would be cited in an instance where the City received six.complaintsin one night, five checked out okay, but the sixth violated the decibel level? She sees that as causing some confusion-.. with taking noisemeasurements at the site of the complaint. Green stated there will always be complications with measuring the. noise level, and this isnot something that is easily legislated. There are inherent problems in dealing with undefined acoustical matters, such as background noise limits.4 He reported from the officers' noise level reports that the high background noise level measured on several incidences were nothing -more than crickets and vehicular traffic which kept the noise level almost to the limit of the noise ordinance. •_ -- ,i Director Blackston asked Officer Hanna whether it was possible or practical to arrange the scheduling so that an officer qualified to measure decibel levels would always be on duty, and what steps are being taken to qualify more'officers to take these readings and how long does this qualification take? a Officer Hanna:responded the procedure taken in the past when a certified officer is not on duty at the time a complaint is lodged is to call an officer in to perform a test. As far as the certification process, due to the limited amount of complaints received, he doesn't believe dt would be cost-effective to put every officer through the training. He stated that the majority of the complaints received come from activities at the University. Mrs. Vaughn, representing the elderly residents living at Hillcrest Towers on School Street, addressed the Board stating the noise received on the upper levels are extremely loud at night,. sometimes until 3:00 to 4:00 a.m. She reported several residents are attempting to circulate petitions to stop the noise level after 11:00 p.m. in order to rest. Charles Howard addressed the Board stating the noise level report received from Officers Smith, Phillips and Scanland to Lieutenant Hoyt was not specific enough and very poor. The residential readings should have been taken from many locations surrounding George's Majestic Lounge instead of from only one location. Howard suggested the City Board appoint a citizen advisory committee to study the problem of noise .coming from George's Majestic Lounge and throughout the City. In addition, he suggested they call upon the City Engineer to study the problem and make recommendations. • July 21, 1992 In addition, Mr. Howard addressed the example given of a person's voice registering approximately 60 decibels. No one should have to retire at night and withstand noise that is equivalent to someone talking outside his/her window. He stated his disappointment that measurements were not taken from Rosa Robinson's home, who lives much closer to George's Majestic Lounge than he does. Charles Howard reported on the day/night sound level concept created by the EPA which is the best approach in dealing with annoying environmental noise problems. This approach involves taking readings over continuous periods of time, and Mr. Howard suggested the Board may want to consider this method. He stringently disagreed with Assistant Mayor Green that a decrease may occur in the noise level after 11:00 p.m. He urged the City Board to reduce the noise levels as they now exist. Woody Bassett, attorney representing George's Majestic Lounge, addressed the Board stating no experts or new equipment are needed to decide this issue, nor is this an engineering problem. This is a "people problem", and there is enough good common sense among those involved to work their way through this problem and reach a common ground. Mr. Bassett presented a petition containing approximately 1,500 signatures of patrons of George's Majestic Lounge who enjoy the atmosphere and to demonstrate the support for the continued operation of George's. Bassett stated his initial impression of the proposals offered by City Attorney Rose was to support proposal *3 because it appears to be the most fair and would solve the problem in the best fashion for all concerned. First of all, it would protect citizens in their homes for which the noise ordinance was intended. Measuring the decibel level from the residence or property of complainant seems like the most logical method. In addition, Bassett stated that the City police can make better use of their time in protecting citizens and their property than measuring decibel levels. However, Bassett stated that Assistant Mayor Green's proposal is also worthy of consideration. Director Nash asked Woody Bassett if a citizen advisory committee was established, whether he believed both sides of this issue could address it in good faith? Bassett responded at least from the viewpoint of George's Majestic Lounge, they would address both sides of the noise issue in good faith. He believes they have already made an effort to address the issue in good faith by lowering amplifier levels and sound proofing the stage. In addition, he believes the residents in the area could also act in good faith. However, Bassett doesn't believe anything else can be injected into the debate that doesn't already exist. 1 July 21, 1992 In response to the earlier statement regarding loud noise levels received until 3:00 and 4:00 a.m., Mr. 'Bassett clarified that George's closes at midnight on Saturdays and 1:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday. There area number of months out of the year when the beer garden is not even open. Director Nash agreed that George's Majestic Lounge is not the sole culprit for all the noise in the City. However, she sees a problem with option #3. Rather than eliminating the reason for complaint, it makes it unlawful for citizens to complain. Mr. Bassett responded his understanding of option #3 is that the property owners or lease holders may,complain, and once a complaint was received, the police department would measure the decibel level from the complainant's residence. The thrust of any noise ordinance ought to be to afford proper, fair, and reasonable protection to citizens in the privacy of their homes where they are entitled to peace and quiet. - Rosa Robinson, resident one block from George's Majestic Lounge, addressed the Board in agreement with Mr. Bassett's statements that the police have better things to do than take decibel readings, and citizens are entitled to peace and quiet in the privacy of their homes. Ms. Robinson stated she has not had"peace and quiet" in the twenty years she has resided at this location. Ms. Robinson reported George's Majestic Lounge has been quieter since May while they have been monitored. This three month period has been the longest she can remember that George's has maintained a decreased noise level. She could live with a 65 decibel level at George's; however, Ms. Robinson stated she would not live with 65 decibels at her property line. In addition, she stated she is appalled that the City allows outdoor amplified music to disturb its citizens. With the outdoor garden currently under construction at Jose's Restaurant, and talk of another tavern/garden at the corner of West Street and Dickson Street, a lid needs to be kept on this type of establishment. Ms. Robinson reported speaking with the City Attorneys of Rogers and Springdale regarding their "noise" ordinances, and discovered Bentonville does not even have a noise ordinance. She stated the City Attorney of Springdale reported when their city noise ordinance failed, they proceeded to the state law passed in 1975, which refers to "unreasonable or excessive noise". She stated George's Majestic Lounge was given a privilege many years ago, and as far as she knows, it is the only establishment in Northwest Arkansas that operates with outdoor amplified music at night. They have abused this privilege for years, have become arrogant, and now believe they have a "right" to this activity. Many complaints have been placed over the years to no avail. The victims of George's abuse have now united, thanks to Mr. Howard. July 21, 1992 Paul Marinoni, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating Rosa Robinson is his sister and lives in the old Marinoni home his grandparents built in 1925, which is included in the historic registry. The Marinoni family is now faced with the possibility of selling the home since no one can stand to live there. Marinoni stated during his experience as a City Board member, they worked on many projects to make the City a more beautiful place to live, such as the sign and green space ordinances. Many commercial institutions had to "knuckle under" in order to comply with the sign ordinance. In this case, George's Majestic Lounge should also be required to comply to the rules of the sound ordinance. Marinoni suggested they should be considering lowering the decibel level limits instead of increasing them. He further stated his concern that a gray area exists with Assistant Mayor Green's proposal for a 70 decibel limit in commercial zones and 60 in residential zones. The area between the Square and Dickson Street is zoned commercial, and much of the neighborhood along Spring Street is typically residential. He asked if these residents will be asked to abide by a 70 decibel limit because they technically reside in commercial zoning? Assistant Mayor Green responded based on his interpretation of the ordinance, the residents along Spring Street would be under the commercial zoning decibel level. Paul Marinoni stated the City is clearly increasing the noise decibel level. He stated with the accomplishment of the Walton Arts Center and other fine projects established in Fayetteville that exemplify its culture, the proposed noise level is a nuisance and a move in the wrong direction. Burett Wagoner, co-owner of George's Majestic Lounge, addressed the Board, stating some of the comments made by Ms. Robinson were not quite true. The Wagoners have made every attempt to be considerate and work with Ms. Robinson. Mr. Wagoner stated George's desires to abide by the law, they will abide by the Board's decision, and will keep the music down to the prescribed decibels. He asked the Board to consider the nature of the business, the nature of musicians and their music. Assistant Mayor Green asked Mr. Wagoner whether based on the sound measurements taken at George's, does he feel the jump from 65 to 70 decibels at the George's property line is going to be within the acceptable tolerance of their entertainers and patrons? Mr. Wagoner responded it is very hard to get an accurate reading at his property line. However, he believes that 65 to 70 decibels should be an acceptable level as far as George's is concerned. .r� 'July 21, 1992 Marion Orton,• resident west of •the .University of Arkansas, addressed the Board stating 'although she is.not affected by the noise created by George's,`t4there,are many noises that come from University activities, including' football°games, band practices, and yearly fraternity parties. She believes the noise ordinance. should be addressed throughout the.City. In addition, she stated her belief that amplified music should be confined to the indoors, especially with the addition of outdoor gardens on Dickson street, in addition to the establishments along.College, creating more and more noise collectively. k Richard Shewmaker, closest resident of'George's Majestic Lounge, addressed the. Board stating the current owners of George's have made significant improvements to the establishment and have made every effort to control the level of their music. 1 He asked whether the City's 'goal was to close George's Majestic Lounge or to take this one outdoor garden and"keep them under the decibel limit. If the latter is the City's goal, the quality of people who own George's' Majestic Lounge "will make sure this happens. + ., Shewmaker stated he sees no need for a citizen task force, but he would like to see the City address and solve this issue. He believes there is a lot of unnecessary excitement that a "carnival" is being created on Dickson Street. The plans for Jose's outdoor garden does not include bands, nor does the proposed beer pub proposed for Pearson's property include plans for an outdoor facility or music Bill Harrison, co-owner of George's Majestic Lounge, addressed the Board reiterating his regret that George's has been too noisy in the past. In the past three months, every effort has been taken to keep the music and noise level down, and they will continue to do so. He reported he has given Ms. Robinson and Mr. Howard his word that he personally would do whatever he could to see that they were not disturbed by the music at George's. Gerald Dosing, bartender at George's Majestic Lounge for the past eight years, addressed the Board stating that as long as he has worked there, George's has responded to any complaint they receive by checking the noise level and will ask the bands to lower their music. On rare occasions, they receive unreasonable complaints from hysterical people that can be hard to deal with. He reported George's has always tried to maintain a good relationship with all of their neighbors and has always cooperated in turning down their music when asked. Dosing asked the Board to consider that jobs will be affected by their decision regarding the sound ordinance. Derick Robinson, resident of West Lafayette Street from 1972 to 1991, stated he is familiar with the problem of noise coming from George's. His experience in dealing with George's was that they were totally unresponsive to his complaints, to the point of being July 21, 1992 rude. A decibel level of 60-65 in a residential area during sleeping hours is ludicrous and unreasonable, and he urged the Board to appoint a citizen's task force to study the problem. Director Nash stated the City need not take years to study the noise problem through a citizen's task force. She asked Mr. Robinson how long it would take a citizen's task force to reach a solution to this problem. He responded it shouldn't take longer than three months. Cyrus Young, a resident, asked if an amendment to the noise ordinance would be voted on at this meeting. Assistant Mayor Green responded the Board will need to discuss how they want to proceed. Mr. Young stated he would have some questions later in the event that an ordinance was to be formulated. Assistant Mayor Green stated the City Board has made a commitment to Dickson Street revitalization, which they need to keep in mind, as well as the rights of private citizens to have peace and quiet in their own homes. Sometimes the balancing of these two factors can be difficult, if not impossible. Green stated he hopes the Board does not create additional regulation burdens that will further stifle the development of the Dickson Street revitalization effort and corridor between the University and downtown area. The Board has gone on record as supporting business activity and commercial enterprises for the revitalization of Dickson Street. The property owners on Dickson Street should also remember the condition of Dickson Street 2-3 years ago, and look at the improvements made through the City's revitalization effort which have only enhanced property values. Green stated the best compromise that can be made for all concerned is his proposal in which the people who reside in commercial districts must realize that they are under those particular types of commercial restrictions and allowances. He suggested they amend the ordinance to clarify and eliminate the difference in decibel levels in commercial properties, making it 70 decibels 24 hours a day with no distinction for commercial property. City Attorney Rose stated an this sound ordinance. Assistant Mayor Green stated ordinance. ordinance would be necessary to amend his motion was to proceed to amend the Director Blackston stated he was not in favor of totally tearing down and restructuring the existing sound ordinance because this is a "people problem" and no matter what kind of ordinance there is, people must be willing to abide by rules, or there will be differences. In this case, if the owners of George's Majestic Lounge cannot learn to live within reasonable boundaries of what their neighbors want, he does not see how restructuring the July 21, 1992 ordinance will be satisfactory. His assessment of the proposed options is to lean toward #3, which eliminates the general public from making complaints and limit it to only those who are directly impacted by the noise. • Director Henry concurred with Director Blackston that they do not need to raise the decibel limits. These affected residents have been there as long as or longer than the commercial area, and they are trying to make a commercial area supersede the residents. In order to have success and _viability•in the Dickson Street area, there must be people who are also willing to live there. Assistant Mayor Green stated he is merely trying to find a compromise that the other Board members and public can live with. Director Henry further Stated people visiting commercial areas expect to hear a certain amount of noise. .The original ordinance in 1979, which had nothing to do with George's, tried to deal with amplified music created by fraternity parties for which neighbors were complaining. This led to a restriction on parties and amplified music and a permitting process. She referred to a "nice" ordinance where people are urged to be courteous and responsive to other's rights. Henry stated this is not just a problem with George's, but when any property owner fails to take into account rights of their neighbors. In addition, Henry suggested it doesn't make sense to have a sound ordinance if it cannot be enforced and urged the City request additional police officer certification for operation of the decibel level meters. Blackston, seconded by Henry, made a motion to adopt option number 3 as outlined by City Attorney Rose. Director Spivey asked if anyone has ever been fined for violating the noise ordinance? He stated in the past George's has most likely exceeded the proscribed decibel limit, even though they have really made an effort not to do so in the last 3 months, and to his knowledge have never been fined. Therefore, Spivey stated his support for option #3, but he suggested the ordinance be strictly enforced making fines progressively higher in an attempt to discourage violation of the decibel limits. Even though George's is making an effort, realistically, the neighbors should not have to call them to complain in order to get the music turned down. As an outdoor facility, George's Beer Garden should be monitored extensively by the City to ensure compliance. If the noise level is exceeded, George's should expect to be fined. Director Nash stated her opinion that amplified music has not enhanced Dickson Street. She questioned whether a permitting 'process., such as developed for fraternity parties and Razorback games, could be applied to commercial ventures and limit the number of times per year for outdoor amplified music. July 21, 1992 Assistant Mayor Green responded it takes a substantial investment to make a commitment for outdoor music. To try to limit George's to once a week or three times a year could be a financial hardship. Bill Harrison responded to Director Nash's suggestion for limiting the number of occasions in which amplified music would be used and stated it would be a lot easier to limit the decibel levels which George's has demonstrated in the past three months. Director Blackston asked whether George's ever cautions the bands before they begin playing regarding the noise ordinance and past problems with noise before the music becomes too loud. Bill Harrison responded he agrees with Ms. Robinson that George's has not done a good job in the past in monitoring their music. However, in the past three months, they have made every effort to monitor the sound levels and will continue to do so. In response to Director Henry's question, Bill Harrison responded that George's Majestic Lounge has purchased their own decibel meter for monitoring the sound level. Charles Howard stated he has a friend who has also invested in a noise meter, and a reading taken the night following the latest reading taken by the City, read 70 decibels outside George's. He stated the Board of Directors is not sophisticated enough to ask the correct technical questions relating to this problem. Simply asking the owners of George's to provide a report of their efforts at sound abatement doesn't tell him anything about what they have actually done. Mr. Howard called the Board's attention to an EPA survey of 100 cities' average decibel level readings for various districts which reports the average decibel reading for residential district boundaries substantially less than Fayetteville's limits. The current levels which the Board is talking about maintaining are too high and should be lowered. Howard urged the Board to appoint a citizens advisory committee to review this issue. In response to Mr. Howard, Assistant Mayor Green explained they have a motion to select an option for the Board to perceive as far as clarification/amendment of the sound ordinance. Director Nash reiterated her only problem with option #3, that if the noise level is measured from the property of the complainants, in the event that 4 out of 6 incidents are found to be within the allowed limits, it leaves them in limbo. City Attorney Rose responded tickets would be issued for any complaints that are verified to be in violation of the noise ordinance. His understanding of option #3 is that if the sound July 21, 1992 level is too high at any complaining individual's home, lease holder or homeowner, then a ticket would be issued for a violation. Woody Bassett reported the owners and staff of George's Majestic Lounge spend exorbitant amounts of time strictly monitoring the decibel sound levels in an effort to comply with the ordinance, in an effort to be fair to surrounding neighbors, and in an effort to make this problem go away. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. City Attorney Rose stated he would have an amended ordinance to present to the Board at their next meeting. He announced the Directors have a proposed amendment in their packets which is substantially the form he will use. .i REZONE R92-12 Assistant Mayor Green reintroduced an ordinance rezoning 3.67 acres located on the northeast corner of Joyce and Old Missouri Road from A-1, Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, as requested by Dr. Luke Knox and Dr. Cynthia Knox. The Planning Commission voted 6-2-0 to recommend rezoning. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the Jurie 21, 1992 Board of Directors meeting. City Manager Scott Linebaugh reported this item had been requested to be pulled by the petitioners.., NEW BUSINESS CONSENT AGENDA • Assistant Mayor Green 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." The Mayor explained that there is thought to be unanimous agreement by the Board, but pointed out that any Director may request the removal of an item from the Consent Agenda. A. Minutes of the July 7, 1992 regular Board meeting. B. A resolution approving Cost Sharing in connection with the elimination of the Bishop Lift Station in an amount not to exceed $22,000, and approval of a budget adjustment. The Bishop Lift Station was designed to handle the flow from several developments and .to be abandoned when other gravity sewers became available in the area. The North Heights Addition offers a chance for the City to eliminate the Bishop July 21, 1992 Lift Station. The cost to run the gravity flow sewers would be shared between the City and the developer. RESOLUTION 104-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution awarding a contract to Fayette Tree and Trench in connection with the Minisystem 2 Sewer Rehab Contract, Section 2, in the amount of $235,585.90 plus a 5% contingency for a total of $247,365.20. This project involves the replacement of approximately 3200 feet of sewer line within Minisystem 2 in the White River Watershed. This is part of the ongoing, budgeted sewer rehabilitation program. RESOLUTION 105-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE D. A resolution authorising payment of attorney fees to McDermott, Will and Emery in the amount of $78,022.73 for April 1, 1992 through May 31, 1992, and of $6,905.33 to the Niblock Law Firm for May 1992, for services rendered in the incinerator disengagement and related lawsuits. E. A resolution approving Change Order No. 18 for the Walton Arts Center in the amount of $104,552.25 to be paid by private contributions. This change order covers 22 different projects in conjunction with the construction of the Walton Arts Center. The Walton Arts Center Council recommends and is requesting approval of the change order. RESOLUTION 106-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Director Nash requested that Item "D" be removed from the Consent Agenda. Blackston, seconded by Nash, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 0. ITEM "D" Assistant Mayor Green reintroduced a resolution authorising payment of attorney fees to McDermott, Will and Emery in the amount of $78,022.73 for April 1, 1992 through May 31, 1992, and of $6,905.33 to the Niblock Law Firm for May 1992, for services rendered in the incinerator disengagement and related lawsuits. Director Nash stated her continued concern that these attorney fees go back to March, and the timeliness is not in order. However, she stated she does understand that City Attorney Rose has consulted with these law firms to no avail. 1 July 21, 1992 City Attorney Rose stated the bills before the Board are for services rendered in April and -May. 1 Blackston, seconded by Green, made motion to approve Item "D". Tiny Hamilton addressed the Board -stating the Board of Directors continues to utilize the services of these law firms that continue to "rape" the City of Fayetteville because of the lack of intestinal fortitude on the part of.members of the Board. Hamilton reported discussions with' many legal professionals and has yet to find one who does not scoff at,the legal billings: . He reiterated a previous comment of his that the. City in payment of these exorbitant attorneys fees will expend in excess of enough money to put on staff in the City full-time attorneys and retire them. He gave examples of time charged for repetitivetactions by attorneys in the same law firm and of travel expense in flying to and from Fayetteville to take depositions that could be taken by a local law firm and several hundred dollar phone conferences. Even though they are in the latter stages of these lawsuits, Hamilton suggested the City needed to critique these law firms. He stated the $1.1 million figure projected far legal fees is not realistic when the City has currently paid $2 million and is looking at $2.5 million. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1, with Director Nash voting no. RESOLUTION 107-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE APPEAL OF A PLANNING. COMMISSION ACTION Assistant Mayor Green introduced a request by Don Hornsby, requested through Director Shell Spivey, for the Board to hear an appeal of the Planning Commission action that approved the Newsome Apartments large scale development located at Shiloh Drive and Dorothy Jeane. The Planning Commission voted 3-2-0 to approve the large scale development of the Newsome Apartments as requested by the owner, Don Newsome. Mr. Newsome has completed the reviewal process and been given the approval of Plat Review, Subdivision Review, and the Planning Commission to develop 14.4 units per acre or 72 apartments (the zoning allows for up to 24 units per acre). Residents of the area have brought this appeal before the Board of Directors because of their concern about the traffic problems that exist in the area. The area residents have requested a traffic signal. The state Highway Department is responsible for determining and allowing a traffic signal to be installed. July 21, 1992 City Manager Scott Linebaugh addressed a report from the Traffic Superintendent of traffic counts taken on Shiloh Drive and Hwy. 16 west. Those counts show the intersection only has about 40% of the traffic volume required to meet the State Highway Department's test. The report continues to say when other roads in this area are taken into consideration, there is enough volume to come close to meeting the Highway Department's requirements. The report recommends the Highway Department study the entire intersection and recommend solutions to the problems. Director Spivey stated placing this item on the agenda was not necessarily endorsement. If anyone comes to him with a request for a topic to be placed on the Board Agenda, he will make an effort to do so. Director Henry commented this is a State Highway Department problem, and the City Board does not have jurisdiction for placing traffic lights at this intersection. Assistant Mayor Green stated the Staff recommendation is to proceed with this large scale development and a joint study with the Highway Department. Don Hornsby, the petitioner, addressed the Board with a prepared statement on behalf of a group of property owners of the Giles Addition which appealed the June 22 Planning Commission approval of the proposed Newsome Apartment Complex. Their objection is not to the complex or any other progressive development, per se, but to development without planning. Lack of consideration of the existing conditions and neglect of the safety and welfare of residents who have been asking for the City's help for as long as they have is inexcusable. Shiloh Drive is the only means of access in or out of the Giles Addition, and existing conditions make travel from Shiloh Drive to Wedington across Hwy. 16 West in either an east or west direction or across Wedington to Shiloh South risky propositions at best. A large scale apartment complex would only compound an already serious problem. The statement continued in opposition of the plan for extension of Ann Street to the west and to the new housing developments to be an acceptable solution to the problem of access. Such a route would require residents of the Giles Addition to drive an additional half mile in the wrong direction to get to the business district of Fayetteville. This route would be time consuming, not fuel efficient, and is unfair to those new residents of the Walnut Grove Addition. The plan to place a traffic sign at the intersection of Salem and Wedington as a solution to the problem at Shiloh Drive and Wedington was described as preposterous. 1 July 21, 1992 Hornsby further reported the °Giles Addition, residents have discussed this problem with their City Ward Representative,,the County J.P. for their township,State Representative, and several of the City Board members, and feel there is a“general consensus that a serious and dangerous problem exists.,. However, the many attempts at presenting: these concerns to the leaders of Fayetteville for the past 18 years have been met with placating statements and empty promises. Hornsby stated with the new growth and development of Fayetteville,, the City Board has the opportunity and the responsibility to correct the problem. Director of Planning Alett Little stated she has spoken with the developer of the project with respect= to the extension of Ann Street. Therefore, the residents would be required to travel to the west as an alternate route.outof the subdivision. This area which is zoned R-2 is a 250 foot wide strip which was zoned at the request of the residents in the area when the original rezoning took place for the building of a motel. Director Nash stated the zoning itself is not being questioned, but everyone's concern is for public safety of citizens with the traffic issue. She recommended the Board approve this large scale development, contingent upon the installation of a traffic signal. Little responded the decision to install such a traffic signal would have to come from the state. A traffic signal at this particular location would be within fifty feet of the exit ramp off of the by-pass. It would require these two streets be joined, either the Shiloh Drive exit to the exit ramp or the exit ramp off of Shiloh in order for this to be accomplished. This would make the intersection within 300 feet of the crest of the hill over the by-pass and is the reason for the Planning Commission's position that the traffic light was needed at Salem. Ms. Little further reported there is a conflict between those exiting off of the by- pass attempting to turn west, and those coming off of Shiloh Drive who are attempting to turn east into town. Director Nash stated asmunicipal officials, the Board could approve this large scale development contingent upon a traffic signal being approved by the state. Alett Little added the peak hour of traffic was between the hours of 6:00 and 7:00 p.m. with 65 cars from Shiloh Drive. Director Nash responded the problem is with the cars on Wedington. Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson stated Staff felt a light at this intersection would create more of a hazard than already exists. He further stated Staff believes the solution to the problem is relieving the problem on Wedington further down the road and away from the exit ramp off of the by-pass. This is what the City has requested the State Highway Department look into. July 21, 1992 Little confirmed she has been in contact with the State Highway Department with regard to this study, and it is proceeding. Assistant Mayor Green stated there is not quite enough population in the area or traffic count to warrant a stop light, but with the addition of this development, the population count may be increased enough for the Highway Department to justify a traffic light. Little added that besides traffic counts, the State Highway Department also looks at the turning movements and accident count in the area when considering a traffic light. Director Nash made a motion to approve the large scale development, contingent upon the state's installation of a traffic signal in this area. The motion died for lack of a second. Harold McCollum, resident of Giles Addition for the past 28 years, addressed the Board stating there were two access routes to the addition at that time. The residents of Giles received a promise from the City that Sycamore would be reopened as a frontage road at a later date. McCollum gave a scenario of living in a house with only one door and feeling apprehensive of having that door blocked and trapping the residents inside. This has been a matter of concern for the residents of the Giles Addition for many years. Relief by providing access to the west will not only increase their current problems but will add to their neighbors problems. Mr. McCollum suggested they would be better served by the reopening of Sycamore Street on the north end of Shiloh Drive, thereby giving them two accesses. The opening of Ann Street would then give additional relief. Mr. McCollum further stated he believes the traffic count taken was in error. He took his own traffic count using a video camera for a short period of time, and 437 cars passed through the intersection aside from those leaving Giles Addition, or one car every 1.3 seconds. Little stated that included in the 1993 Capital Improvements Program was a project to extend Sycamore Street to the north to join with Shiloh Drive. As far as the traffic count, Ms. Little reported the peak hour traffic count on Wedington to be from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. with 1170 cars per hour. Bruce Trammel, resident of 122 Florene, addressed the Board reiterating Mr. Hornsby's previous comment referring to this action as "growth without planning." The Board needs to consider whether the inevitable growth of this City will occur in an orderly fashion or be done in a "hodge-podge" manner with an eye only towards profits for individual developers. Trammel further stated they are not opposed to growth, but they can decide how this growth will happen. The Board needs to make a decision balancing growth with safety. He requested the permit for the new complex not be issued until the state makes a final decision on the installation of a 1 1 • July 21, 1992 traffic light at the intersection of Wedington and Shiloh, or until an alternative road is providedfor+ingress and egress to the Giles Addition. Carla Trammel; resident of 122 Florene, addressed the Board stating in the past three years, her family has nearly been struck by cars coming off of the exit ramp onttwo occasions. This problem is a result of poor planning as the exitramp is too close to Shiloh Drive. Ms. Trammel approved of theexit ramp becoming a part of Shiloh Drive and a signal' installed at Shiloh Drive. • • She stated she did not see traffic counters located across Hwy. 16 or on the exit ramp but rather across Shiloh Drive. This cannot accurately measure the amount of traffic going through this intersection. There are certain times of the day when it is nearly impossible to make a left hand turn out of Shiloh Drive from either direction creating the necessity for alternative routes through other neighborhoods. Director Spivey asked if it would take a lot of red tape through the state to combine the exit. ramp with Shiloh Drive. Little responded the exit ramp is a part of the state highway system, so it would require their approvaland joint funding by the state and City. In terms of time, Ms. Littlejudged it would take more time to accomplish the joining of Shiloh to the exit ramp than it would to install a traffic signal at some location in that area. In response to Director Spivey, Alett Little stated the decision by the state to install a traffic signal would not be based solely on traffic counts. The turning movements which are currently in direct conflict with one another would be enough to justify the light. Director Spivey stated he has been advised by Staff that the Hwy. 16 East and Crossover Road intersection where Township dead ends into Hwy. 265 are considered critical intersections and need traffic lights. He asked if the extension of Ann Street would be within the next three months before the completion of the large scale development which will give these residents a second alternative. Alett Little responded she was advised by the developer that Phase III, which includes the Ann Street extension, is scheduled to begin within the next thirty days. Ms. Little also confirmed the 1993 CIP includes the second alternative route, contingent on the sales tax money being released. Director Spivey suggested along with these two alternative routes, the City needs to actively work with the state in getting the exit ramp and Shiloh Drive tied together. It is just a matter of time before lives will be lost at one of these dangerous intersections. July 21, 1992 Alett Little responded she would convey to the State Highway Department the Board's desire to investigate a tandem exit of Shiloh Drive to the exit ramp. Alice Ludwig, resident of Giles Addition for the past 29 years, addressed the Board stating they have incurred a desperate traffic situation ever since the creation of the by-pass. She reported houses are being rapidly built on the 32 acres behind their residence. Mrs. Ludwig stated they should be entitled to a safe place to live and travel. Traffic moves too fast at the bottom of the hill, and there are constantly accidents occurring in this area. Mrs. Hollowell, resident of Giles Road, addressed the Board reading a section from the City Planning Commission minutes of February 12, 1979: "Mrs. Carlisle further stated, I don't mind discussing the access problem; however, I think that this is a problem probably better served by being discussed at the time when a large scale development plan is submitted for this property. The real issue here is what property should be rezoned and not an access question'." The minutes went on to read, "Alice Ludwig, 104 Florene Street, opposed this proposal, stating, the traffic problems in this area were not completely solved when the overpass was built because a lot of the traffic problems in the area are caused by their residential areas'." "She stated that they have no other access road to use, and further stated that the petitioners plan to develop the surrounding area commercially and plan to use Giles Road as an access, leaving us with an impossible situation." Mrs. Hollowell further stated since 1979 the entire area around Giles Addition has grown with the addition of Maple Manor, the golf and batting range, Betty Jo Corner, Walnut Grove Subdivision, Holiday Inn Express, and the liquor store. The plan to connect Ann Street to Salem Road will only route more traffic through a residential subdivision. The residents of Giles Addition need an access to the north other than making a circle and travelling through a residential area. Charlotte Smith, 104 Dorothy Jeane, addressed the Board stating the traffic count was taken when University of Arkansas students are gone, and traffic is a lot lighter than it is the other nine months of the year. This problem has been going on for a decade, and she would like to see the Planning Commission and Board of Directors address it immediately. Director Henry concurred with the concerned residents, stating the state created a problem they have never solved. She suggested they deny the large scale development and make the traffic light contingent upon approval. Rick Osborne, attorney for Mr. Newsome, addressed the Board in support of the efforts to get a traffic light somewhere on 1 July 21,.. 1992 Wedington Drive. He reported Mr: Newsome is certainly supportive of this action, and at the appropriate time is willing to pay his fair share. Osborne stated it isnot fair nor rational to make Mr. Newsome's development contingent on this traffic signal, nor to delay his development which will be a top-notch, first-class development. • He reported Mr. Newsome has done a.lot to accommodate the City and residents in this area: 1. Moved the driveway from othe mid -point in a north/south direction over to the west side to line up with Florene Street. 2 Spent over $60,000 on landscapingt.on the 72 unit apartment building --some of this landscaping to provide a buffer between his development and the Giles Addition. 3 Built at a density of 14 units per acre rather than 24, which he is allowed to do under city code. 4. Providing almost double the parking requirement under the city code. 5. Agreed to share in whatever expenses are appropriate which bear a relationship to his development. Rick Osborne further stated the extension of Ann Street to the west into Woodfield will happen as it is good development of the City's transportation system. He stated he would like to see the transportation route problems in this area solved; however, this problem is not Mr. Newsome's fault. Osborne noted it is possible to influence the Highway Department giving the example of the replacement of a traffic signal in front of the Courthouse, only following a tragic death. Replacing the light did not coincide with any of their standards or requirements. Housing is desperately needed in this area, and Mr. Osborne implored the Board not to delay Mr. Newsome's development. Director Nash stated the Board of. Directors cannot be expected to be a plat review committee. She has no doubt Mr. Newsome's large scale development is probably beautiful, and she has no problem whatsoever with the development. Her idea was not to deny the development but simply to approve the development contingent on a traffic light. Mr. Osborne responded Mr. Newsome's target date for completion of the subdivision is August 1, 1993, and it cannot be built in less than a year. He doubted the timeliness in obtaining a traffic light for this area and hates to see Mr. Newsome's development delayed. 38 July 21, 1992 In response to Mr. Osborne, Alett Little stated the extension of Sycamore to the northeast has just been added to the 1993 CIP and will proceed through engineering and would possibly begin construction during 1993. Mrs. Ludwig commented the new golf course has created a lot more traffic. Mr. Newsome addressed the Board stating the effect of his project will be a solution to the traffic problem. The effect of approval of his large scale development, with any sort of contingency whatsoever, has the same effect as an out-and-out rejection. His contract for the land expires soon, and the idea of waiting for state approval for a traffic light sounds like months and years to him. Months and years from now, he hopes to be on down the road on his next project. Newsome further reported he intends to move to Fayetteville, build and supervise the construction of the development, and continue to own and maintain the development. Director Spivey stated to delay Mr. Newsome in his development is unfair. It is up to Fayetteville as a community to actively pressure the state for this traffic light. The state grants the approval for these stoplights, and the City pays for them. Spivey addressed State Representative Stewart stating there are three intersections in Fayetteville at which lives are in jeopardy every day. Mr. Hornsby asked the City Board give the citizens of Giles Addition the same consideration to solve the traffic problem that they are giving Mr. Newsome in their commitment to him. Assistant Mayor Green stated the Board has been made aware of the traffic problems in this area, and Staff has committed to work with the Highway Department and to keep this as a 1993 CIP project. He also stated it would be an injustice to their whole system of planning to make Mr. Newsome responsible for placing pressure on the state to solve this traffic problem or to deny this large scale development. Director Blackston stated he has changed his mind 3-4 times on how to vote on this issue, but he keeps coming back to one compelling factor --the problem is not going to go away by the Board denying this development. By approving the large scale development, the traffic count will be increased which would temporarily create a larger problem, but which may ultimately solve the existing problem by speeding along the possibility of getting a traffic light. In addition, the City may be able to speed along the CIP project for completion of the Sycamore extension. Director Henry asked Representative Charles Stewart to voice his commitment to this project. 1 v ;July 21; 1992 • • Charlie Stewart, State Representative, addressed.the Board stating since his recent meeting with several residents of the Giles Addition, he has made four trips out to this area to see for himself the problem. To exit to the east on Hwy. 16 off of Shiloh Drive requires yielding in four directions. Stewart further stated this may be a mitigating circumstance where the state would possibly look at placement of a. traffic light'even though the .traffic count is not present. +. He commended the Giles Addition residents for taking a positive approach°at solving this problem and offered his help to obtain some relief for these residents including arrangement of ameeting with Mr.JJHopper, the Highway Commissioner. Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the large scale development with an increased priority and commitment from City Staff to do everything possible to alleviate the traffic problems in this area. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 4 to 1, with Director Nash voting no. RESOLUTION 108-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CONDEMNATION Assistant Mayor Green presented an ordinance to condemn Tract #73 consisting of 1.96 acres plus 11 mobile homes owned by Mr. and Mrs. Allen Hatch for the Airport Federal Land Acquisition Project. W.D. Shock Co. has been unable Mrs. Hatch on their property. $230,000 for their property appraisal amount. The Hatches to keep 3 of the mobile homes. to reach a settlement with Mr. and The Hatches were made an offer of on April 8, 1992, which is the made a counteroffer of $300,000 and To avoid delays in the project, the Airport Board and staff recommend condemnation of the property. (A copy of the appraisal is available for review in the City Clerk's office.) 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 was passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Allen Hatch, owner of the property, addressed the Board reporting approximately 10 days ago, he informed Schock he had located some property and needed additional time. Mr. Hatch was advised by Schock that he would recommend to the Airport Board this July 21, 1992 condemnation proceeding be postponed for a couple of weeks, which he obviously did not do. Mr. Hatch further reported his property has been appraised in excess of $100,000. He was advised at one of the first meetings held in Greenland that if his property appraised at over $100,000, he would be entitled to two appraisals. According to federal regulations, the appraisals are to be paid for out of the land acquisition funds, and Hatch reported no attempts have been made to obtain this second appraisal by the Airport Board or W.D. Schock & Co. In addition, Mr. Schock was advised by Schock that his land acquisition would be handled last, which is not the case. Schock made a third offer, which is not in writing, that if Mr. Hatch wanted to keep his mobile homes and everything on his property, he would be paid a figure of $91,000 and $9,000 administrative costs, for a total of $100,000. Mr. Hatch asked if his land is worth $91,000 without the trailers, why is it not worth the same with the trailers? He also noted that no amount of money was figured into the appraisal for his loss of income. Because of these inconsistencies, Mr. Hatch stated he has no choice but to have this matter settled in court, although he would prefer to settle the matter. in addition, Mr. Hatch requested he be allowed a second appraisal, as well as a commitment from Schock so that he can relocate his trailer park. Kelly Johnson, Assistant Airport Manager, stated she was not privy to the conversations with Schock that Mr. Hatch referred to. She stated the figure they are basing their condemnation court deposit on includes a contributory value added for rental compensation. They are proceeding with the condemnation so the ordinance will be passed. As late as Friday of last week, Staff has been working with Schock regarding the offer that is not in writing. There are some extraordinary circumstances associated with this parcel of property, and they are trying to get some exemptions from the existing federal regulations in order to relocate Mr. Hatch with him maintaining possession of the trailers. If they are denied the exemptions by the FAA, the Airport Board can proceed with acquisition of the property once the ordinance is passed. Ms. Johnson stated she was unaware of Mr. Hatch's request for a second appraisal, and confirmed there is legislation which includes a second appraisal for any property valued at over $100,000. If Mr. Hatch is entitled to a second appraisal, Ms. Johnson stated she would see that he receives one. In response to Director Henry's question, Kelly Johnson stated Mr. Hatch's land acquisition is not the last. She explained property owners have 90 days to either accept or reject an offer. The Airport Board is thereafter required to proceed with condemnation 1 'July 21,..1992 if the offer has not been accepted, or negotiations have been unsuccessful. Mr. Hatch rejected the City'.s offer prior to his 90 day expiration, and they are simply proceeding as required: Ms: Johnson reported by passing this ordinance, they do.not intend to file paperwork with the City Attorney until they,have received a finding from FAA on this parcel, and they have every intention of trying to settle the matter with Mr. Hatch. Director Blackston stated his understanding is they are offering Mr. Hatch $76,000 for the land itself, which does not exceed $100,000, which should make the second appraisal null and void. Kelly Johnson responded if Mr. Hatch kept the mobile homes and they proceeded in this course, they would be required to proceed with condemnation. The second appraisal is only permitted if the cost of the actual acquisition exceeds $100,000. A second appraisal could be obtained in any event, but it would not be eligible for funding in the federal program. Director Nash questioned why they were being asked to pass this ordinance while there were still negotiations- on the land acquisition. #- Kelly Johnson responded the second unwritten offer was a dead issue until Mr. Hatch found the other parcel of property approximately 10 days ago. At that time, the paperwork had already been submitted to the Airport Board and was in process. They did discuss pulling the item from the agenda, but in the interest of time, decided not to. She further stated they had no intention of displacing Mr. Hatch, but unfortunately with the transitional slopes and obstructions in services, this area needs to be cleared in order to get the quarter mile landing minimum required. Mr. Hatch stated the property he is attempting to acquire is located on 51st Street, and the property used to be a mobile home park. One-third of one acre of the property is presently in the Fayetteville city limits with the remaining portion in the growth area. The property was supposedly sold by Mr. Hinton to another buyer but last Thursday Mr. Hinton advised Mr. Hatch the deal had fallen through and the property was once again for sale. Due to his age, Mr. Hatch doesn't believe he can go into debt, like he did when he built the present trailer park seven years ago. If the decision is to relocate, Mr. Hatch advised he would need some time for developing the land he is proposing to purchase. He cannot meet both the City and County requirements within a ninety day period. Hatch reported the rental market value of his property from the City is approximately $606 per month. He stated he had requested That Schock obtain permission from FAA, as well as the City, for a six month period with every honest attempt on his part to vacate the property as soonas was feasible. July 21, 1992 Director Spivey asked Kelly Johnson whether it would hurt to table this item for a couple weeks to try to confirm the unwritten offer, as well as the issue of the second appraisal. She responded in her opinion, tabling this item for another two weeks would not have a detrimental effect on the development. Spivey, seconded by Henry, made a motion to table the ordinance for two weeks. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. Assistant Mayor Green stated the ordinance was tabled on its third and final reading until the next board meeting. Mr. Hatch stated he will have a definite answer for the City in two weeks. SANITATION RATE INCREASE Assistant Mayor Green introduced an ordinance increasing the sanitation rates for the City of Fayetteville. Based on current projections of expenditures, rates will have to be increased for sanitation services effective August 1, 1992 to avoid a year end deficit in the Sanitation Fund. To stabilize the Sanitation Fund, the following rates are proposed: A. Increase current residential rates from per month ($1.50 for current recycling programs and $.75 for increased disposal B. Increase commercial load all rates from per cubic yard. C. Increase commercial cans base rate from per month. The ordinance was read for the first time. $5.50 to $7.75 and composting cost.) $2.00 to $3.00 $5.50 to $8.00 Director Blackston stated approximately 8 months ago, the Board briefly looked at sanitation figures and facts and considered alternatives to a rate increase, such as decreasing level of service from twice to once per week. In addition, they were going to investigate the recycling and composting effort, as well as figure the rate increase required to keep the Sanitation Department in good financial shape. Therefore, Blackston stated he is not ready to "piece meal" this ordinance by approving a rate increase without looking at all other factors involved. Assistant Mayor Green asked Staff if they had a breakdown on what the proposed rate increases would entail. Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson responded the increase from $5.50 to $7.75 per month consists of $1.50 for the recycling and composting programs and a 1 July 21,' 1992 75 cent increase for increased disposal cost at the land fill. In addition, the limited capacities in the land fills in Northwest Arkansas and the economic factors which drive this market. In response to Director Henry's question, Crosson responded the City has not had a sanitation'rate•increase since 1982. Since his position with the City, 'Staff has looked .at. 4 separate rate increase proposals in a variety of ways. He reported the consensus is in the direction of a solid waste program, and with this proposal the City is given the ability to maintain the integrity of the sanitation fund, which is projected to be broke by the end of the year. r. Crosson further stated the proposal allows the. Board and future Council to stabilize the fund --for 1992 and provides adequate revenue generation through 1993, to allow the new Council, if it so chooses, to change services any way they so choose. Greg Fields, Solid Waste Superintendent, addressed the Board stating it is hard to say exactly how much a decrease in service from twice to once per week would create until they actually put it into action. Logic would seem to suggest you could save half; while in reality a savings of one-third would be realized. Fields stated his best guess would be decreasing service would bring the existing rate down to $6.75 to $7.00 range. In further explanation, Crosson stated assuming collection is reduced to once a week, an increase would be realized in the recycling/composting portion with a general fluctuation in programs all the way around. In the event the City wishes to go to a once a week collection program, Staff recommends a rate on the low side that can be adjusted when needed. Director Henry asked whether every resident is basically charged the same regardless of the amount or type of waste and whether they utilize the recycling/composting program. Crosson responded they will be proposing to the Board a subscription program for yard waste collection. Crosson further reported at the present time, yard waste is collected city wide and a subscription service with an annual fee would cut down on a lot of the unnecessary route time spent not collecting yard waste. For recycling, the drop off recycling program they operate is much less expensive than a curb side recycling program. The flip side is everyone pays for the cost of this program as there is no way to identify who is using the program. In addition, residents outside the City of Fayetteville tend to use the drop-off program, and controlling this is very difficult. Assistant Mayor Green stated the Board has looked at several potential rate increases and has always been committed to some July 21, 1992 subsidy of the recycling program to keep it alive and be in a position to take advantage of potential breakthroughs in recycling markets. He further stated his hesitation to move this ordinance through to its second reading with the other potential possibilities and different philosophies. His main concern is for the sanitation fund to be solvent. Projections are the fund will run out at the end of the year, and this doesn't give the new council much time to get a program underway. Director Nash voiced her agreement with Mayor Green's statements. Mike Faupel, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board requesting they direct the Staff to consider a volume -based fee structure which has also been discussed by the City in the past. Since they have reached a point where fees will need to be increased, it is in order to consider other options including a volume -based fee. This fee structure would be more equitable for those participating in the recycling/composting programs, and reward citizens for participating in these successful city programs. With no other comments, the ordinance was left on its first reading. Kevin Crosson stated he would compile information on past research done on volumetric rates and some of the components the system would require. Director Henry noted past research has indicated Fayetteville has the lowest sanitation rates of any comparable size city since the fees have not been raised in ten years. Crosson further stated until recently when the City went to curb side collection, they were considered a "cadillac service" with the several programs offered at no charge, such as spring/fall clean- up, "fill -a -truck" program, recycling/ composting, and yard waste collection programs. EPA ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT REPORT Assistant Mayor Green introduced a resolution as required by the U.B. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Order for Information Docket NV. VI -91-2353 to comply with its Municipal Water Pollution Prevention (MWPP) Program City Manager Linebaugh reported that as a requirement for the renewal of the City's NPDES permit, the Board of Directors needs to adopt a resolution informing EPA Region 6 that they have: A. Reviewed the Municipal Water Pollution Prevention Environmental Audit which is attached to the resolution; and 1 1 July 21, 1992 B. Set forth the following actions necessary to maintain permit requirements contained in the NPDES Permit number AR0020010: 1. provide necessary funding for good operation and maintenance of the Fayetteville wastewater treatment facility; and 2. provide capital funding for required facility expansion when it becomes necessary. Linebaugh further reported Staff is recommending approval of this resolution. Blackston, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the resolution. Director Henry requested Staff give a report on the Environmental Audit. Director Audit is averages of Public Works Kevin Crosson explained the Environmental a summary of operations and detailed reports on monthly of the different components of effluent. Billy Ammons, Manager of the Waste Water Treatment Plant, explained the audit asked Staff to cover the operating records from March 1991 through March 1992 and report on the performance of the Waste Water Treatment Plant. The results of the audit indicated the plant provides excellent service in treating waste water. In general, the Waste Water Treatment Plant has performed at an extremely high level, effluent from the facility is very good and easily meets all requirements. Ammons reported there have been no violations of the various stringent discharge regulations in the past 28 months. Director Henry noted the only problems were with overflows, due to inflow from sewers, which are currently being rehabilitated to reduce this problem. Crosson reported on the "point and calculation" table, out of a possible 920 points, (high being the worst scenario and low being good), the City of Fayetteville scored total over all aspects of the Waste Water Treatment Plant, at 175 points. In addition, the City scored a maximum score of 100, on the "overflows and bypasses" section for which the City currently has a program to solve the problems in this area. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 109-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE July 21, 1992 FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES Assistant Mayor Green introduced an ordinance waiving the requirements of competitive bidding and approving a contract extension in an amount not to exceed $51,000 with Coopers & Lybrand for financial audit services of the City for 1992. The contract with Coopers & Lybrand was for the years 1988 through 1991. However, due to the change in government, changes in operations and procedures may be made. Therefore, it would create a problem for firms submitting proposals for audit services. Coopers & Lybrand is familiar with the operations of the City and can provide continuity in the audit process until the new administration is in place. The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, seconded by Henry, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 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 failed by a vote of 4 to 1, with Director Nash voting no. For lack of 5 positive votes, the ordinance was left on its second reading. Director Nash commented waiving requirements for competitive bidding hurts local people. She suggested the City take bids for the financial audit services whether Coopers & Lybrand eventually gets the account or not. Assistant Mayor Green responded Director Nash's suggestion would do away with the continuity they are trying to achieve in extending Cooper & Lybrands contract for one year. He stated these contracts are normally for 3-4 years. Director Henry stated with the uncertainty in the city government, it is not likely the City would receive bids for only one year. STREET VACATION Assistant Mayor Green introduced an ordinance vacating a portion of University Avenue north of llth Street that is between the National Cemetery and property they are purchasing as requested by James B. Clark, vice President of the Regional National Cemetery Improvement Corporation. Staff has no objection to the vacation subject to utility easements as stated in the petition. The other utility companies expressed no objections. 1 July 21, 1992 The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, seconded by Henry, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 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 was passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. 'James Clark, the petitioner, addressed the Board stating this land 'was purchased to increase the size of the National Cemetery and prevent it from being closed. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. ORDINANCE 3623 APPEARS ON PAGE /‘',3 OF ORDINANCE BOOK )(XVI' OTHER BUSINESS a RALSTON. AVENUE SEWER. LINE City Manager Linebaugh presented a change order for $13,583 to McClinton Anchor, to replace the sewer line on Ralston.,Avenue. Cracks were discovered in the existing sewer line, and Staff has recommended the necessary replacement of the entire line., The most appropriate way to correct the problem was'to,addtthis item.to the existing contract with McClinton Anchor. In response to Director Henry's question; Kevin Crosson responded that the pavement has been.torn up, and this would be the; ideal time to do the work. 41 4 Henry, seconded by Blackston, made'a motion to approve the change order. Upon roll call, the motion passed byta vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 110-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.