HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-08-04 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the FayettevilleCity Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, August 4, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room
of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Fred Vorsanger; Assistant Mayor Mike Green;
Directors Ann Henry, Julie Nash, Dan Coody, and 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.
ABSENT:
CALL TO ORDER
Director Shell Spivey.
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with six Directors
present. The Mayor asked those present to. stand and recite the
Pledge of Allegiance, and then asked that a brief moment of
respectful silence be observed.
The 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.
CITIZEN RECOGNITION
Mayor Vorsanger announced the City of Fayetteville has so many
citizens who bring recognition to the City. He stated the City has
a 10 -year old baseball team called the "Bambinos" who have won the
first state championship held in Fayetteville for 10 -year olds. He
announced the Bambinos are playing tonight in Mountain View against
three other teams who won their state championships. If the
Bambinos win two more games, they will sweep their regionals.
Mayor Vorsanger designated July 31st as "Bambinos Day" at their
send off last Friday.
Mayor Vorsanger further announced that Mike Conley, from
Fayetteville, has won a gold medal in the Olympics in Barcelona.
This is the first Olympic gold medal won by anyone from the City of
Fayetteville. Mike will be arriving home on Thursday evening. His
plane is due in at 9:00 p.m. at Drake Field. Vorsanger announced
the City would hold a "Mike Conley Appreciation Day" on Friday,
August 7 with a noon reception on the Square. He urged the
citizens of Fayetteville to come out on Friday to welcome home and
honor Mike Conley.
40
August 4, 1992
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
Mayor Vorsanger reintroduced an ordinance amending the Noise
Control Ordinance.
The Board voted at their July 21, 1992 meeting to amend the Noise
Control Ordinance. The amendments would provide that only property
owners or leaseholders may complain, and the noise is measured from
that property. This would eliminate the general public from
complaining and eliminate enforcement from public property. The
police would have no independent enforcement responsibilities.
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 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Green, 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 6 to 0. The
ordinance was read for the third and final time.
Director Nash asked City Attorney Rose to briefly explain how this
Noise Control Ordinance is different from the original.
City Attorney Rose explained the present Noise Control Ordinance
has been criticized in that it is ambiguous as to where the noise
is to be measured from. The proposed ordinance would clear up the
alleged ambiguousness by having the noise measured from the
property owner's or lease holder's property. Secondly, the current
ordinance allows any individual, regardless of where he is, to
complain. The proposed ordinance limits those who complain to
lease holder's or property owners on their property. The decibel
levels contained in the amended Noise Control Ordinance are
precisely the same as in, the present ordinance.
Director Coody expressed reservations with the proposed amendments
to the Noise Control Ordinance. He stated his support for the
recommendation previously rendered by City Prosecutor Terry Jones
to clear up any ambiguity and intent of the original ordinance,
noise levels should be measured from the property that was
generating the noise. Coody further stated he believes the
specific problem at issue has been solved through the cooperation
and extreme measures taken by George's Majestic Lounge to lower
their noise levels, the noise level has become acceptable to the
neighborhood, and the same was solved without amending the City's
ordinances for this one situation.
August4; 1992
Director Coody further questioned the. amendment to the Noise
Ordinance which eliminates the generaFpublic from complaining, but
doesn't address or eliminate the noise problem: He feels it is
unfair to disallow, for instance, an employee of a retail
establishment who is bothered _by'. noise eight. hours a day from
complaining about the same.
He believes the City is weakening their current -noise ordinance by
amending the measurement of sound levels from the property
boundaries of the actual source of the noise, and moving the
measurement 4 to 5 blocks away, to the property of complainant as
well as limiting who can complain. This problem does not
necessitate changing the laws.
Bill Myers, resident of 306 Adams, addressed the Board stating he
does not have a complaint against George's Majestic Lounge. He has
been a patron for many years back in the beginning when the beer
garden was a vineyard. Mr. Myers stated his opposition to the
amended Noise Ordinance, and suggested they look at the overall
problem of "noise pollution" in two capacities: 1) The primary
purpose of public health, which the amended ordinance does not
address, but rather interferes with the enjoyment of life; and 2)
The entire concept should be expanded to look at the interior noise
as well, and reduce that level to where it is not destroying the
hearing of patrons.
Mr. Myers further supported measuring noise from the source, and
differentiating between "sound" and "noise". With respect to
limiting who can file a complaint, Mr. Myers stated this will
merely cause confusion. He suggested the Board defeat the proposed
amended Noise Control Ordinance, go back to square one, and improve
the entire ordinance in terms of the public's hearing being
protected.
Claudette Hunnicutt, resident of 520 North Washington, located one
block east of College Avenue, addressed the Boardstating there
are times when her family can hear the music coming from George's.
Regardless of the fact that the City seemingly has corrected the
problem with George's Majestic Lounge, she assured the Board that
George's is not the only problem in the community concerning loud
music emanating from bars and causing trouble in residential
neighborhoods. Ms. Hunnicutt posed the question as to when her
rights to enjoy the peace and quiet of her home and neighborhood
became secondary to those who wish to play loud music, scream,.
swear, and fight on her street at 2:00 a.m., and when did their
rights become more important than hers?
Ms. Hunnicutt reported from her discussions with public officials,
that many of the people who frequent these establishments are not
even residents of Fayetteville, who come to our city to party,
because their cities don't allow these kinds of establishments. As
the student population grows at the University of Arkansas so does
August 4, 1992
their numbers grow at the local bars, and they make up a large
percentage of the patronage. The University's decision several
years ago to stop all alcoholic beverages from being served on
campuses has only added to the problem in the Fayetteville
community. Ms. Hunnicutt stated her family and neighbors feel like
captives in their own homes. In light of the many and varied
problems being experienced in several areas of Fayetteville, she
urged the Board of Directors not to "water down" the Noise Control
Ordinance in any way. The problems already being encountered in
many areas of the city will only become compounded if they do so.
Director Coody addressed Ms. Hunnicutt stating he receives more
complaints, like those she expressed,- from this same neighborhood,
than any other single situation in Fayetteville. What occurs
inside these bars at night when they're open is their business;
however, when these patrons trespass on private property and
violate the rights of the property owners, it becomes the City's
responsibility to protect these neighborhoods.
In response to Director Henry's question whether the police respond
to her calls, Ms. Hunnicutt stated if available, the police do
respond. However, she has been told there are only 8 policemen on
patrol in Fayetteville at night, and it frequently takes 20 minutes
for them to arrive. She has also been advised by the police on
numerous occasions her calls are not considered "an emergency
situation", and often times by the time the police arrive, the
troublemakers are gone. It wouldn't be so bad if these activities
occurred occasionally; but these infractions are happening every
week, and on her Street, as often as Thursday through Saturday,
until 2:30 a.m.
Woody Bassett, attorney representing George's Majestic Lounge,
addressed the Board stating in view of some of the remarks made,
he was compelled to address the Board once again. Mr. Bassett
stated he knows and respects Claudette Hunnicutt and her family;
however, he doesn't believe the problems she is encountering in her
neighborhood have anything to do with George's Majestic Lounge.
He further suggested the discussion taking place should be focusing
specifically on the Noise Control Ordinance. Mr. Bassett stated he
doubts the City Board can do much to control rude, obnoxious
behavior at late hours; however, a citizen has every right to be
concerned and to call the police with such complaints.
Mr. Bassett further explained this proposed Noise Control Ordinance
is designed to protect people and ensure citizens have the right to
enjoy peace and quiet in the privacy of their homes. The ordinance
allows a property owner or apartment dweller to enjoy this peace
and quiet in their home or apartment, and if they are disturbed by
some source of noise that is too high or out -of -line, then they
have the right to lodge a complaint with the Police Department. An
officer will then visit the property where the complainant resides
August 4, 1992.:
and using their equipment, will measure the decibel level. If the
decibel level registers in excess of the proscribed limits, then
that source of sound will receive a citation.
To his knowledge, Bassett stated this is the method in which the
Noise Control Ordinance was originally intended 'and enforced.
Somewhere along the line, someone made a decision to measure the
decibel level from the boundary line of the noise emitting
property. Once that switch was made, at least in the interest of
George's Majestic Lounge, it became rather unfair.
With respect to the concern this Noise Control Ordinance will not
permit the general public to lodge a complaint; Mr. Bassett
reiterated a noise ordinance is supposed to protect citizens in
0 their homes. If the ordinance was to allow the general public to
complain, this could create a situation where those who don't like
music or establishments that sell liquor or patrons that gather
there could use this as a vendetta against that establishment.
Mr. Bassett stated the City Board should be focusing on an
ordinance that is fair and reasonable for everybody concerned, and
in the final analysis, protects people in their homes.
Mayor Vorsanger asked if anyone present knew the Board of
Director's legislative intent in the initial Noise Control
Ordinance of where to measure the noise?
Director Henry responded she was serving on the City Board at the
time the initial Noise Control Ordinance was adopted, and the
legislative intent was to protect people in their own homes from
unduly noise. The Board recognized this could be within compliance
at that establishment, but because of the topography, could be
disturbed in their own home. Director Henry further stated it is
her recollection that the intent of the original Noise Control
Ordinance was to measure the decibel level from the receiving
source.
Woody Bassett stated the City's amended Noise Control Ordinance
returns to the original intent of the ordinance where measurements
of sound levels are taken from the receiving land use. Mr. Bassett
further stated the management and employees of George's Majestic
Lounge are very aware of the problem and have made considerable
efforts to control the noise problem, and will continue to keep the
noise level at a legal and appropriate level in the future. To his
knowledge, George's Majestic Lounge is the only establishment in
Fayetteville which offers outdoor music. The surrounding neighbors
in this area are satisfied with the efforts made by George's to
control the noise.
Mr. Bassett further stated with the passage of this ordinance and
the public debate that has taken place on this issue over the past
few months, surely puts everyoneon notice they need to monitor the
4'i
•
August 4, 1992
noise from their home or property is kept at an acceptable and
legal level. If nothing else, this decision has brought the
problem to the minds of the people and to those who have an
obligation to control noise.
Director Coody, through Woody Bassett, thanked George's Majestic
Lounge for their efforts to correct the noise problem.
Charles Howard, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board in
opposition to the proposed amendment to the Noise Control
Ordinance, stating he is not satisfied with the efforts taken by
George's Majestic Lounge, and although the noise level has been
reduced, there is still a problem. Mr. Howard reported the
neighbors he has spoken with agree with him that the current noise
levels should be reduced even more.
Mr. Howard called attention to the preamble of the amendment to the
Noise Control Ordinance which states, "It is the intent of the
Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville to protect the
citizens from unreasonable or excessive noise while in their homes
and/or their property." He believes the intent of this ordinance
should be to protect the citizens of Fayetteville from excessive
noise, wherever they might be within the city limits. Mr. Howard
stated the proposed amendment ignores the problems that people have
with noise outside their homes and gave the example of a family
picnic taking place in a city park, and another picnicker sets up
a "boom box" close by, playing loud music; the proposed amendment
to the Noise Control Ordinance would not enable them to be
protected from this noise. He further reiterated Director Coody's
concern with the proposed amendment that individuals who are
bothered by outside noise during the course of their employment
would be barred from making a complaint.
Mr. Howard stated the noise level should be measured as close to
the source as possible which gives a better measurement than
measurements taken one-half mile away from the sound source. He
further stated the police report of July 20th in which it was
reported they measured a decibel level of 72 at George's Majestic
Lounge, which is approximately four times a higher noise level than
would be under the interpretation of the current ordinance. The
police stated they could not determine who was making the noise
because it appeared there was a second band playing somewhere in
the immediate area; therefore, the police decided to ignore the
situation. Mr. Howard stated that if the police can ignore a
decibel level of 72 because two bands are playing, they are likely
to ignore measurements taken one-half mile away from the noise
source.
Mr. Howard mentioned the EPA survey of cities throughout the United
States that found the decibel measurement at the boundary line
between commercial and residential properties averaged 52 decibels,
r;4 U
August .4, 1992,
and the City's decibel level limits allowed are approximately four
times that of the survey average.'
•
In view of the numerous concerns expressed by citizens about other
noise problems in the City, Mr. Howard suggested that the Board of
Directors appoint a committee of citizens to study these problems,
and try to establish the best possible noise control ordinance
possible.
Director Coody stated that some cities have noise levels 5 decibels
lower than the City of Fayetteville's; however, due to the
University, the City felt that a higher level was in order. He
reported that in Columbia, Missouri, their noise control ordinance
is without decibel levels, but rather,it states that if a sound can
be clearly audible at 300 feet before 11:00 p.m. and clearly
audible at 50 feet after 11:00 p.m., this violates their noise
ordinance. Mr. Coody stated that he liked the idea of forming a
citizen's committee to discuss this multi -faceted city-wide noise
problem and ordinance.
Charles Howard responded to Director Coody's comments and stated
the City of Norman, Oklahoma, where the University of Oklahoma is
located, has a decibel limit ordinance which provides for a limit
of 55 decibels at night. He further reported the City of
Greensboro, North Carolina, had an ordinance which prohibited
sounds from amplifiers which were audible at 150 feet. Mr. Howard
stated he lives more than 1,500 feet from George's Majestic Lounge,
and the noise created by the amplified music is audible at his
home. The noise level has decreased and the problem improved since
the controversy began; however, he believes it could be improved
further.
Cyrus Young, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
as far as he is concerned, the original Noise Control Ordinance
needs no further clarification. However, he doesn't believe the
ordinance is clear to the Police Department or the City Prosecutor.
A problem in the past has been with enforcement of the law as it is
written. Mr. Young asked if this ordinance is passed, what
assurances would the citizens of Fayetteville have, that the
ordinance would be enforced as it is written?
Mayor Vorsanger responded to Mr. Young's question, stating he
assumes it would be enforced the same as the present ordinance is
enforced.
Mr. Young stated the problem has been that the Noise Control
Ordinance has not been enforced as it was written. It was his
understanding that the center of the problem has been with the
interpretation of the ordinance; however, the amended ordinance is
very clear, and he would hope the City makes, certain this -new
ordinance is enforced as it is written and filed at the Courthouse.
August 4, 1992
Robert Brandon, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating he has a problem with the bizarre line of reasoning which
says citizens only have a right to protection from noise pollution
while huddled in their homes. By not enforcing the Noise Control
Ordinance in public places, this allows for wide discretion in
terms of any kind of noise source, and in such places as public
parks, this would open a gate to continual, constant, unmitigated
noise in public places.
Mr. Brandon stated his agreement with Director Spivey's comments at
the last Board meeting. It is absolutely absurd to expect the
public to enforce the noise ordinance. It is the responsibility of
the police, and the wording in the amended ordinance makes it
absolutely unenforceable. In order to respond to complaints, the
police would be required to go to a number of different places to
investigate noise from a single source. Mr. Brandon stated the
only reasonable method for measuring noise levels is to measure
from the source. In closing, he urged the Board to reject the
proposed amended Noise Control Ordinance.
Bill Myers addressed the Board stating the problems created with
reflection of sound, is exactly why the noise measurement should be
taken at the source.
A member of the audience addressed the Board stating she has since
moved, and cited an incident when one Saturday night, the band from
George's Majestic Lounge and four bands at the old warehouse were
competing until 2:00 to 3:00 a.m. Many of the elderly residents at
Hillcrest Towers go to bed at 9:00 p.m. and find it hard to sleep
due to the noise.
Mavis Mitchell stated she is a resident at 1 North School, a twelve
story high rise with 120 apartments which primarily houses disabled
and elderly people. Many of the residents cannot afford air
conditioning and keep their windows open in the summertime. She
stated her appreciation for any efforts made by George's Majestic
Lounge and other establishments on Dickson Street to shut the noise
down.
Woody Bassett stated it would be great if a perfect Noise Control
Ordinance could be drafted to address every potential situation and
problem, but that is impossible. He suggested the Board of
Directors needed to pass an ordinance that is fair and workable and
balances the interests of businesses and homeowners. The ordinance
further should permit the police department to investigate and
issue citations for violations of the Noise Ordinance, but won't
have the police running here and there with decibel machines when
they have more important matters to attend to.
Mr. Bassett stated there is not a citizen in this country that from
time to time isn't affected by some source of excessive noise. The
ordinance needs to address the situations where there is a
rel
August 4/ 1992
continuous problem, and give .homeowners and citizens on their
property a remedy. He stated his belief that the remedy offered by
the amended ordinance was fair and good. Mr. Bassett gave an
example of how noise affected different people in different ways,
citing that decibel levels taken in the surrounding neighborhood to
George's Majestic Lounge register at 58 to 61 decibels from the
crickets. For the record, Mr.. Bassett reiterated George's Majestic
Lounge closes at 1:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and closes at
midnight on Saturday.
Mr. Bassett assured the Board that if this ordinance is passed,
George's Majestic Lounge will do their best to ensure that citizens
are not disturbed in their homes. George's has been in business
for many years, and in general has done a good job of limiting the
noise. There have been some problems when the noise was too loud,
and this has been corrected. Many of the complaints being conveyed
to the Board come from past behavior, and he suggested they look
not to the past, but to the future.
Charles Howard addressed the Board suggesting the simplest way to
handle the problem at George's would be to turn off the amplifiers,
suggesting amplified music after 11:00 p.m. is inappropriate.
George's Majestic Lounge is currently the only establishment in
Fayetteville with outdoor amplified music, and Mr. Howard expressed
his concern that other establishments are considering it.
Therefore, he suggested the City stop outdoor amplified music after
10:00 p.m., and lower or hold the decibel levels to the current
limits prior to 10:00.
Claudette Hunnicutt addressed the Board stating she is very good
friends with the Harrisons, and she appreciates the fact that they
have corrected the problem at George's Majestic Lounge. However,
this Noise Control Ordinance is not only for George's but for the
entire City. Therefore, the Board needs to consider other
situations as well when passing this ordinance.
Director Coody concurred with Ms. Hunnicutt that the discussion has
zeroed in on one particular business and situation at George's, but
the Noise Control Ordinance is city-wide and ongoing. He believes
this issue has been more special interest oriented than it should
be
Director Green stated based on his research and the various
positions expressed on the proposed Noise Control Ordinance, it
appears to him that the original intent of this ordinance was for
the protection of people in the privacy of their homes and
property. As far as noise levels in the workplace, there is the
Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act which protects workers
on the job. The decibel levels proscribed under OSHA regulations
are extremely stringent and .strictly enforced. .The issue of
controlling noise levels on public property can be a problem, and
he suggested persons being bothered by noise on public property,
August 4, 1992
such as parks, always have the option of moving to another
location. The other facet of that is that if the noise on public
property is extreme, chances are it is going to be extreme at the
boundary and interfering with nearby residential property owners
who could complain.
Director Green stated some of the decibel measurements taken by the
police indicate if they were to lower the decibel limits at
residential property, they will be creating a further enforcement
problem by requiring the noise limit to be lower than the
background limit. Noise created by crickets, tree frogs, and
general traffic has background noise levels right at the proscribed
limits in the ordinance. Therefore, Green stated he believes the
decibel limits established in the Noise Control Ordinance are very
practical, well thought-out, and balanced to different needs and
the various special interests.
Green expressed the original Noise Control Ordinance contained some
"gray areas" which were perhaps misinterpreted and created
confusion. He believes the proposed amendment to the Noise Control
Ordinance absolutely clarifies the original intent of the ordinance
and will continue to protect the people on their own property,
whether commercial or residential.
Director Blackston stated regardless of what type of Noise Control
ordinance the City adopts, it will not please everyone. What is
noise to one person, is not necessarily noise to another. At his
own residence, he reported the primary noise created in the
summertime results from crickets, katydids, and locusts. There are
only three sounds that will penetrate through and become dominate
over the natural sounds created by these insects: noise from
Thunder Valley Racetrack two miles away, the EPC Plant which
operates a machine that creates a hammer noise, and the large
trucks, with loud mufflers, traveling from the south on Hwy. 71.
Blackston stated when they chose this option from the four offered,
the Board did so with the intent of clarifying the existing Noise
Control Ordinance as to where the noise is to be measured from.
They are not tearing up an ordinance which was probably given a
great deal of thought at the time it was adopted. He believes the
option the Board chose for amending the existing Noise Control
Ordinance is the least offensive, and he will support it.
Director Nash reiterated she prefers City Prosecutor Terry Jones'
option of measuring the sound at the source because logistically it
makes more sense to go to one place than to run all over town
trying to measure the source.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 4 to 2, with
Directors Coody and Nash voting no.
ORDINANCE 3624 APPEARS ON PAGE /63/ OF ORDINANCE BOOK )(XVI
August 4; 1992
CONDEMNATION
Mayor Vorsanger reintroduced 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.
This ordinance was left on its third reading at the July 21, 1992
Board meeting to allow Mr. Hatch additional time to negotiate on
replacement property.
W.D. Schock Co. has been unable to reach a settlement with Mr. and
Mrs. Hatch on their property. The Hatches were made an offer of
$230,000 for their property on April 8, 1992, which is the
appraisal amount. The Hatches made a counteroffer of $300,000 and
to keep 3 of the mobile homes. (A copy of the appraisal is
available for review in the City Clerk's Office).
To avoid delays in the project, the Airport Board and staff
recommend condemnation of the property.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance, which was on its third
reading.
Allen Hatch, owner of the subject property, addressed the Board
stating as of that evening, the property that he has been
attempting to acquire is no longer for sale. Therefore, he is out
of suggestions and/or places to go for replacement property.
Dale Frederick, Manager of Drake Field, addressed the Board
reiterating the Airport Federal Land Acquisition Project is
primarily for safety and the Relocation Act is to move people away
from areas that would create danger to the public, and in no way
will the property owner be jeopardized with the proceedings on this
condemnation. Mr. Hatch is entitled to full benefits of the law.
W.D. Schock addressed the Board stating he has been conferring with
Mr. Hatch over the last two or three weeks, and they have made a
good faith effort to come to an administrative settlement before
proceeding with condemnation proceedings. Mr. Schock reported
their approach is to try to work with homeowners one-on-one before
filing condemnation proceedings; however, his job ends at a certain
point after the offer is made and a reasonable period of time has
elapsed. If in fact there is a disagreement on the appraisal of
the property, in order to be fair and equitable to the property
owner, a condemnation proceeding is necessary. As the City's
consultant, he recommends this property be condemned.
Mr. Hatch stated he and Mr. Schock have worked hard on a settlement
in the last few weeks, and believes Mr. Schock has done everything
possible to reach settlement. However, his disagreement is the
appraisal of this property does not justify his loss,of income for
the balance of his lifetime. .With the new county rules and
August 4, 1992
regulations as far as sanitation, water and roads, which he fully
supports for a small business, the cost of these improvements would
be a hardship on him.
Director Coody addressed Mr. Hatch stating condemnation proceedings
are probably the least favorite responsibility of the Board.
Mr. Hatch responded the hard part for him to swallow is that his
father left him a little money, and he put it into this mobile home
park, which was his retirement. He has been a police officer most
of his life with small cities, and he has no pension; this was
intended as his pension. This property existed before the airport,
and planes have been flying over it for years and years.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3625 APPEARS ON PAGE/("/ OF ORDINANCE BOOR XXVI
SANITATION RATE INCREASE
Mayor Vorsanger reintroduced an ordinance increasing the sanitation
rates for the City of Fayetteville.
This ordinance was left on its first reading at the July 21, 1992
Board meeting to allow time for further information to be prepared
and presented.
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 $5.50 to $7.75
per month ($1.50 for current recycling and composting
programs and 75C for increased disposal cost).
B. Increase commercial load all rates from $2.00 to $3.00
per cubic yard.
C. Increase commercial cans base rate from $5.50 to $8.00
per month.
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 6 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
6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time.
•
August 4,. 1992
Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson addressed a memo Staff had
prepared regarding discussions with the City Board of Directors
over the last several weeks program. The memo outlines the City's
interest and commitment to provide a pilot curbside recycling
program to the citizens of Fayetteville. Crosson reported due to
the sales tax bond funds being tied up in the lawsuit and the
inability to secure capital funds for a processing facility,
curbside recycling has not yet been implemented.
The City has set aside money for a transfer facility in the last
two Capital Improvement Programs, and Staff is currently working on
other options involving the Four -County Solid Waste Management
District to obtain state grant money to fund a solid waste transfer
station for Southern Washington County. Such a facility may be
able to serve as a processing facility for the City's recyclables.
A third option would be a combination of the Four County Solid
Waste District's grant program and the City's sales tax money.
He stated they are prepared to implement a very limited pilot
curbside recycling program within the next eight weeks. Staff is
currently evaluating a program started in Hot Springs, Arkansas, in
early July, and will continue to follow their progress as the City
of Fayetteville begins its own curbside recycling program. Over
the past several years, Staff has gathered a tremendous amount of
information on the various curbside recycling program options
available. Crosson reported they anticipate their initial pilot
curbside recycling program to entail a neighborhood volunteer
program limited to one route, utilizing existing manpower and
equipment. This program would be coupled with once -a -week trash
collection. Due to the lack of capital infrastructure, this
program will be limited to collection of aluminum, clear glass, and
newspaper, with one material being collected each week. Staff
proposes to refine and develop a proposal, including a time frame,
to present to the Board at the first meeting in September that
outlines the specifics of the program they would like to offer the
City.
Crosson further reported Staff's concern with the sanitation
increases, as they feel strongly that it is their responsibility to
present options to the Board to maintain the integrity of the solid
waste fund. He further reported the best estimates are that the
solid waste fund will be out of money by the end of the year,
assuming no landfill rate increases. The Board has options for
improving the entire rate increase being recommended or a
percentage increase simply to maintain the fund until other options
can be explored. -
In response to Mayor Vorsanger, and in further clarification of the
proposed ordinance, Crosson explained he is recommending the City
begin the process of evaluating curbside recycling programs. The
concept being presented to the Board is an initial pilot curbside
recycling program, on a very limited basis; utilizing existing
August 4, 1992
resources. This pilot program will give them information such as
public participation levels, initial data on volumes, and
evaluation of infrastructure needs. This being the initial
program, there will probably be a need to do several other pilot
programs to evaluate various collection methods before a final
decision is made. Future pilot programs would also incorporate
volumetric rate studies to determine the most cost-effective method
to charge residents for these services.
In response to Director Coody's question regarding collection
procedures with the pilot curbside recycling program and normal
trash collection, Crosson stated on a Monday/Thursday schedule,
they would collect solid waste on the first day of the week and
then one recyclable on the second collection day of the week.
Director Coody stated anything they can do to implement curbside
recycling should be supported by the City. He believes the
simplest and least confusing method will be the most effective. In
his discussions with Drew Holt, the Four County Solid Waste
District Coordinator, he presented the argument for a twice -a -week
collection schedule with solid waste collection on one day and
recyclable collection on the other. He stated it is hard for
citizens to remember which days what is collected, so he favors a
once -a -week collection schedule for all materials which is much
less confusing and would allow for much higher participation.
Director Coody suggested Staff consult with Drew Holt, who has
expertise in this area and could offer some very good ideas.
Kevin Crosson responded he believes Drew Holt's suggestion is an
excellent program the City may want to undertake as one of their
pilot programs. He stated the Board of Directors would most likely
prefer to look at a handful of collection options, and evaluate
each against the other to determine which would fit the City of
Fayetteville.
Mayor Vorsanger stated these are very good discussions and as far
as a pilot recycling program, they can be started at any time.
However, the question before the Board is a rate increase. He
expressed his concern with the deficit in the sanitation fund,
spending $350,000 per year more than collected. The question
before them is whether to continue on their current path, which
will only increase the deficit in the sanitation fund, or is the
Board willing to raise sanitation rates to cover a minimum level of
service currently being offered. He personally believes
Fayetteville's sanitation/recycling service is a "Cadillac" service
and the best buy anywhere in Arkansas at $5.50 per month.
Director Nash asked Kevin Crosson if he has reviewed the daily
operations of the Sanitation Department to see if there are any
areas that could be cut?
August 4, 1992
Kevin Crosson responded he has evaluated the solid waste operation
on several occasions, and in fact, reduced expenses tremendously in
the operations and administration program by approximately
$200,000. This department has had no choice but to be cost
conscious in the solid waste fund due to their inability to get a
rate increase since 1982.
Mayor Vorsanger stated they should not minimize the fact that the
City has not had a sanitation rate increase for ten years.
Director Blackston stated he has been opposed to looking at a
solution to the City's sanitation situation from only one
standpoint, that of a rate increase. The thing that "sticks in his
craw" is a lot of people continue to purport Fayetteville's
neighbors to the north have programs that provide essentially the
same services for less money. He has talked with Staff, and this
simply is not true. These communities are paying approximately
$5.50 a month sanitation fee, but their programs are not nearly
equal to those provided by Fayetteville. Fayetteville's recycling
and composting: programs are far superior.
Director Blackston stated the point he would like to get across to
the public is that recycling and composting is a "negative" in
terms of the cost; it's not a break-even or profitable situation.
Blackston stated he is firmly convinced this is the route the City
of Fayetteville needs to take, but it will take funding. The fact
is that to increase the City's recycling or composting programs or
to maintain the current level of service, it will cost more money.
Director Blackston stated the City is in a deficit situation, and
if they want to keep their current services or improve services,
they must consider increasing rates. Blackston stated he is
willing to vote for some sort of program that will keep the
sanitation fund balance in the black, instead of in a deficit
condition, leaving the new City Council with a much larger problem
than they would have otherwise.
Director Henry stated some members of the Board have been members
since 1988, and the rate increase proposals have been made every
year since; therefore, she hates to see them put this issue off to
another Board. She believes the public's perception to be that a
portion of this issue is reflected by the "incinerator" which was
an attempt to solve some of the problems, and they are paying for
that and not getting anything in return. The City has proceeded
with programs which the citizensrequested such as composting, and
it simply is not a "free" good, and the citizens of Fayetteville
have been receiving a real bargain.
The options are either to raise the income or reduce services; and
she for one is not willing to give up on composting and recycling.
The reality isthat, even if they make no changes, or do nothing,
everything is going to cost more. The state has mandated they
solve this issue responsibly in an environmentally acceptable way.
August 4, 1992
Henry stated she believes the Public Works Department has strained
and taken a number of steps to get this matter under control.
Henry further stated the proposed rate increase will only reflect
what the services are actually costing and will put the new City
Council in a position to continue with these services. She
believes curbside recycling is coming, and they need to implement
multiple projects to see which the citizens prefer. This is the
type of action this Board can take in a responsible way to prepare
the new City Council, with some funds coming in and begin to have
programs in place for them to consider. In conclusion, she stated
her support for the sanitation rate increase because it is
"reality" whether they like it or not. She suggested they do need
to begin "unbundling" their fees with the use of volumetric rates,
which will be much better received by the public.
Director Nash stated she is not willing to approve residential
sanitation rate increases at this point, but would rather implement
the prior mentioned pilot programs and projects in town to
determine exactly what the citizens of Fayetteville can live with.
She would probably approve a variation of the proposed rate
increase; such as a commercial rate increase and decreasing
residential collection to only once a week.
Director Green stated when the Four County Solid Waste District was
established, he had and still does have extremely high hopes it
will be the ultimate long-range solution for the solid waste
problems in Fayetteville and in the Four County District. One
unrealized drawback with the Four County Solid Waste District plan
is it gave them all a good excuse to sit back and wait for the
Solid Waste District to solve all of their problems. They failed
to realize the probability of so much inertia involved with these
programs. It takes a lot of time and effort to get organized and
implement successful programs and can seem overwhelming on the
forefront. Green stated his belief because of this inertia, the
Four County Solid Waste District, and the City have not made any
big breakthroughs to date. He believes once the Four County Solid
Waste District gets rolling and establishing programs, it will be
a benefit to Fayetteville. Green further stated Fayetteville needs
to realize they still need to look out for themselves and tend to
their own solid waste disposal needs, and we can't look to "big
brother" to solve all of our problems.
Director Green stated there will be a lot of "bullets to bite"
before this is over with. Due to controversy, there are a lot of
areas that have yet to be investigated, such as a "materials
recovery facility" (MRF). No matter what programs the City
implements, the fact of the matter is, that Northwest Arkansas is
still going to have to face the necessity of a landfill whether
private or public, in order to manage solid waste into the next
century. He reported the landfill that is currently closest to
being permitted is at the Durham site.
4I
August 4, 1992
Director Green stated they need to look at the sanitation rate
increase as stabilizing funds. This Board of Directors has been
extremely fiscally responsible and have made sure that their funds
are liquid and everything is funded properly. The best legacy for
this Board would be to at least make sure all funds are in order
and fluid. In closing, Green stated he would support a sanitation
rate increase, although not necessarily in final form, as a rate
increase will not serve as a long-term solution. The problem
creating a rate structure that favors those who recycle, is that it
ends up costing the City more, which violates economic principles.
He is in hopes that the Four County Solid Waste District will
create some markets making recycling economically viable.
Director Coody stated he concurred with the other Directors'
comments. The City needs a volumetric based rate - the less waste
generated, the less you pay and the more waste generated, the more
you pay. The current sanitation rate of $5.50 per month, averages
out to 69G per collection, which currently doesn't include
recycling and composting costs. Coody stated the real solution to
the solid waste problem will not be whether they have an
incinerator or a landfill, but rather, how can they reduce the
amount of trash generated to begin with.
Director Coody asked Staff if the City's commercial contracts
include ,their collection of the incinerator disengagement fee.
Kevin Crosson responded they are currently negotiating this action.
If for instance, a bank contracts with the City to collect their
trash, they pay an incinerator disengagement fee, but if the bank
subcontracted with Sunray for their trash collection, the City
would not collect the fee. Director Coody stated the current
system discriminates against some City waste producers and lets the
others off the hook, when to begin with everyone would have used
the incinerator.
Coody stated he is 45% in favor of a sanitation rate increase,
because he believes the public will tolerate a small rate increase.
They .know $5.50 per month does not cover the services they are
receiving. However, Coody stated he is 55% in favor,of waiting
until the City knows exactly what they are going to do in regard to
their solid waste situation, establish the necessary rate increase
and it will be implemented, and then present it to the public. In
addition, Coody suggested the City needs to immediately implement
an educational, campaign to encourage the public to reduce the trash
they generate.
Carol Conger., resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
the information she has received through the news media regarding
a sanitation rate increase has been confusing. The question before
the Board seems to be whether or not to raise the sanitation rates;
however, the discussion demonstrates there remains a lot of
questions and concerns within the community and by the City Board
on the topic of garbage, sanitation, and recycling. In that light,
August 4, 1992
Ms. Conger entertained the idea of the City hosting a public forum
that allowed everyone to put their heads together and look at the
problems and various methods to solve the same. She questioned the
amount of garbage being imported into their area.
Ms. Conger further stated it appears the finger is being pointed at
the recycling project as the cause of a deficit and financial
problems in the Sanitation Department. It is her understanding over
$2 million in legal fees for the incinerator lawsuit have also come
out of this same budget.
Director Henry responded to Ms. Conger she had been misinformed
with respect to the incinerator lawsuit legal fees.
Ms. Conger suggested the Board of Directors and the public should
work together on long-range solutions for their long-range solid
waste problems.
Director Coody asked Ms. Conger if she would suggest the public
meet with the existing Board of Directors, or with the new City
Council. Ms. Conger responded they needed to proceed as soon as
possible in hopes the new City Council would continue in the same
vein.
Director Henry announced Drew Holt will be in attendance at the
next Board Agenda meeting to present options for dealing with solid
waste. As the Four County Solid Waste District process proceeds,
she suspects there will be numerous opportunities for the public to
become involved.
Mike Faupel, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
reiterating his statements from two meetings ago that any rate
increase needs to move to a volume based rate as a simple rate
increase would only serve as a "bandage" to the problem. He
further stated the pilot programs proposed by Kevin Crosson would
serve as a "carrot" and would make a simple sanitation rate
increase a lot easier to swallow considering the interest shown for
curbside recycling.
Director Blackston stated the programs and studies being proposed
are all methods he has considered himself and has proposed and
lobbied for in the past. However, by the time they implement all
of these programs, if they decide to postpone a rate increase until
after public hearings and until they have all the answers, the fund
will be broke. Therefore, for the time being, the City has to
"bite the bullet" and approve a sanitation rate increase. If they
allow this fund to operate in the red and turn the matter over to
the new City Council, it could be sometime into the early part of
1993 before any action could be taken. Therefore, Director
Blackston stated his support for the sanitation rate increase as
proposed.
August 4, 1992
Director Henry stated if the Board approves a sanitation rate
increase at this time, it will give them the ability to bring the
sanitation fund back to a decent balance and also provide solid
information and feed back from the pilot programs. She stated her
belief there are a number of neighborhoods that are very committed
and she believes there will be people coming forth to volunteer to
be the leaders to prove these programs can be successful. One of
the most frustrating things for her as a City Board member has been
she has been on this Board for almost two years, and for one reason
or another, nothing has been done to start the process. They
should not be fiscally irresponsible and put money into something
that may not be the best option for the four counties; however, it
is time for the City to take some action. The pilot programs being
proposed could provide valuable information for the Four County
Solid Waste District, which no other community is currently doing.
Director Coody asked if there was a City fund that was so well off
they could borrow from it to cover their debt in the sanitation
fund, to allow them to work on a feasible plan, so at the time they
do increase the sanitation rates, they will know exactly what will
be required for what they plan to do and then pay back the borrowed
funds.
City Manager Linebaugh responded this would be an alternative, as
there are funds they could borrow against which would allow them to
go for several months without creating problems. The only problem
he sees with that option is by not increasing sanitation rates now,
it will take longer to pay back such a loan, and the money would
have to be repaid.
Mayor Vorsanger asked the Board if he sensed they wished to include
in the proposed ordinance suggestions made by Kevin Crosson
regarding the pilot projects?
Kevin Crosson responded he didn't see a need to tie the pilot
projects into the rate increase ordinance. He explained Staff's
intentions are to present the Board with a proposal at the first
meeting in September for their approval or modification.
Mayor Vorsanger stated the reason he raised the question was due to
Mr. Faupel's statement for which he concurs. rt Citizens would
understand a sanitation rate increase better if a volumetric rate
system was implemented.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of +5 to 1, with
Director Coody voting no.
/
ORDINANCE 3626 APPEARS ON PAGE �.6 8 OP'ORDINANCE BOOR X1CV/i
August 4, 1992
FINANCIAL AUDIT SERVICES
Mayor Vorsanger reintroduced 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.
This ordinance was left on its second reading at the July 21, 1992
Board meeting.
This 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.
City Attorney Rose read the ordinance, which was on its third
reading.
Director Coody stated since the City is going to a new form of
government, it might be better to have an independent auditing firm
review the books and provide a brand new, fresh look at the
financial status of the City.
Mayor Vorsanger explained this contract is bid every four years,
and the new bid is due for 1993. He stated he was responsible for
suggesting to the internal auditor that, since the current Board
members are "lame ducks", it seemed inappropriate to go through the
RFP process for only a one year contract. It was his suggestion
they waive this requirement of competitive bidding this year, and
extend the contract for one year with Coopers & Lybrand for 1993
only. The new City Council could then go through the process of
selecting their own auditors.
Director Henry commented the argument that they should use a local
firm is moot because local firms are not large enough to be able to
service and meet all requirements that a City of this size and
magnitude requires. In addition, using auditors from outside the
City tends to establish the "independent" factor. Moat of the
firms staffed for this type of contract are located in Tulsa and
Little Rock.
Henry explained her reasoning for suggesting they look at having a
separate audit done to verify that everything was in place as of
the time this Board left. However, in talking with auditor friends
and the City's internal auditor, she does not believe at this point
there will be a problem nor a need for a separate audit that would
cost an extra $25,000. Coopers & Lybrand independence and
integrity are enough that if massive changes are made with the new
City Council, they would be able to detect procedures that were not
August 4, 1992
being followed according to the procedures set in place and to make
sure the funds brought in are also expended in the fashion
proscribed under both state and federal audit requirements.
Director Nash stated she still favors the competitive bidding
process and doesn't agree with waiving competitive bidding as often
as they do. They are talking about hiring a firm for one year, and
she sees no reason for the rush. They could have the competitive
bidding process, and if in fact no local companies are interested
in this bid, they could still hire Cooper & Lybrand at a later
date.
Mayor Vorsanger responded it doesn't work way. He stated all the
local firms are eligible to bid, and the City would welcome their
bids, if they felt they could handle the City's audit. For the
public's benefit, he reported asking the independent auditors to
define the difference in cost to the City if they only audit the
General Fund as opposed to the entire City Administration which is
only $2,000.
To those individuals who continue to ask why the City doesn't use
the legislative audit, which is free to the City, Mayor Vorsanger
responded the legislative audit only audits the General Fund, and
the City, however, is required to have an audit for all of its
government grants and contracts, all bond issues, and those audits
must be completed within six months of the end of the City's fiscal
year. The legislative auditor could take up to two years to
complete their audit, and the City cannot wait that long to receive
the audit for the present year. Therefore, regardless of whether
the legislative auditors would audit the City's General Fund, they
would still need the independent, outside auditors. Vorsanger
stated in his opinion, the use of an independent auditor is a "good
buy" and is a sound, fiscal method to do their business.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 5 to 1, with
Director Nash voting no.
ORDINANCE 3627 APPEARS ON PAGE /76 OF ORDINANCE BOOR XX VI'
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE REPORT
Mayor Vorsanger introduced a report from the Fayetteville Chamber
of Commerce on economic development activities for the second
quarter of 1992.
Jim Crider, of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, addressed the
Board to present the quarterly. report, in accordance with the
Cooperative Agreement between the City and Chamber. He touched on
someof the more salient aspects 'of the Chamber of Commerce's
activities for the second quarter of 1992, as follows:
August 4, 1992
1) New Business Recruitment
A. The Chamber has continued to coordinate with the Arkansas
Industrial Development Commission to train a new
Fayetteville marketing team; five of the six training
sessions have been completed and have gone extremely
well.
The new marketing team will help to get the "good word"
out about Fayetteville and compile additional credible
information for their research base. Most importantly,
the marketing team will deal directly with clients
looking into our community, whenever they have potential
for investment in Fayetteville.
B . The Chamber has conducted tours of the Fayetteville
Industrial Parks to five different industrial prospects
during the second quarter. Based on his years of
experience in economic development, Crider stated in his
opinion, the City continues to recruit extremely good
industrial clients.
C. The Chamber has responded to twelve general inquiries
from industry and has done follow-ups with these
companies and will continue to work these leads.
D . The Chamber has worked with Southwestern Electric Power
Company (SWEPCO) in participating in a booth for their
service area that was conducted at the Institute of Food
Technologists in New Orleans at which there were roughly
14,000 people in attendance. Each City that participated
with the SWEPCO booth was assigned specific times to work
the booth to discuss the benefits of their specific
service areas and of the individual communities. The
Chamber is following up on clientele who showed interest
in Fayetteville, and Crider reported some good leads.
E . At the time of the report, the Chamber had been
coordinating with the five Northwest Arkansas Regional
Chambers for a trip to participate in the "Trends 2000
Business Expansion/Relocation Expedition" in Anaheim,
California. The Chamber has since attended this
Expedition and has leads from there to follow up.
F. Crider reported travel to visit with two different
companies about investing in Fayetteville as well as six
prospect visits, and two investors who visited
Fayetteville.
G . The Chamber has placed advertisements to continue the
exposure of Fayetteville nationwide and throughout many
major areas of the world in some of the leading
August 4, 1992
industrial magazines including the "Arkansas
Manufacturers Guide" and "Area Development Magazine".
These are frequented by decision makers of the major
companies in which Fayetteville has an interest. In
addition, Crider reported the Chamber would be
advertising with a full page ad in the programs at all of
the University of Arkansas home games including six
football and seventeen basketball games.
H. The Chamber is continuing to negotiate with two clients,
one of which the Board of Directors has been made privy
to. Crider reported as soon as the technical steps have
been completed, the Chamber will finish this project and
make it public.
2) Existing Industry Retention and Expansion
A. Crider reported he has made it his own personal target to
visit with each and every one of the 39 manufacturers and
processors in Fayetteville and has completed 20 visits to
date. In these visits, Crider is receiving input on what
each industry is doing, information on their products and
area service, and most importantly, what their needs are
and what the City and Chamber can do to help.
He further stated the City should not overlook the
chances to become better acquainted with the needs of
local industry since they will comprise about 85% of the
City's projected growth in the number of employees in the
years ahead. 1992 has shown major potential for
expansion and addition of employees from the local
industries.
B. Crider reported attending the Arkansas First
Manufacturing Trade Show in Hot Springs in order to
become acquainted with their program. From this show, he
has determined instead of bringing a_ function such as
that to Northwest Arkansas, they more than likely will be
looking into a "Matchmaker Program" for Northwest
Arkansas, and have prescheduled the same to take place in
December. He explained the "Matchmaker Program" is a one
day reverse trade show where anywhere from ten to twenty
manufacturers display parts forwhich they are interested
in locating Arkansas manufacturing sources. This would
keep trade within the boundaries. of Arkansas, make
transportation of products. easier, ,and help other
manufacturers. 1
C. Crider reported attending a Northwest Arkansas World
Trade Committee meeting regarding Japan export
opportunities. In addition, the Chamber hosted a group
from the Shandong Province in China. This delegation's
._. .5":Y 4
•
August 4, 1992
visit was for the purpose of exploring the potential of
international trade opportunities. Crider reported the
visit with this China delegation went well, and the
Chamber plans to continue to encourage further
development in that area.
3) Small Business Assistance
A. The Chamber provided counselling and employer services to
a number of small businesses and has begun to coordinate
with the U.S. Small Business Administration to establish
a Small Business Assistance Library within the Chamber.
Crider reported this effort is not peculiar just to the
Chamber, as the Genesis Program has already put together
an extremely good reference library for small business
and the Small Business Development Center at the U of A.
The Chamber's intent is to help enhance this situation.
4) Research
A. The Chamber has compiled area demographics for six
general inquiries, and their capabilities have increased
tremendously in this area to the point that they are
maintaining a data base of information on the Four County
Northwest Arkansas area. This will assist the Chamber in
conveying the regional picture of Northwest Arkansas
which Crider stated was extremely important. With a
combined population of over 260,000 in the region,
companies begin to show interest in the area that
wouldn't otherwise even look at Fayetteville.
B. The Chamber has received a new community profile on
Fayetteville produced by SWEPCO. Crider stated SWEPCO is
a tremendous ally to Fayetteville, as well as the AIDC,
and expressed the Chamber's indebtedness to these
entities. Without a lot of cooperation from various
agencies, including the various departments within City
Hall, Crider stated he wouldn't have obtained the
research that he has thus far.
5) Community Awareness
A. The Chamber continues to attend various meetings to
promote the Chamber of Commerce and offer the opportunity
to ask about the City's Economic Development Program.
Crider reported having the opportunity and privilege to
make some speaking engagements with various
organizations.
Director Coody asked Mr. Crider if the Chamber was continuing
efforts in locating pinpoints of companies that can deal with the
City's "post consumer resources" (trash) and in zeroing in on
1
August 4, 1992
4 .i
industry that could help the City with their hi -tech industrial
research park, someone that could work with the University's
Physics Department, for example.
Crider responded he has had contact with Ed Davis and Al Drinkwater
of AIDC and has been provided with a directory of companies
involved in processing. With regard to hi -tech industry, Crider
reported the Chamber is dealing with two companies who have an
interest in Fayetteville's hi -tech industrial park. They certainly
want to carefully scrutinize for the non-polluting companies, and
are environmentally sensitive with the questions they pose to these
companies. Crider stated the Chamber is very interested in
recruiting hi -tech companies. He reported on the recent trip to
the "Trends 2000 Expo" in Anaheim, California, they came across a
couple of companies who could very well be interested in this type
of set-up.
Director Coody suggested Crider continue his discussions with Drew
Holt in an effort to research new technologies in recovery
facilities dealing with tires and mixing glass with melted rubber
to produce "glasphalt" for roads. In addition, Coody stated Drew
Holt may be able to enlighten the Chamber toward new industries for
which the City may want to consider.
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 July 21, 1992 regular Board meeting.
B. A resolution awarding Bid 91-59 to the low bidder, Southern
States Industries, for the purchase of pumps and equipment in
the amount of $11,325.90 for use at the Pollution Control
Plant.
This is a budgeted replacement pump in the Water and Sewer
Fund and is to be used in the aeration basin at the Waste
Water Treatment Plant.
RESOLUTION 113-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1
C. A resolution authorizing the application for $50,000 matching
funds for the development of Gulley Park from the Arkansas
Recreation Outdoor Grants Program Y
This is the third application for matching funds for the
development of Gulley Park., .If funds are awarded, they will
•
August 4, 1992
be used to install a pavilion, playground, water fountain, and
picnic facilities. (A copy of the grant application is
available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office.)
RESOLUTION 114-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
D. A resolution authorising payment of $90,238 for permanent and
temporary easements as required for the installation and
maintenance of the proposed 36" rater main across vantage
Square property, Tract Nos. 208-A, 208-B, 211, and 212 on
Joyce Street.
Appraisals have been done on the land, and an offer made for
the easements of $80,400 which included a credit to the City
for an 8" water line across Tract 1211. Vantage Square would
not recognize the credit for the water line and has agreed to
settle for the appraised value without the credit or $90,238.
RESOLUTION 115-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
E. A resolution awarding to the low bidder, Thomas Harding, in
the amount of $193,000 a construction contract for the
Boarding Gate Expansion Project at Drake Field, and approval
of a budget adjustment from the Airport Fund Unreserved Fund
Balance.
The Airport Board recommends awarding the contract and
approving the budget adjustment of $61,210 contingent upon
sufficient funding.
The project is over budget because of several reasons: the
existing type of metal roof is no longer manufactured; the two
gates have to be constructed separately for operational
reasons; the existing concrete slabs have shifted and are
unusable; no funds were budgeted for HVAC items; and the
budget price is over one year old. (A copy of the Wittenberg,
Delony & Davidson Architect, Inc. project manual is available
for inspection in the City Clerk's Office.)
RESOLUTION 116-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERR'S OFFICE
F. A resolution awarding a contract in the amount of $30,715 to
McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., to provide a study and
report of recommended public improvements in the Community
Development Southeast Target Area.
McClelland was selected as a result of the City's professional
selection process. The scope of the study will be to identify
streets and sidewalks that need repaired/replaced; identify
neighborhoods that need sidewalk construction; determine the
need for storm drainage; determine need for traffic control
signals; and develop a master plan for a 3-5 year period.
ti
ly
August 4, 1992
G. A resolution approving a budget adjustment for the Cable
Administration Department decreasing the Building Cost Account
by $93,500 and increasing Minor Equipment by $23,500 and Fixed
Assets by $70,000 for the purchase of video equipment, test
equipment, furniture, and computers for the PEG Center.
The Board approved Ordinance 3589 dated January 21, 1992, to
amend the Franchise Agreement with Warner Cable allowing grant
monies to be used for equipment, construction, and renovation
of the PEG facilities. This Budget Adjustment is required for
the money to be transferred on the City's books.
RESOLUTION 117-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Director Nash requested Item "F" be removed from the Agenda.
Nash, seconded by Coady, made a motion to approve the Consent
Agenda. Upon. roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ITEM "F"
Director Nash reported receiving requests from residents of the
Southeast Target Area to pull this item from the Consent Agenda in
order allow discussion -on the possibility of these residents
offering their services in helping with the ranking of the
projects.
Carol Conger, resident of the southeast target area, addressed the
Board with a prepared statement concerning the resolution awarding
a contract to McClelland Consulting Engineers to provide a study
and report of recommended public improvements in the Community
Development Southeast Target Area. She expressed her gratitude to
the City for moving toward making, badly needed improvements to the
infrastructure of their neighborhood. With respect to the proposal
for a study by McClelland Engineering .firm, to determine what and
where improvements are most needed, Ms. Conger stated the proposal
raises a number of questions, and requested the Board carefully
review her questions before voting on this resolution.
With respect to John Quinn's written statement to Jan Simco that
there appears to be more needs within'the target area than there
are funds to address them. She :suggested each expenditure be
seriously scrutinized. Ms. Conger questioned whether the
expenditure of $30,715 for the services of McClelland Engineering,
was absolutely necessary? Is there an alternative which would save
money? Can they possibly achieve the same goals in a less
expensive and more costeffective way?,
Specific questions concerning the proposed study include, but are
not limited to the following: . ,
1) The cost summary for the proposed study reflects
$16,467.93 will be charged for an item called overhead.
August 4, 1992
This amount is more than half the total amount of the
contract, and more than triple the direct labor cost. Is
157% overhead a standard for all of McClelland's
contracts? Besides payroll expenses and office overhead,
what is this charge for?
2) A profit of $2,907.94 is listed in the cost summary.
Does this mean no other profit is being made on the
$27,807.06, which McClelland will receive?
3) The fee proposal lists rates for six employees, ranging
from $92 per hour for the project director to $22.50 per
hour for clerical help. Multiplying these rates by the
estimated hours for each employee, gives a total fee of
$30,211.50, which is more than a $500 difference than the
total price shown in the cost summary. Is this an error
in their mathematics?
4) Why should it cost $416.50 to obtain forms and City
codes? This seems unrealistic. Are other items on the
fee proposal equally unrealistic?
5) Why was this item placed on the Consent Agenda to be
voted on without further discussion of these
expenditures?
6) Although bids are not required by law for services, why
didn't the City choose to shop around and determine if
these services could be procured less expensively?
7) John Quinn's letter states the output of this contract
will be a plan for spending $1.5 million over the next
five years. Is this Federal Block Grant money or
Community Development money that has been borrowed at 45%
interest?
8) The Community and Board of Directors must exercise great
responsibility over such a large amount of money. How
will the Board ensure ongoing citizen participation? The
people who live in South Fayetteville and who know the
conditions there should have more input than just one
final public hearing to fine tune this proposal.
Ms. Conger requested the Board postpone voting on this proposal
until further review and clarification occurs, preferably involving
residents of the target area. She further requested the Board
carefully consider finding another less expensive method to assess
the needs and determine what improvements shall be made, so the
limited funds available are spent directly on the improvements that
are most needed.
'August 4, 1992
Jan Simco, Community Development Director, addressed the Board
stating she was not aware of most of these concerns until now. She
announced Wayne Jones from McClelland Engineering was present to
answer questions and was also unaware of these concerns.
Mayor Vorsanger asked Ms. Simco to verify, on what basis the City
selected McClelland Engineering in their selection procedures. Ms.
Simco responded last October, the Purchasing Officer solicited a
request for proposals from several area engineering firms. The
Committee of Staff met to consider the firms and rank them
according to their capacity to complete the job, timeliness, past
experience, etc., at which time, cost was not a factor in this
process. Thereafter, Ms. Simco requested John Quinn, Vice -
President of McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., submit a
proposal and cost which Staff assessed and found to be reasonable
in comparison to other contracts at that time. Ms. Simco reported
there are two public hearings being planned: one early in the
process, to receive input from the neighborhoods involved and
another at the end of the process to receive additional input and
present the proposals to the City Board.
In response to Director Nash's question, Ms. Simco explained her
statement "cost was not a factor" stating this was not a "low bid"
situation, according to City policies for selection of professional
services and according to HUD regulations.
Jan Simco further stated as Community Development Director, her
door is always open for citizens to discuss their concerns at
anytime. She reported the study process is expected to take
approximately three months, and based on recommendations in the
final study and report, she will be able to budget funds for the
next 4-5 years, thus the reason for ranking the projects, since
there isn't enough money in• the Block Grant .Funds to fund
everything.
•
Director Henry added HUD also has regulations that must be followed
in order to be eligible to spend any of these funds. From an
engineering standpoint, a portion of the study is to evaluate
conditions in terms of long life, and set a 3-5 year plan to
schedule anticipated projects. Henry reported this portion of
Fayetteville has been the beneficiary of numerous.Block Grants over
the past 10 to 12 years.
Director Henry reported the "Central City" area, including Boles
and Watson Streets, is another area which is currently receiving
public improvements including street, infrastructure, and sidewalk
construction and improvements. Thereafter, the target is being
shifted down into the southeast part'of Fayetteville, and these
areas have been chosen and are eligible, under strict income
guidelines, for Block Grant funds. Since there are many areas of
town which need improvements, Henry stated these target
August 4, 1992
improvements could certainly be perceived by some as "special
interest legislation".
Ms. Simco reported taking a tour of the entire Southeast Target
Area with Johnny Quinn and Jim Beavers. This neighborhood has been
segmented into areas "A", "B", and "C". It has already been
determined area "A", east of the Courthouse, between Willow and
College and Spring and Huntsville Streets, is the area in greatest
need of improvements. This area will be targeted first, followed
by areas "B" and "C".
Director Henry explained under Block Grant regulations, the City is
required to verify income levels to make sure that the targeted
area is within the guidelines, which requires intrusive questioning
of residents. If HUD would perform an audit and discover, in fact,
these improvements were placed in an area that was not eligible,
then the City is required to pay back out of its General Fund, the
funds expended not within the federal government guidelines.
Mayor Vorsanger stated before they get into the specifics of the
McClelland bid, he suggested Ms. Simco address Ms. Conger's
question as to why use an outside firm, and why not perform this
study in-house.
Jan Simco responded she does not have the expertise to perform such
a study. Besides being familiar with the area and talking with the
residents to determine what problems exist, including storm
drainage water problems, badly needed street repair, addition of
curb and gutter, and flooding of yards, Ms. Simco stated how to get
from point A to B and get the projects implemented, she does not
know the answers and needs assistance to get the maximum
utilization from the rehab funds.
Mayor Vorsanger added the in-house Engineering Department is
involved with other projects and does not perform this type of
work.
Ms. Simco stated Jim Beavers, staff engineer with the City, has
assisted her up to this point, and will continue to do so
throughout the process because of her unfamiliarity with this type
of project. She further stated there will be ample occasion for
City Staff, as well as the public, to give their input on the
project.
Director Green asked if there were any HUD requirements for such a
study and report in these targeted areas. Ms. Simco responded
there are no such HUD requirements. Director Green believes since
this area is so large and the needs abundant, and the constraints
with future budgets, that some kind of ranking study and report
would be advisable. In addition, improvements in this target area
need to tie in with other improvements down the creek, for example.
1
•`t t1
August 4, 1992
Wayne Jones, principal with McClelland Consulting Engineers,
addressed the Board stating the proposal was prepared by Johnny
Quinn, who is currently on vacation. He stated he has reviewed the
request for proposals from the Community Development Office and
Quinn's proposal, which addresses the specific items requested.
Mr. Quinn met with Jan Simco and Jim Beavers of the City
Engineering Staff and toured the project areas, and estimates were
made thereafter.
Mr. Jones stated that from a technical engineering standpoint,
levels of effort required to prepare such a report include drainage
calculations and studies, streets and sidewalks, cost estimates,
supplies needed, acquisition of copies of information from City
Hall on a pay-as-you-go basis for prints, copies, telephone
conferences, etc., to obtain information from City files that would
be beneficial to McClelland in the development of the target area
report. He explained if McClelland had to develop that information
on their own, the cost would be several times greater than the
figures in the estimate..
Director Coody reiterated Ms. Conger's question regarding the
amount budgeted for obtaining review forms and city codes. Mr.
Jones responded this cost is for obtaining copies of city codes to
ensure they are complying with up-to-date codes, acquiring
information on City street standards, and generally ensuring they
have in their possession all information with regard to City codes
and other standards and that they are current before preparing the
report. Jones further verified it would take approximately eight
hours to obtain the information
•
Director Green stated this is a prime example of "swallowing a
camel and choking on a gnat". The Board has many more items to
address on the Agenda, and yet they are drilling Mr. Jones over
$416, which will be charged to McClelland by the_City for making
copies of the forms and current codes. Green stated he sincerely
believes they have answered Ms., Conger's questions, and doesn't
understand why they are wasting their time on this matter,
suggesting they proceed with the Agenda.
Mayor Vorsanger reiterated Ms. Simco's previous invitation that her
door is always open to any citizen from the southeast target area
who would like to discuss the proposed project, and he is assured
Ms. Simco will be talking with the citizens of this target area
before any final decisions are presented to the Board.
Green, seconded by Henry, made a motion to approve the resolution.
{
Ms. Conger addressed the Board •reiterating one>of her specific
questions whether 150% of the direct cost for*overhead is standard
in McClelland contracts. Wayne Jones responded this rate is
standard in all McClelland contracts, and has been for years.
August 4, 1992
Ms. Conger further asked besides payroll and office expense, what
does this $10,000 go to. Mr. Jones responded it is for all
overhead expenses other than direct labor costs.
Carol Conger reiterated her previous request that the Board
postpone voting on this resolution. She requested the City include
community involvement in ranking of projects in this target area.
Since this engineering study and report is not a HUD requirement,
Ms. Conger suggested the money could possibly be put toward actual
improvements, instead of consultants.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question as to who Ms. Conger is
representing; she responded she is a resident of this area.
Mayor Vorsanger stated the easy way out of this situation and an
alternative would be to cancel the project.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 4 to 2, with
Directors Coody and Nash voting no.
Director Coody stated he was in favor of the southeast target area
project. He further apologized for the attitude of the City
government toward Ms. Conger, which he considers offensive.
A resident of the area addressed the Board stating the $30,000
approved for the McClelland study and report, could have been put
to better use. Specifically, she referred to needed repairs to
Willow Height Apartment #29, where water has been seeping in around
the apartment for the past nine months and creating a terrible
stench. There are four families living in this building who have
had to shovel water out of their apartments, and dig a ditch to
reroute the water. She reported these families have been advised
by the City that there are no funds available to cure this problem.
Mayor Vorsanger suggested she discuss these problems with the
City's Community Development Director, Jan Simco.
RESOLUTION 118-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REZONE R91-23
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 25.61 acres
located on the east side of Old Missouri Road and south of Zion
Road from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, as
requested by Jim Phillips and Rick Robles and represented by Dave
Jorgensen.
This rezoning was tabled by the Planning Commission at their
December 1991 meeting. At the July 27 Planning Commission meeting,
they voted 7-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
11'3.-
August 4, 1992
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 6 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 was passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was
read for the third and final time.
Director of Planning Alett Little explained this is a 25 acre tract
which the developer wants to subdivide into 17 lots. She reported
Staff has been working with the developer for quite sometime now in
developing the design for the subdivision, and the rezoning request
has been before the Planning Commission on two occasions, and they
have voted unanimously to approve it.
Director Henry asked if the concept plat for this subdivision had
anything to do with the Board approving the rezoning? She reported
receiving calls from concerned citizens regarding topographical
issues in terms of drainage, and requested she be allowed to review
the concept plat with Ms. Little.
Ms. Little responded the concept plat is tied to the rezoning in
that the developer presented both to the Planning Commission for
approval at the same time. She explained the Planning Commission
delayed the rezoning request in order to address some of the
concerns regarding the subdivision plat. Ms. Little further
reported the Planning Commission does have an outstanding drainage
concern, and the developer has been charged with submitting a
drainage plan to the City.
Director Henry asked how far the Stearns Road intersection, between
Joyce and Zion, was from this proposed development? Her question
stems from long term plans to connect Crossover Road over to Hwy.
71, which would make Old Missouri a through street and create
additional traffic in this area. Henry asked whether there were
plans for a traffic light at this intersection of Old Missouri and
Joyce.
Alett Little responded a street light would be more probable for
placement at the intersection of Joyce Street and Old Missouri,
prior to placement of a street light at Stearns and Old Missouri,
due to the fact that Joyce will carry. more traffic than Stearns.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, Alett Little stated
Stearns is not currently a through street, and'one of the items
negotiated on this subdivision plat was a;dedication of 25 feet of
right-of-way on the south side of this particular parcel, to give
the City halfof the needed right-of-way required to place a city
street through here in the future, if required.
August 4, 1992
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3628 APPEARS ON PAGE j7/ OF ORDINANCE BOOK wit
REZONE R92-23
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 3.2 acres located
on the north side of West 6th Street and went of One Mile Road from
A-1, Agricultural, to C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, as requested by
Mike Price on behalf of Nelson D. Curtis and Glenn A. Oldham.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
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 6 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 was passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was
read for the third and final time.
Director Coody stated he understands the need for rezoning this
property commercial; however, it appears to be a continuation of
strip commercial zoning in areas of Fayetteville. He asked how the
land use plan was proceeding and how the strip commercial zoning
versus cluster commercial zoning fit into this plan.
Alett Little responded she shares Director Coody's concern with the
appearance developing on West 6th Street, and this will be
addressed in the land use plan. This particular area was shown on
the 1970 land use plan to be developed as multi -family residential;
however, it was not developed that way, and she believes it would
be a disservice to construct apartments in this area since this
area has been developed as concentrated commercial.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3629 APPEARS ON PAGE 173 OF ORDINANCE BOOK X x vl
REZONE R92-25
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 51.34 acres
located on the east side of Gregg Avenue and north of Township from
A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential, as requested
by Dr. Mae Nettleship and represented by Dave Jorgensen.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
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
August 4, 1992
by a vote of 5 to 0 to 1, with Director Henry absent at roll call.
The ordinance was read for the second time. Green, 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 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for
the third and final time.
Director Blackston commented this rezoning request brings into
focus the continual problem that many of the streets in
Fayetteville do not actually support the amount of development
being planned for them. As these areas develops, it will create
pressure on some of these areas for street development. With
regard to the subject property, the area in front of Meeks all the
way to the bypass is pitifully inadequate. However, Blackston
questioned where in Fayetteville there was an area that could be
developed and not present the same problem.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3630 APPEARS ON PAGE /7( OF ORDINANCE BOOR /X Vi
REZONE R92-26
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 8.21 acres located
on the east side of Gregg Avenue and north of Township from A-1,
Agricultural, and R -O, Residential -Office, to C-1, Neighborhood
Commercial, as requested by Jim 'Lindsey on behalf of Dr. Mae
Nettleship and represented by Dave Jorgensen.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
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 6 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 6 to 0. The ordinance was
read for the third and final. time.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
. i
ORDINANCE 3631 APPEARS ON PAGE pat OF ORDINANCE BOOK )(XVI'
REZONE R92-27
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an, ordinance rezoning 19.65 acres
located east of Gregg Avenueand, north of Township from A-1,
Agricultural, to R -O, Residential -Office, as requested by Jim
Lindsey on behalf of Dr. Mae Nettleship and represented by Dave
Jorgensen.
August 4, 1992
The Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
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 6 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 was passed by a vote of 6 to 0. The ordinance was
read for the third and final time.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3632 APPEARS ON PAGE /80 OF ORDINANCE BOOK X n
CONDEMNATION I
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance authorising condemnation
proceedings on Tracts 75, 76, and 77 involved in the Federal
Airport Land Acquisition Project which are owned by Mr & Mrs.
Melvin Francis.
Based on the appraisal, an offer of $137,500 was made for the
approximately 2.15 acres which contains 4 older block and frame
structures, two storage buildings, and 15 on-site mobile homes.
Mr. & Mrs. Francis made a counter offer of $250,000. Condemnation
proceedings are recommended to avoid delays in the project. (A
copy of the appraisal is available for inspection in the City
Clerk's Office.)
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 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Green, 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 6 to 0. The
ordinance was read for the third and final time.
Mrs. Francis, property owner, addressed the Board stating they
acquired this property in 1983, and have since been making payments
and maintaining the property. Then all at once, the City begins
advertising the Federal Airport Land Acquisition Project on
television, their renters began moving out, and they started to
lose money. This all occurred before the City had the courtesy to
contact the Francis' about their land acquisition plans for their
property in October. Even though they live in Oklahoma, the City
could have located their address at the courthouse because they are
the owners of record and pay taxes on the property. Mrs. Francis
further stated they have continued to lose money on this rental
property since they obviously cannot offer rentals under these
conditions.
1
August 4, 1992
Mrs. Francis further expressed her displeasure that the City, when
they did finally contact the Francis', offered them only $137,000
for 300 feet of frontage property on Hwy. 71, with 26 rental units,
consisting of 15 mobile homes, 6 apartments, 2 houses, and 1
duplex. Before this fiasco hit them, the Francis' were bringing in
over $2,000 weekly on these rental properties. She further
reported they still owe $180,000 on the property, after making
payments for 8 years.
She expressed her confusion with a law that allows the City to
condemn property for this kind of a price, stating it simply is not
right. When people put their entire life's savings into property
and the City can turn around and take in this manner, forcing the
property owners into bankruptcy, then something is wrong with the
laws. Mrs. Francis further stated her confusion that the City is
offering their neighbor, Allen Hatch, $72,000 for less than 2
acres; while they offered her only $55,000 for over two acres of
her property, and she has more highway frontage property than Mr.
Hatch. In closing, Mrs. Francis stated she is not arguing with the
need for acquisition of her property; however, she does disagree
with the offer they received, and requested the City give them a
fair price for their property, at least in excess of the existing
debt on the property of $180,000.
W.D. Schock responded the land acquisition team has attempted to
work with Mr. and Mrs. Francis; however, the Francis' opinion of
the value of their property differs from that of a professional
appraiser. He stated this land acquisition has been treated like
the rest; the same appraiser who appraised Mr. Hatch's property
next door, appraised the Francis' property which was sent to the
review appraiser, Keith Schultz, as per the federal -law which they
are required to follow with all acquisitions. Since they can no
longer negotiate the acquisition of the parcel, it is being
recommended for condemnation.
Director Coody questioned Mr. Schock's attempts at communication
with the Francis' regarding the land acquisition. He responded
they have attempted notification of these property owners by
registered letters on several occasions, which were refused by the
Francis' and returned. In addition, attempts at communication have
been made via. the phone, only to be hung-up on. Mr. Schock further
reported attempts to have the Francis' attend their meetings, which
has been difficult, if not impossible. He therefore stated his
belief that they have made extra efforts to work with these
property owners, to no avail.
.*
Mrs. Francis strongly disagreed with Mr. Schock,.. stating she has
never hung-up on him; to which he responded their files do reflect
this fact.
•
Mayor Vorsanger stated the Board is not a court of law and they
cannot settle this matter, which is the purpose of the condemnation
•
August 4, 1992
proceeding where a judge will decide what the settlement price will
be, and that is what all concerned will have to live by.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, Mr. Schock responded
there have been meetings held with the home owners of this area, in
late September 1991 at the Greenland School, at which Mr Hatch and
the Francis' were present, as well as all other home owners subject
to land acquisition. The homeowners were advised of plans for the
entire acquisition program at that time. Individual meetings were
subsequently held with the property owners, prior to the
appraisals, for which all federal rules were followed.
Director Coody reiterated he hates condemnation proceedings.
Mr. Schock concurred with Coody, stating he would rather negotiate
than condemn. He further reported meeting with Mrs. Francis that
afternoon in an attempt to settle, which he was willing to execute
prior to the Board meeting and presentation of the condemnation.
The Francis' remain firm in their beliefs, and he has done all that
he can do at this particular point in time. Mr. Schock suggested
it was time to turn the matter over to the attorneys to settle in
Court, as they do need to complete the transaction for acquisition
of this property and work with the remaining tenants, who are
contacting the City of Fayetteville requesting repairs to their
trailers and other requests. The City does not yet own the
property and are not responsible for the tenants at this point in
time; however, the City will own the property and be responsible
for the tenants in the near future.
In response to Director Coody's question, Mr. Schock responded the
debt owed against a piece of property is not taken into
consideration when making an appraisal. An appraisal must be based
on the fair market value of the property, which is the opinion of
the appraiser. He added all three approaches to the commercial
properties were used: the income approach, comparison approach,
and replacement of value minus depreciation approach. In addition,
these appraisals are required to be certified by a second opinion
before an offer can be made.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, Mr. Schock reported the
Francis' did not submit an appraisal of their own, but rather their
opinion of the value.
Mrs. Francis stated she was
appraisal done. Mr. Schock
committee's option to obtain
will be obtained during the
advised that they could have a second
responded it is the land acquisition
a second appraisal, and he suspects it
court proceedings.
Mrs. Francis reiterated her concern and confusion that
property, containing over two acres, located adjacent to
property of Allen Hatch, containing less than two acres, was
appraised at the same value.
her
the
not
August 4, 1992
Mayor Vorsanger suggested both parties explain their positions to
the judge and let him decide what is fair.
Mr. Schock stated he understands the Francis' distress regarding
this matter and believes the only reasonable method for settlement
is possibly with the parties' attorneys attempting to settle out-
of-court. The acquisition committee would certainly be amiable to
an out-of-court settlement; however, it is vital they proceed with
this condemnation as there are tenants on the property to be
considered. Under federal law, the property tenants are entitled
to relocation benefits; however, Mr. Schock stated until the
property is acquired, they are restricted from talking to the
tenants. In addition, they have a situation in which some of the
trailers are indecent, unsafe and unsanitary living facilities.
When the City does take possession of the property, many of these
tenants will have to be moved to motels.
Director Nash asked if a Court of law wouldbe deciding a value of
this property, or simply upholding the City's condemnation
proceeding.
City Attorney Rose responded .the only way to challenge a
condemnation itself generally is to challenge the public purpose of
the condemnation; and there is not much doubt in anyone's mind that
there is a valid purpose for the,condemnation. Most condemnations,
and most likely this condemnation proceeding, will address how much
to pay these folks for their land.
Director Green stated land values and compensation•is,certainly out
of the realm of this Board.
Director Blackston explained to delay the condemnation would be
compounding the problem which has to be handled eventually; the
City would be doing them no favors in delaying the condemnation,
which puts the proceedings in.a good settlement position.
Mrs. Francis questioned who was responsible•for the payments on the
property. Due to those tenants who have abandoned their rental
properties, she will be unable to make her payments. Mrs. Francis
stated her opinion that this type' of action is nothing more than
dictatorship.•
•
;
at
Director Nash inquired as to the time table involved with the
condemnation proceedings. City Attorney Rose responded they will
more than likely file the condemnation suit within the next two
weeks, at which time the appraised value of the property is
deposited with the Court, and thereafter, the Court generally will
allow immediate possession of the land. Oncethe money is
deposited with the Court, the Francis' are entitled to withdraw it
at any time. Rose further explained the Francis' attorney answers
the City's complaint, and the matter then proceeds to trial, which
in his best estimate would be anywhere from nine to twelve months.
August 4, 1992
Mayor Vorsanger reiterated these are discussions that must be held
with the Judge in this case, and the Board will simply be helping
all concerned by moving this condemnation proceeding along, so that
a settlement can be reached.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3633 APPEARB ON PAGE /SP; OF ORDINANCE BOOK
Coody, seconded by Nash, made a motion to approve the Emergency
Clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
CONDEMNATION II
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance authorising condemnation
proceedings on Tract 71 involved in the Federal Airport Land
Acquisition Project which is owned by National oil Supply, Inc.
Based on the appraisal, an offer of $39,000 was made for the
approximately .88 acre and the concrete block warehouse. National
Oil made a counter offer of $77,140. Condemnation proceedings are
recommended to avoid delays in the project. (A copy of the
appraisal is available for inspection in the City Clerk's Office.)
The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, seconded by
Coody, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote
of 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. 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 6 to 0. The ordinance was
read for the third and final time.
W.D. Schock reported he has spoken with the Director of Properties
for National Oil Supply, a firm based in Joplin, Missouri, and was
advised that this is investment property. The firm has their own
in-house counsel and made a counter offer which the review
appraiser feels is considerably higher than the value of the
property. National Oil Supply does not occupy the subject
property. It has been rented to a local trucking firm for the past
4-5 months. The tenants of the property are well aware of the
condemnation proceeding. Schock further reported National Oil
Supply has amicably conveyed their support for proceeding with the
condemnation.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3634 APPEARS ON PAGE /9/ OF ORDINANCE BOOK 0\11
vi
Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the
Emergency Clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
6 to 0.
i
August 4, 1992
CONDEMNATION III
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance authorizing condemnation
proceedings on Tracts 3 and 14E owned by Jack Burge Construction
Co., Inc., Glacier Park Co., Inc., and Burlington Northern Railroad
to obtain street, sidewalk, drainage, and utility easements for the
improvements to North Street project.
Rather than a question of value, problems with ownership, special
conditions requested by the property owners, and coordination of
activities have caused excessive delays.
Possession of the property is necessary to avoid further delays in
the project.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Coody, 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 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Coody, 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 6 to 0. The
ordinance was read for the third and final time.
Mayor Vorsanger explained this condemnation proceeding is a result
of the need to straighten out some ownership disputes. He further
reported there are federal funds tied up on this North Street
project, and if the City does not proceed quickly on the
condemnation proceedings, they will lose the federal funds.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3635 APPEARS ON PAGE /F' OF ORDINANCE BOOK )(XV/1
Blackston, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the
Emergency Clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
6 to 0.
CONDEMNATION IV
4
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance authorizing condemnation
proceedings on Tracts 12, 12E1, and 12E2 owned by David S. Randle
and Jeane W. Randle, Glacier Park Co., Inc., and Burlington
Northern Railroad to obtain street, sidewalk, drainage, and utility
easements for the improvements to North Street project.
Rather than a question of value, problems with ownership, special
conditions requested by the property owners, and •coordination of
activities have caused excessive delays. Possession of the
property is necessary to avoid further delays in the project.
August 4, 1992
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 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Coody, 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 6 to 0. The
ordinance was read for the third and final time.
Mayor Vorsanger stated this condemnation proceeding is also
necessary in order to obtain federal funds for the North Street
project.
Upon roll
ORDINANCE
call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
3636 APPEARS ON PAGE MI OF ORDINANCE BOOR X Y J 1 i
Blackston, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the
Emergency Clause. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of
6 to 0.
OTHER BUSINESS
COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS
In the absence of Director Shell Spivey, Director Green gave the
report from the Nominating Committee.
He reported there are two positions open on the Cable Board, with
terms ending on July 31, 1994. These positions were formerly held
by Earl Buddy Chaddick and Hoyt H. Purvis. Director Green reported
the Nominating Committee has nominated Earl Buddy Chaddick and Hoyt
H. Purvis to serve second terms.
Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the
nominations.
Upon roll call, the nominations were approved 6 to 0.
Director Green reported there are also two openings on the
Electrical Advisory Board, but no applications were received.
PEARSON LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE
Mayor Vorsanger announced he had previously requested an addition
to the Agenda, that of a Letter of Settlement received in the
matter of a Board of Adjustment decision made on July 20, 1992.
Mayor Vorsanger read a letter from Attorney Tom Pearson, owner of
the properties in dispute. Pearson's letter set out the events of
this situation, beginning on July 20th when he requested that the
Fayetteville Board of Adjustments grant three variances which were
a..1 t,
August 4, 1992
necessary for a new buyer to renovate and expand three of his
buildings on Dickson Street which properties lie due north of the
Walton Arts Center and are situated on the northeast corner of
Dickson and West Streets. Two of the three variance requests were
denied as a result of a tie vote (3 to 3) by the Board of
Adjustment. These variances, demanded by the new buyer of the
property, are essential if the. property is to be sold and
renovated.
The letter continued that on July 29, 1992, Mr. Pearson filed an
appeal in the Washington County Circuit Court, appealing the Board
of Adjustment decision. In an effort to expeditiously resolve this
matter, by way of his letter of settlement, Mr. Pearson offered the
sum of $200 in settlement. He expressed his concern that it is
unfortunate they must rely on this procedure in order to redevelop
and renovate Dickson Street. He further expressed his hope that in
time the procedures necessary for the rehabilitation and renovation
of Dickson Street may be streamlined.
Director of Planning Alett Little explained with respect to the
actions taken by the Board of Adjustment, the petitioner had
requested five foot variances to the front of the building, or that
portion of the building which faces south on Dickson Street. The
property is situated approximately six feet back from its property
line. The petitioner wished to add a balcony on the front which
would extend over the property line and into,thesrea required for
the set -back; therefore, a variance was requested. . In addition,
the petitioner requested to extend an additional two feet into the
City right-of-way to place the poles which would support the
balcony.. The reason for the additional two foot extension is that
the six foot wide sidewalk in that area is hollow with a 6x6 foot
culvert underneath, requiring the placement of poles down through
this sidewalk in order to .support the balcony. Because of the
denial of the variance request and in order for the balcony to be
extended over the five foot area required for the set -back, the
City Board would have to agree to a settlement, which has been
offered by the petitioner as well as agreeing to the use of two
feet of the City right-of-way. • -
Director Coody stated the City does not know exactly what plan they
will approve for Dickson Street,how this area will be developed,
whether there will be planters, or what the parking arrangement
will be.
•
Alett Little concurred stating the Planning Department is currently
working very closely with the Dickson Street Improvement District
to put the City's plan for improvements to Dickson Street into
perspective with the Dickson Street Improvement District's plan to
place planters and make the street more pedestrian oriented.
Therefore, Director Coody asked if the Board approves the
construction of this balcony, and they later find out that it is
August 4, 1992
not compatible with the plan for Dickson Street improvements, do
they have a choice of either rebuilding the balcony, at the City's
cost, or do they change the plan for Dickson Street to accommodate
the improvements made by the new property owner?
Alett Little responded Director Coody had accurately outlined the
City's two options, and she believes the more realistic option at
that point, if this Board votes to allow the 2 foot extension into
the right-of-way area, would be to conform the plan for Dickson
Street to the balcony. In addition, Ms. Little stated if these
three buildings in the 400 block of Dickson Street are allowed to
extend two feet into the right-of-way, it would appear logical that
the other 11 to 15 buildings would also be afforded that same
option.
Director Coody stated once the City allowed Mr. Shewmaker's
building a right-of-way, they were obliged for the remaining
buildings on Dickson Street to follow suit.
Alett Little responded in the case of the Shewmaker building, the
balcony extended tQ the right-of-way line, not into the right-of-
way.
Director Coody stated as it currently stands, there will be
diagonal parking in the near future. If they allow the diagonal
parking to remain and the support poles are installed for the
balcony, it is likely, unlike Mr. Shewmaker's building where there
is parallel parking, that someone could back into or drive directly
into one of these poles possibly causing severe problems or injury.
Alett Little responded on the western edge of the property, the two
foot extension would place the support pole into the area which is
currently occupied by landscaping, and not directly in line with
the parking places. Ms. Little stated she is not exactly sure
where the support pole would fall on the eastern edge.
Director Henry asked Ms. Little if she anticipates maintaining the
diagonal parking for this area in the long range plans. Ms. Little
responded there is currently diagonal parking; however, the long
range plans call for this situation to change.
In addition, Director Henry stated it was her understanding that
the long range plans for Dickson Street include widening the
sidewalks as opposed to widening the street.
Alett Little responded the Dickson Street Improvement District has
not addressed the issue of sidewalks in their long range plan. The
City code states that sidewalks are the responsibility of the
property owner; therefore, she doesn't see widening of sidewalks
occurring as a result of any action of the Dickson Street
Improvement District.
August 4, 1992
Director Coody stated the City has pumped millions of dollars into
Dickson Street for years now, and he questioned whether there was
a projection or idea of when a consensus plan might be reached. So
far, the Board's actions have been "hop -scotch" down the street
with every new situation without a cohesive plan.
Alett Little stated all of the items being addressed by the various
plans in the development scheme, no one will take responsibility
for design guidelines of buildings. She stated her belief that
this matter should be addressed by at least one of the entities
involved. Ms. Little further reported the Planning Department is
currently working on a consensus plan and will be meeting with the
Dickson Street Improvement District this month. There has been
quite a bit of discussion about requirements to handle the current
traffic volumes on Dickson Street which is currently 33 feet wide.
The City Engineering Staff feels there are portions of Dickson
Street which should be widened to 36 feet which would eliminate
existing parking. This option is acceptable at some areas but not
at others because of eliminating parking immediately in front of
stores which don't have parking to the side or rear. Another major
item which is under discussion is the placement of planters within
the turning lanes which could block the line of sight.
With respect to the parking situation, Director Coody stated it is
his understanding that there were discussions during the planning
stages to make Dickson Street.. a four -lane thoroughfare. He
believes this simply is not a serious, viable alternative.
Alett Little responded they have
rather at most, three lanes, with
cases.
•
not considered four -lanes, but
one being a turning lane in most
•
Mayor Vorsanger reported his understanding that the intent for
Dickson Street was to be pedestrian oriented, and he believes this
is a good plan. As stated before Dickson Street is improving
faster than anyone ever dreamed it would, and he believes it is
improving in the right direction.
With respect to the Pearson property, Vorsanger stated this is a
case where a landowner has the possibility of selling three of his
buildings. Other buildings along this way are improving, and the
City is not aware of any of those plans for building front design.
Vorsanger further reported two new businesses opening, Anna's
Coffee Shop, with a nice garden in the rear, and Roger's Rec, who
remodelled the rear of the building. Vorsanger stated his point is
that the City was unaware of any of these improvement plans.
He suggested the City needed to obtain, as soon as possible, a
development plan for Dickson Street. It is up to the Dickson
Street Improvement District to obtain this development plan since
it involves them more than anyone else. The response received from
the Improvement District whenever asked about a development plan is
August 4, 1992
that they are waiting on private investment in this area for a
final plan. Vorsanger stated the City has contributed about all
they plan to contribute in this area.
Referring to the Pearson property, Vorsanger further stated they
have a chance for private money to be invested on Dickson Street,
and an opportunity to move ahead on something that will improve the
area. The vote of the Board of Adjustments being 3 to 3 indicates
that they simply put the ball in the Board of Director's court, and
he is ready to vote to accept Mr. Pearson's settlement offer of
$200. Vorsanger stated his belief that the new owner will not do
anything in the next 30 to 60 days that would not be compatible
with the overall plan for Dickson Street, whatever that may be. He
believes it is unfair to ask these folks to wait on the Board and
the Improvement District to present a final development plan. He
further suggested the City and Improvement District should ensure
that all properties along Dickson Street which are being improved
be tied in and compatible to the overall plan.
Director Coody asked if the Board was addressing all three
variances with one vote. Alett Little responded one of the
requested variances was approved, so there were only two that were
appealed, one to the front and one to the side of the building.
Director Coody stated they are developing problems through lack of
planning, and one problem he sees is if they continue to waive the
parking requirements, 100 to 120 parking places being waived to
date, they will experience a net loss of parking on Dickson Street.
This same thing happened on the Square with employees parking in
all the public parking. Customers wishing to shop on Dickson
Street will be unable to find parking. Coody reported receiving
three complaints from people required to park near the Square to
attend a performance at the Walton Arts Center. If the City does
not address this potential problem, it will come back to haunt them
in the very near future.
Alett Little responded to Director Coody that the 500 parking
spaces developed for the Walton Arts Center are expected to be used
primarily at night, and the retail developers along Dickson Street
will be using them during their hours of operation.
City Attorney Jerry Rose explained this matter would take a
resolution to approve the settlement offer, and he read the
resolution.
Director Coody requested a requirement be added to the settlement
offer resolution that the new owner of the building will hold off
on construction of the balcony until a plan is completed for
development on Dickson Street.
August 4, 1992
City Attorney Rose stated this would be in the nature of a counter
offer to the Pearson's for settlement which can be added to the
resolution by. amendment.
Director Coody made a motion for a counter offer as hereinabove
stated.
Mayor Vorsanger questioned whether this action would cloud the
title for the sale of the building. Director Green stated it would
be a condition on the sale.
City Attorney Rose advised the Board they have a resolution before
them in which they need to approve prior to Director Coody's
amendment.
Nash, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the resolution.
•
City Attorney Rose confirmed with Director Coody the intent of his
amendment is to request that Mr. Pearson, as part of the
settlement, agree not to build his balcony until a Dickson Street
development plan is formulated, at 'which time the balcony could be
constructed but only in conformity with the Dickson Street plan.
S
Director Blackston questionedthe $200 settlement offer and
suggested it either be something of value or nothing at all because
the sum of $200 is incidental.
C
Mayor Vorsanger explained Mr. Pearson offered the sum of $200
because that is what was previously made by Mr. Shewmaker.
' 1
Director Henry stated Mr. Pearson has three separate pieces of
property while Mr. Shewmaker only had one. •
Mayor Vorsanger responded that by settling this matter, the City
saves court costs.
Director Green commented Mr. Pearson's "token payment" is a result
of the City's outdated zoning rules for that particular area and
the way it is being developed. He stated his belief that the City
should be allowing private property owners to develop their
property as they so desire. The City's role comes'in by creating
a good atmosphere on Dickson Street, conducive for this kind of
development, and to encourage it. The City lacks a good district
zoning plan on Dickson Street which would take into account the
unusual requests for development.
Alett Little stated this matter is the third or fourth item that
she has handled for Dickson Street, and she is pleased with the
progress being made, in spite of the City.
August 4, 1992
Director Blackston stated that if the real intent is for
development of Dickson Street, then why charge anything for such
development.
Director Henry asked if the intent for Pearson's property is to
restore the building frontages. Mr. Shewmaker responded their
intent was to restore the building faces and remove the
existing eyesore that protrudes from the building. He further
reported the planned balcony will be placed above the transom
windows, placing it more to scale.
Director Henry concurred with Mayor Vorsanger that the City has
contributed enough public money to the Dickson Street improvements,
and it is time for private involvement. However, she is a little
uncomfortable discussing this issue with property owners on Dickson
Street until she had validated her own positive feelings that in
the absence of the missed years of planning, she is ready to do
something even if it is not perfect. She believes private citizens
are doing their part to improve Dickson Street.
upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
RESOLUTION 119-92 718 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SHEWMAKER EASEMENT
Alett Little stated in addition the Board needed to address a
vacation of the right-of-way of an alley and a statement by the
City that they make no claim to a sewer easement.
Mr. Shewmaker stated the original intent was to include all of
these issues on the Agenda, but due to the lawsuit, it was delayed.
He explained this is a minor issue where the City had a small
diagonal cut across the back of the property where a sewer line
existed at one time. The new parking lot calls for the relocation
of any utilities, be it private or public utilities, and they were
relocated into the planters along the parking lot behind the
Library Club and Hanna's. The sewer line was abandoned; however,
there is concern on the part of the buyer that the land is not
abandoned. The other minor issue is a legal description could not
be located on this property; therefore, there is no proof the City
ever had legal ownership to this easement.
Alett Little stated the only item uncovered in their records was on
the survey submitted by the petitioner, but the Planning Department
has no record of City ownership. The concern is on the part of the
buyer that since there was a sewer line in this area, that the City
may have a claim at some future time that the City actually owned
this land by prescriptive right, in which case a building could not
be permitted to be situated over the easement.
1
August 4, 1992
City Attorney Rose explained it would take an ordinance to vacate
the easement, if it does exist, in order to resolve this matter.
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 6 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time.
Coody, 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 6 to 0. The
ordinance was read for the third and final time.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
•
ORDINANCE 3639 APPEARS ON PAGE ,2 L 7 OF ORDINANCE BOOK y/(V / d
Alett Little questioned exactly what has beenaccomplished with
regard to the Petitioner's request for permission to install a
balcony with supporting posts which extend two feet into the City's
right-of-way.
•
Director Blackston responded it was his understanding that this
request by the petitioner to install a balcony was addressed under
the settlement offer. t ':
City Attorney Rose re -read and verified•the resolution just passed
by the Board included language that as part of the settlement, a
five foot variance to the front set -back and a five foot variance
to the side set -back were granted.
69
Director Henry asked Alett Little whether there was discussion at
the Planning Commission meetingaegarding granting this variance
for the two feet into the right-of-way with the understanding that
if.the City .required a change, it would need to be. moved at the
owners expense. '
Alett Little responded to get thebalconyremoved, it would require
a variance from the front set -back, which would get to within one
foot of their property line. Therefore, the additional five feet
is required for set -back, which puts them 6 feet over, and below
that is empty space. The petitioner,is requestingato move two feet
beyond that point and install their supporting -poles into the
right-of-way, which requires Board permission.
Ms. Little suggested an amendment to the previous resolution
granting a 5 foot variance and use of 2 feet of the City's right-
of-way for the purpose of installing supporting posts for the
balcony.
Green, seconded by Coody, made a motion to allow the use of a 2
foot right-of-way for the purpose of installing supporting posts
for the balcony.
August 4, 1992
Upon roll call, the lotion passed by a vote of 6 to 0.
RESOLUTION 1197-92 A8 RECORDED Iii THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ADVERTISING & PROMOTION COMMISSION
As Chairman of the Advertising and Promotion Commission, Director
Green reported a letter was received from the City Manager
regarding the Fayetteville Air Museum. The City has discovered the
Museum has not been charged for fire protection service on their
sprinkler system, which fee would be $159.47 per month. The City
Manager requested the Advertising & Promotion Commission pick up
this particular funding since the Air Museum has already received
$50,000 in the 1992 budget. Currently, there exists $1,280 to
cover the past due billings and through the end of 1992.
Green reported from the Advertising & Promotion meeting last
Monday, the A & P Commission voted not to approve this funding out
of their budgeted funds but rather to ask the City Board or Staff
waive this fee for the Air Museum, especially in light of it being
a city -owned building.
Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson responded their only
objection to Director Green's suggestion to waive the fee for the
Air Museum is all of the City owned facilities pay water and sewer
fees, and applicable charges, such as the fire protection charge.
Any other non-profit and/or other organizations or agencies are
also responsible for these fees. Therefore, by waiving this fee to
the Air Museum, they would be setting a precedent that might cause
problems in the future.
City Manager Linebaugh suggested he would recommend that Staff
prepare a memo addressing this fire protection fee because there
are more implications involved with this issue, such as contracts
stating the City will not waive water fees in circumstances such as
this.
Director Coody asked why the Advertising & Promotion Commission
denied the request to pay these fees. Director Green responded the
mood of the Commission was that they had already given the Air
Museum $50,000 this year, and they should take it out of that; the
City should waive the fee; or they should obtain the money from
some other source.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 11:47 p.m.