Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-01 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE..CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, September 1,. 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors' Room of the City Administration Building, at 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: ABSENT: CALL TO ORDER Mayor FredLVorsanger; Directors Julie Nash, Shell Spivey, Dan Coody, and Bob Blackston; City Manager Scott. Linebaugh; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk Sherry _Thomas; Director of Planning Alett Little; Director of PublicWorks Kevin Crosson; Director of *Administrative', Services Ben Mayes; members of Staff,ypress, and,audience. . t - Assistant. Mayor Mike4Green and Director Ann Henry. g +a The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with five Directors present. The Mayor asked those present to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and -.then .asked, that a brief moment of respectful silence be observed. , •? Pfi o- a The Mayor welcomed comments on any items on the explained in order to a11ow,equai:attehtion to all Agenda, the Board requests -that comments be limited per person per item, and;a spokesperson be elected made on the same issue. - Agenda. He items on the to 3 minutes for comments ,. Mayor Vorsanger explained originally no' ordinances were to be considered at this meeting as it was believed that only four of the seven board members would be present, making*it impossible to pass any ordinances, as a two-thirds (5 member) vote is required. However, since five members were present, Mayor Vorsanger announced that the Board would consider those ordinances for which representatives were present at the meeting. City Manager Scott Linebaugh announced that Item #3., Brophy Condemnation Request, had been pulled from the Agenda. 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. There was no "Old Business" to be discussed. NEW BUSINESS CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved September 1 , 1992 by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda." A. Minutes of the August 4 and 18, 1992 regular Board meetings; B. A resolution approving a construction contract with Sweetser Construction Co., the low bidder, in the estimated amount of $119,438.50 plus a 10% contingency of $11,943.50 for a total of $131,382.00 and approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $23,282.00; This project is for replacement culverts at 54th Street and at Sang Avenue. These replacements are needed and originally scheduled for early 1992, but they have been delayed due to the freezing of the sales tax bond funds. RESOLUTION 125-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution recognizing $10,000 of federal grant funds received in association with the Small Business Administration Tree Planting Program and the establishment of an expenditure account for this in-kind matching grant; The City received this grant for a project entitled "Enhance the Environment, Plant the Right Tree in the Right Place" through the Urban Forestry and Landscape Program. RESOLUTION 126-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE D. A resolution approving a lease agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration for 3096 square feet of floor space and office space on a month to month basis with options expiring September 1994, at an annual cost of $24,207.00; The Airport Board approved the lease agreement at their August 7, 1992 meeting. RESOLUTION 127-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE E. A resolution approving a budget adjustment for the Community Development Rehabilitation Loan Program to amend the 1992 Budget accounts for an unanticipated increase in revenues of $10,064; The Community Development program provides loans for rehab of lower income, owner -occupied housing. A project that was completed in 1991 was recently sold and the entire amount of the rehab, $10,064 was repaid to the CD program. RESOLUTION 128-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 1;', 1992 F. A resolution approving a Grant Application in the amount of $500,000 and a Grant.Agreement with the Arkansas Development Finance Authority for monies to be used for housing rehabilitation for lower income families; 3 , HUD recently awarded $11.2 million to the State of Arkansas for the Home Investment`Partnerships',Program, and they have invited Fayettevilleand other.CDBG?;cities to apply for a portion of the funds. s .•} RESOLUTION 129-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY,CLERR'S OFFICE G. A resolution approving a budget, adjustment to transfer $22,116 to the utilities'account for anticipated additional expense for street lights throughout the City; More new street lights' have been installed during 1992 than was anticipated; therefore, the electric cost will be greater than budgeted. RESOLUTION 130-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE r -We' 1. , H. A resolution approving a budget adjustment recognizing legal fees assessed by the Sales Bond Trustee, Arvest Group/Mcllroy Bank, in the sales tax lawsuit in the amount of $163,857; The Bond Trustee has expended monies from the Sales Tax Bond Fund to cover the assessed legal fees resulting from the sales tax lawsuit. - 4 A resolution approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $11,312 allocating additional funds necessary to complete the lease/purchase agreement entered into with the Suburban National Bank of Palatine, Illinois, for the IBM System 36; The City entered into the agreement in June 1987. There are five payments remaining as of January 1992. The 1992 Budget contains funding for four of these payments, and the fifth payment was to have been part of the 1992 roll forward budget adjustment but was omitted. This budget adjustment is to roll forward those funds. RESOLUTION 131-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE J. A resolution approving a budget adjustment in the amount of $198,858 recognizing additional Building Cost Donations made for the Walton Arts Center during the second quarter of 1992; RESOLUTION 132-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 1 , 1992 Director Coody pointed out an error in the August 4, 1992 Board minutes, whereby it indicates that he voted against the sanitation rate increase, when he actually voted in favor of the same. In response to Director Coody's question regarding the type of street lights referred to in Item #G, whether sodium or mercury vapor, Kevin Crosson stated the lights were the same kind that are used throughout the City, but he is unsure what type they are. Director Coody suggested the City begin using low pressure sodium lights as they are much more energy efficient and would produce a savings in utility bills. Director Nash requested that Item "H" be removed from the Agenda. Nash, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. ITEM "H" Director Nash reported discussion from the Agenda Session regarding the legal fees charged by the Sales Tax Bond Trustee, and City Attorney Jerry Rose indicated that he would look into the fees charged. She requested that City Attorney Rose report on his findings. City Attorney Rose stated the local newspaper ran a headline that the Board of Directors protested some of the legal fees, and he believes this to be inaccurate. He explained that under the indenture, Arvest Trust Company has a right to deduct attorney fees that they incur in the defense of their trust arrangement with the City. Steve Davis from the City's Finance Department requested that a line item be placed in the Budget for these legal fees. He along with Mr. Davis will then review the legal fees submitted to be certain they are accurate and well -spent. City Attorney Rose reported he has no reason at this time to believe the legal fees submitted by the Sales Tax Bond Trustee are not accurate; however, he assured the Board that these statements will be reviewed. Therefore, in passing the resolution approving a budget adjustment, the Board essentially is passing a form of bookkeeping arrangement as opposed to any kind of a waiver of any right the City has to review and analyze the billings in the future. Director Nash asked as the City's Bond Agreement is written, whether it was standard procedure for the City to pay the Sales Tax Bond Trustee. Attorney Rose responded he is unaware of any indenture agreement written in recent history that does not have such a provision. He explained the purpose of this provision is to protect the Trustee from extraordinary expenses they occur in defending their trustee arrangement. 1 September L5, 1992 Director Coody stated UniontNational Bank of Little Rock, also involved in an incinerator,. lawsuit, is able to use their funds to pay the principal and interest; therefore, he questioned why Arvest is withholding $33 million from the:City. 'S t sa City Attorney Rose responded that he isn't sure the two situations are exactly comparable. It is his understanding that Union Bank is • not expending or releasing any funds; they are holding the funds and paying the bond holders as the money is'needed. 4 Director of Administrative:Services Ben Mayes further verified that Union National Bank is paying the—bond holders, and Arvest is actually only holding the construction monies that the City of Fayetteville was to use for the 36". water line. G Director Coody further aske&whether the $164,.000 had anything to do with Arvest's option of -tying up the -$33 million; to which City Attorney Rose responded having not yet reviewed the bills, he does not know the answer. Once helms analyzed the bills, he can verify that they are correct, and what Director Coody is suggesting is not in fact happening. Rose?further explained Arvest is entitled to deduct attorney fees used in defense of their trust and trustee arrangement; they are not allowed to use attorney fees to defend Arvest as a corporate entity, etc. His main concern is that the City does not waive their right, either the present Board or future Boards, that may want to review the transactions. Director Coody suggested the City postpone approving this resolution until after the attorney bills have been analyzed. City Attorney Rose explained the City. is simply authorizing payment, as the monies have already been deducted and paid. This resolution sets up the bookkeeping arrangement within the City that reflects the transaction to the auditors, and that the funds are being handled correctly. Director Nash stated that it is important to realize that Arvest takes these legal fee payments from the top of the receipts. The City is not actually paying Arvest money, but rather adjusting the bookkeeping to reflect these legal fees. Mayor Vorsanger stated that the City is handling all related expenses to the bond issue in the same fashion. Nash, seconded by Coody, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 133-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE September 1 , 1992 REZONE R92-24 Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance rezoning 3.39 acres located on the south side of Old Farmington Road and west of One Mile Road from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, as requested by Mike Price on behalf of Nelson D. Curtis and Glenn A. Oldham. The Board of Directors has toured this property on 2-3 occasions, and the Planning Commission voted 7-0-0 to recommend rezoning. The ordinance was read for the first time, and left on its first reading. EASEMENT ABANDONMENT Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance abandoning a water line easement on property by the Simplex Motel Group and located west of Shiloh Drive and south of Highway 62 West. This easement was granted to the City in 1966 and was originally used for a water line servicing Farmington. Since that time, this service no longer exists, and the City has no future plans which would utilize this easement. The ordinance was read for the first time. Blackston, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the second time. Blackston, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the motion was passed by a vote of 5 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. ORDINANCE 3640 APPEARS ON PAGE a2 4 G OF ORDINANCE BOOR x X V 1 1 CITY PROSECUTOR Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution approving a budget adjustment for $15,017 to hire a new City Prosecutor. The City's present prosecutor, Terry Jones, is leaving to become the County Prosecuting Attorney. The City Prosecuting Attorney position has been a part-time position. However, due to the case load and work involved, it is proposed that this position become full-time. This budget adjustment is needed to allow for the hiring of a new full-time prosecutor. City Attorney Jerry Rose explained that the object of this budget adjustment was to allow for the hiring of a new full-time City 4 September la`, 1992'. Prosecutor as soon as possible, in order that he/she will have as much overlap as possible with-*.Terry'Jones before Jones becomes the County Prosecutor on January 1, 1993. In order to hire a new City Prosecutor at this times a budget`adj.ustment is needed. Rose explained that an analysis; done in February 1991 by a staff intern on the need for a full-time prosecutor; was considered in making the determination. to hire .a full-time prosecutor. It was determined that this full-time position would be beneficial to the City due to the increased case load which is bound to continue to grow with the future hiring.of teninew police officers, which will produce an increased number of warrants,and cases to be processed. Another consideration is the dramatic increase in cases generated from citizen complaints which require a great deal of time and finesse, for which Terry Jones id currently strapped for time. It is believed that a full-time City Prosecutor would aid in that regard. This full-time position would require a yearly increase of $15,000 to the salary. Rose stated his opinion that this would be money well spent, and this is an opportune `time to make this change. 1, Blackston, seconded by Nash, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 134-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE EMPLOYEE DEFINED CONTRIBUTION SAVINGS/RETIREMENT PLAN Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution from the Board of Directors adopting an amended Sec. 401(a) Defined Contribution Savings/ Retirement Plan and adopting a City sponsored Sec. 457 Deferred Compensation Plan to replace the existing salaried employees' ICMA Deferred Compensation Plan. The proposed changes seek only to enhance the retirement plans and will not generate any additional cost to the City. City Manager Linebaugh explained that the City is required to go through a 90 -day "IRS Comment Time" prior to proceeding with the proposed plan improvements on January 1, 1993, to both the general employees' plan and current ICMA plan. Upon the Board's approval of this resolution, Staff will meet with City employees to discuss the proposed plan changes and receive their approval. After which the proposed plans will be forwarded on to the IRS. Linebaugh verified that the new council will have the power to terminate these enhanced retirement plans; however, he sees no reason for them to do so. Blackston, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the resolution. September 1 , 1992 Director Blackston stated City Personnel Manager Don Bailey presented a good explanation for these proposed plan changes at the Board's Agenda Session, and it appears that these changes are more equitable in allowing employees the decision making and to be treated on an even-handed basis and giving employees greater latitude. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 135-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERICS OFFICE REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution as requested by the Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport Authority that if and when incurred, all financial obligations of the Authority will be obligations only of the Authority and not of its governmental members. City Attorney Rose read the resolution. Blackston, seconded by Spivey, made a motion to approve the resolution. Director Nash asked for clarification that the resolution includes a provision whereby the City will not be asked to sign financial agreements in the future, as done in the past with other bond sources. City Attorney Jerry Rose responded under this resolution, neither the City, nor the Authority will be allowed to enter into separate contracts with any of its City or County members, which would financially obligate the City or County to assume any financial liability for bonds issued by the Authority. His understanding of the resolution is that the Authority will never request the City to enter into any kind of separate agreement regarding bonds, which will in any way, finance those bonds. In response to Director Nash's question; City Attorney Jerry Rose explained that the language contained in the resolution, ". . . within any constitutional or statutory limitation . . ." refers to compliance with the constitution. He further explained the statute quoted in the resolution recognizes that there are phrases within the constitution regarding bonds and other obligations, being an "indebtedness" of the municipality. This resolution seeks to clarify the current language and "define -away" the alleged problem by asserting that none of the revenue bonds will, in any way, constitute such a defined meaning of "indebtedness" of a municipality under the meanings of the Arkansas Constitution or any statute. 1 t't 1 €. September i', 1992 Director Coody stated the AttorneyFGenerel's opinion states the Authority is prohibitedkfrom giving away its,powers, or in other words, legislate out _part of the.power given to Authorities. He called attention to the original agreement between the City and the Authority which states,?; "The .final plan for financing and construction of new improvements contemplated by this agreement shall be in the form of a°supplemental agreement, which shall be presented to the parties signatory hereto`Efor approval, and when the same shall have been` -approved by ell""parties hereto, shall become an addendum to this agreeittent:" *Coody stated the proposed resolution seems to define°that the Authority will abstain from requesting any type of financing from the/City. He stated his understanding that this provision would cover not only revenue bonds, but any type of supplemental financial agreement for any type of funding. Coody further read from•'the original agreement, "All money and executed and delivered negotiable notes, mortgage bonds, other bonds, debentures, other evidence of indebtedness therefore, and give such security therefore shall be requisite." The agreement also refers to ". . . raise funds by the issuance and sale of revenue bonds. . ." The agreement addresses revenue bonds, as well as all other funding mechanisms used by an Authority to raise funds. Coody asked whether the proposed resolution restricts the Authority from requesting funding from the City, under any kind of debentures, revenue or mortgage bonds. City Attorney Rose responded although the Authority cannot waive their power to seek fund .appropriation from the City, his understanding of the resolution is that of a contractual pledge/agreement by the Authority to the City., that the Authority will not seek any kind of fund appropriation from any City or County member. Mayor Vorsanger announced that former Fayetteville Mayor Bill Martin was present in the audience. As a member of the Authority, Vorsanger requested Mr. Martin shed some light on the questions at hand. Bill Martin addressed the Board and responded to Director Coody's previous question whether the Authority might attempt to raise funds through the participating government bodies by some means other than revenue bonds, stating that Section 3(b) of the resolution indicates that the Authority will not seek the appropriation of funds from any City or County member. The question therefore remains, "Who pays for the Airport?" From the outset, conception has always been that the users of the airport and those who might benefit from doing business thereon, would pay for the airport; the citizens and political subdivisions •that are members of the airport will not pay. Director Coody questioned if in the event that the revenue bonds are used to build the airport, what would happen to this debt if the revenue generated is not sufficient to cover the debt. He September 1 , 1992 further doubted that the bond holders would simply walk away and write it off as a loss; rather, they would fall back on someone. Mr. Martin responded that if the revenues from the airport are insufficient to pay the revenue bonds, the lenders to the Authority could only look to the assets underlying the bond issue. They cannot look to the other members of the Authority or beyond the revenue bonds themselves. Therefore, Martin stated that established financial viability for the airport is essential, so related financing can be accomplished. Director Coody reported from the Attorney General's opinion that this proposed resolution will not override state legislation which allows authorities to request funding from municipalities. He read from the Act to amend the Regional Airport Act, Title 14, ". authorizes investors, besides municipalities, counties, and members of Authorities, to be investors and can be held liable under certain circumstances. Any municipality or other authority duly established by ordinance of any municipality, or the boards of trustees, respectively, the Firemen's Relief and Pension Fund, the Policemen's Pension Relief Fund of any such municipality, and the board of trustees of any retirement system created by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas, may in its discretion, invest any of its funds not immediately needed for its purpose in bonds issued under the provisions of this chapter, and bonds under the provisions of this chapter shall be eligible to secure the deposit of public funds." Mayor Vorsanger responded to Director Coody's interpretation of the language contained within the Regional Airport Act and stated the pension funds will be eligible to invest in authority bonds, if it is determined to be a good investment. The City Board has nothing to do with the Firemen and Police Pension Funds; these funds are independently operated by their Board of Trustees. Vorsanger further thanked Bill Martin and the Airport Authority for their explanation which clarifies and clears the air that with the approval of this resolution, the City has no financial obligation for any bonds. Bill Martin stated he has attended nearly every meeting of the Airport Authority, and as a former legislator of the City and citizen of Fayetteville, he assured Mayor Vorsanger there has never been the slightest indication by any member of the Authority that the Authority desires for the member cities and counties to finance or be held contingently liable for the airport financing. The proposed resolution serves as a bilateral contract, allowing for the City to bind future authorities, and spells out the intent and obligations of the parties. Martin further stated Director Coody's questions/concerns are extremely important, and it is important to nail down every unanswered question. He stated the legislation that Director Coody quoted was to enable legislation for the Aero Space Commission and dealt largely with the City of Blytheville and ..September_ 1. ,, 1992 r,% h closing of Air Force Base. -The legislative intent was to provide an opportunity for public'funds;to•be invested in the resulting authority. Martin explainedthe•Authority is specifically trying to prohibit such acts with the proposed contract. They are not legislating their rights away, but. rather, contracting not to use those rights. A +- Director Coody stated it isnot his job to be for or against the airport; this issue will be.decided on November 3. If the public votes to be a member of the Authority, then he will help work to make it the best airport possible; if they vote to get out of the Authority, then he will favor that position.. Coody stated his major concern is whether.„this is a good. financial move since history shows this project has gone from=.$100 million to $261 million. The original plans for a cargo airport have now changed to a passenger airport, the newspapers report that $261 million will be less than half of the revenue needed to build the airport. He sees this as shooting hundreds of millions of dollars at a moving target and worries that if the City makes a mistake in its decision regarding the airport, it will suffer for a long time. Mayor Vorsanger.responded the issues raised by Director Coody are addressed with the proposed resolution and agreement between the City and Authority. Director Blackston stated whether the City goes forward or backward regarding the airport is neither here nor there. The proposed agreement with the Authority only strengthens the City's position on the airport issue. Bill Martin commented the City Board of Fayetteville has always impressed him, as always attempting to do the right thing in a professional manner. He is thankful the concept of the airport has changed as that was the whole idea behind a study process, to conform this airport to the precise needs in Northwest Arkansas, so they do not over build. It has been through the careful and objective evaluation of facts that this airport has turned from a three-legged stool relying heavily on cargo to a three-legged stool leans primarily on passenger service. He reiterated the proposed resolution serves as the City's contractual guarantee that the City will not be liable for any portion of this airport. Director Nash addressed the question of whether the document addressed only revenue bonds or all means of financing an airport, and asked Mr. Martin if he concurred with City Attorney Rose that the agreement addresses all means of financing. Mr. Martin responded he does believe the agreement covers all means of financing an airport, by virtue of Section 2(b). The reality is that an Authority such as this which has no independent wealth or source of money, must look to the project and for a project financing type of arrangement with revenue bonds being the primary September 1 , 1992 method for this financing. However, he believes the agreement attempts to go beyond the revenue bonds. Director Nash concurred with Mr. Martin further stating part of the confusion may lie in the title itself because it refers to, ". . an agreement regarding revenue bonds, etc. " She asked if it would take a vote of the Authority to amend the title. Martin responded he doubts the Authority would have difficulty in changing the title of the agreement with the City of Fayetteville. The Authority's desire is this be a single agreement among all entities and would provide the same level of protection. The Authority's intent is to indemnify the City of Fayetteville and its citizens from any financial obligation to this airport. In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, Martin stated he had read in the newspaper that Springdale has passed this resolution, and it appears on Siloam Springs Agenda. Director Coody stated his concern is with the uncertainty of legal technicalities. According to the Attorney General's opinion, this agreement is a good faith attempt, but doesn't remove the City from liability down the road. Coody agreed this agreement looks like a "free lunch"; however, he questioned whether it is appropriate to give the citizens a false sense of security. The "termination agreement" in Article 8 of the enabling legislation sets out, "This agreement shall continue in full force and effect subsequent to its adoption by all signatory parties." The Authority therefore has power over many matters which are out of the Board's hands. He suggested they address each issue as the need arises, and not fall back on a document that is not as strong as is intended. Bill Martin responded that his understanding of the Attorney General's opinion pertaining to improvement districts, that initially the Authority attempted to amend its by-laws to proscribe a particular type of financing to which the Attorney General advised the Authority could not dissolve the power given it by the law. Martin stated the resolution at issue is a significantly different matter, as a contract which only pertains to the Authority seeking financing from the City related to them or to any other appropriations. He further announced the Authority is in no hurry on this matter; they simply wish to relieve the citizens' concern about their potential liability. Cyrus Young, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating from past experience with bonds, there are many citizens of Fayetteville who are skeptical. The proposed contract contains "assurances" and "pledges". He believes a lot of the skepticism could be cleared up if a guarantee were submitted with the agreement. When private individuals join in joint ventures, many times they are required by lending institutions to sign letters whereby each individual member be financially responsible for the • September' 1992 entire project. If the Authority -is so certain that there are no loopholes contained in the -agreement whereby Fayetteville could be responsible to the Authority, he suggested Mr. Martin sign a personal letter obligating him for all financial responsibility to the City of Fayetteville. ..)P Director Nash responded to Mr. Young she personally would not ask such a thing of Mr. Martin any more than tshe would ask a Board member to sign a personal guarantee for a City project. Mr. Martin is not proposing building the airport for himself but for everyone. Mr. Young further stated the question remains, according to the Attorney General's opinion whether this agreement is ironclad, and it is inappropriate to present the same to the citizens of Fayetteville as ironclad when it possibly is not. Director Blackston stated he cannot think of anything that is absolutely, totally fool proof. However, in view of the fact that there are questions regarding this agreement, he suggested that they table the resolution. Blackston, seconded by Coody, made a motion to table the resolution. Upon roll call, the motion to table passed with a vote of 3 to 2, with Directors Spivey and Vorsanger voting no. PERSONNEL POLICY INTERPRETATION Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution clarifying the interpretation of Section VII -3, (3) of the Personnel Policy that states an employee must forfeit employment with the City in order to run for an elected office. City Manager Scott Linebaugh explained the Personnel Policy was not written with any consideration to the possibility of a change in the form of city government. Therefore, it was not anticipated that a particular position would become an elected rather than appointed position as previously, only the Board of Directors positions were elected. To require an "incumbent" appointed City employee to resign in order to become a candidate for the same or equivalent position now held was not the purpose of the policy. If this were so, the City would be without these individuals during the transition period. Any employee running for their position on the new mayor/council form of government should be allowed to remain a City employee while running for office.. Asking these employees to resign would only hurt the government. September 1 , 1992 Director Coody asked if a "sunset" clause was necessary if this resolution is approved, to avoid the necessity of the next government dealing with the matter. City Attorney Rose responded he feels uncomfortable even talking about this issue, as it affects him directly. However, he gave his opinion that a "sunset" clause was not necessary for the reason that this situation will most likely never come up again. Once an individual (incumbent) is elected under the new form of government, they are no longer a city employee but an elected official. Director Coody stated if putting something permanently in the books which is only used once, why not include a "sunset" clause? City Attorney Rose responded there is no reason not to include a "sunset" clause, and it can be added. Mayor Vorsanger stated a "sunset" clause was not necessary; and noted that the resolution clearly states, ". . . this clarification is intended as a one time occurrence, and would not be applicable after the change of the new form of government is complete." Spivey, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 136-92 A8 RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE FAYARK VILLA MOBILE HOME PARR Mayor vorsanger introduced a report on the alleged city code violation at the FayArk Villa Mobile Home Park located at 2025 South school Avenue. Director of Planning Alett Little gave a history of the FayArk Villa Mobile Home Park and of the City's current involvement. The FayArk Villa Mobile Home Park is located at the intersection of Cato Springs Road and Hwy. 71 South with frontage on both streets. The mobile homes in this area consist of a mixture of three rental units and fourteen homeowner units in addition to five duplexes in this same area, or ten units under the management of Williams Enterprises. Ms. Little explained the City's involvement dates back to January 1991, at which time a violation notice was issued regarding trash, debris, and unlicensed, inoperable vehicles on the premises. All of the violations were corrected six weeks later. In July 1991, an additional violation notice was mailed, bids were taken, and the owners of the trailer park did take steps to correct a portion of the problem; however, in October a violation notice was reissued for not having the July notices corrected. The October violation notice resulted in the City obtaining a search warrant to take pictures of the reported problems and warrant for 1 .F4 L 1 September I:. 1992 . the correction of these problems. Ms. Little reported that she became involved in this action in January 1992, after she received a complaint from a neighbor to the property.- During the interim, there have been numerous meetings with the owners of the trailer park, as well as the complaining neighbors. Board tour revealed that there remain areas which are untidy;' however, she believes that the City, the neighbors, and the property owners have worked diligently in trying to correct the violations. Ms. Little further explained that this area of Fayetteville is considered affordable housing and is inhabited by persons of low to moderate income and is an area frequented by vagrants, all which contribute to the problems experienced. Director Nash asked what this property rents for on a weekly or monthly basis. Ms. Little responded rents range from $175 to $225 per month. The duplex units contain several units rented on a weekly basis for $90 per week. Mayor Vorsanger stated the Board was presented with a petition which made a number of requests, and he asked Alett Little to update the Board on the petition or requests. Ms. Little responded that there have been two petitions, one filed in July 1991 and one added to in March 1992, for which she did not receive a copy. The. March 1992 petition requested the City reinstate a buffer zone which was a part of the original approval of this trailer park in 1965. Subsequently, in 1970 the City adopted new zoning, and this portion of the ordinance labelling the "bumper zone" (R -1B) was not preserved, and the entire area was zoned C-2. This was reflected in a memo dated August 16, 1991, which was furnished to the neighbors in the area. She quoted from the memo as follows: "In 1970 when the City of Fayetteville enacted the master .zoning plan, it voided all previous zoning on the master zoning map from 1970 and the current zoning map. The zoning of the entire property is C-2; the R -1B buffer no longer exists." Director Nash asked whether in view of the fact that this provision was a part of the original ordinance for years and years, why has it been so difficult to have it reinstated. Director of Planning Alett Little responded the petition making the request has to her knowledge not been presented to the Planning Commission, and reiterated that she has not received a copy of the March petition. She further explained most rezonings of property are in$$tiated by the property owner. In this case, rezoning was initiated by someone other than the property owner. It is possible for a rezoning to be initiated in this manner; however, the petition in question has not been filed with the Planning Office. In the interim, since her involvement, Ms. Little reported that the owners of the trailer park have installed a fence which should have the same effect as a bufferozone. The trailer park owners have communicated to her that at the time the trailer park was September 1 , 1992 established in 1965, even with the buffer zone in place, two trailer pads were located within the buffer zone, and this condition was present when the current owners acquired the property. Mayor Vorsanger asked about the letter of June 8, 1992 contained within the City's files, signed by Melissa Tazarro, Assistant City Prosecutor, indicating that this matter was to be heard in Court on August 5, 1992. Ms. Little responded that this matter did not come up for trial. She stated eight items were listed in the October 1991 violation, as follows: Item #1 - No street lighting had been installed as required - this item has been corrected; Items #2 & #3 - Electrical and plumbing problems on a school bus - the problem was corrected when the school bus was removed from the property; Item 414 - Electrical problems with some electrical services and lines not installed per code - the owners of the trailer park hired a licensed master electrician who inspected the entire park in May and made all electrical corrections required at that time; Item #5 - Remove trash and debris on property (appliances) - this continues to be a problem, however, a portion of the trash and debris cited in the October 1991 citation had been removed; Item #6 - Inoperable vehicles on property - the neighborhood's tenants move in and out of the area frequently, and the same unlicensed operable vehicles cited in the October 1991 violation had been removed by August 1992. She explained the problem with holding a property owner responsible for other person's personal property with a high value. Item #7 - An unsafe propane tank on a school bus - problem removed along with the bus. Item #8 - Provide smoke detectors and fire extinguishers where requ red - the electrician was responsible for proscribing locations and installing these units where required, and has done so. LaJoyce Thomas, resident of 501 Cato Springs Road, addressed the Board with two petitions containing signatures of sixty residents and homeowners of the Meadowlark Subdivision and other contiguous property owners, to ask the Board to return the buffer zone along Cato Springs Road. Ms. Thomas presented several documents to the 1 September 1'j, 1992 Board at their agenda session, and further presented pictures of the problems which exist, taken over the past two years. She added that back in 1965, as a resident of this area; she began working with the Planning Commission to try to get ,the problems stopped. When this was unsuccessful, the City granted the buffer zone. The petitioners would consider it reasonable for the City to reinstate the buffer zone, including the two trailers, one which is in code violation. Ms. Thomas reported that the March 1992 petition was presented to Becky Bryant and Jack Cleghorn, who had been working with the petitioners in their endeavor. The petitioners asked that the two trailers in violation be moved within the trailer court; that a fence be erected around the trailer court; and that there be a continuous clean-up of the mobile home park. A letter was sent to the property owners, offering to settle witha fence, at which time the petitioners agreed to discontinue any cause of action toward the City on complaints thereafter. When she saw this letter, Ms. Thomas reported she immediately contacted Terry Jones, Alett Little, and Jack Cleghorn to advise them this was not the agreement they reached on February 22. She further reiterated the petitioners request that a fence be erected around the park and also erected on the side which accesses the U of A .Engineering South facilities. Petitioners further request the City codes be enforced and kept enforced. In an effort to maintain a clean environment, the property owners are appealing to the City for a decision; the neighborhood believes that all necessary research has been completed and the reinstatement of a buffer zone is called for, and this area simply lacks enforcement. Director Spivey asked Mr. Thomas how many feet of fencing would be required to fence the entire mobile home park. She replied fencing is requested along the north/south and east/west property lines. Ann Sugg, co-owner of the Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park, addressed the Board stating she and her husband purchased this mobile home park. in 1970 from Leo Peal, who built the park in 1965. The park was constructed with 20 mobile home pads on which he placed 20 mobile homes. In addition to the five duplexes which were later constructed, there are 30 living units on the property. There is also a commercial building which houses a laundromat and a small office. The property contains approximately three acres, with a potential of thirty families residing there. In 1970, this was allowable density for that type of development. The property was zoned C-2 when the Suggs purchased it, and at that time, there were twenty mobile homes on the property. Mrs. Sugg stated she did not know about a "buffer zone" until Mrs. Thomas called her two years ago. She has since read the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting where the zoning was changed. Her:understanding from the minutes was that the trailer pads were present on the property at that time, and this rezoning did not disallow usage but merely made a. zoning change. 2 September 1 , 1992 Mrs. Sugg reported managing the trailer park in the four years following their purchase. The trailer park presented a condition with a lot of people living in a small space. The class of people residing in this mobile home park differed from those which lived in rental houses on the east side of Fayetteville, which rental property the Suggs owned and managed, in that the tenants of this trailer park, in the beginning and currently, have very limited means and are working people some with two jobs to keep their families together. In addition, there are some residents on disability or other such limited income. Mrs. Sugg reported they have always maintained low rent on these units. Mrs. Sugg further reported in 1979, they made a decision to sell 19 of the mobile homes purchased at the time they bought the property. These mobile homes were very old and run-down, and unlike real estate, mobile homes are like vehicles and depreciate the moment they are placed on a lot. The Suggs subsequently rented the pads to mobile home owners in hopes it would produce more stability in their clientele. She reported it is very expensive to move a mobile home ($500 to $1,000); therefore, mobile home owners don't move very often. It also isn't feasible to move a mobile home at those prices when the unit itself is barely worth $1,000. Due to high interest rates, it took a period of years for the Suggs to have 50% of the pads filled. Shortly after the sale of the 19 trailers, Jim Alexander purchased the laundromat, and they entered into an agreement with Mr. Alexander where he would manage the park for a percentage of the income, and he would build up ownership equity in the park over a period of years. At this time, Mr. Alexander owns a 50% equity in the park and continues to be the manager. Until recently, Mr. Alexander lived at the mobile home park, but has since moved to the country. However, he is present at the park on a daily basis. Mrs. Sugg reported soon after their purchase of the trailer park, she purchased and provided each tenant with a new trash can painted with their unit number, and asked that they use it in an effort to clean up the debris. This effort lasted only a few weeks before most of the lids had blown away, and the trash once again blew around the park. She stated she has learned the hard way that the problem in dealing with trash created by thirty residents living in close proximity is not easily solved. From 1975 until late 1990, basically the same type of clientele lived at the park as does currently, and the Suggs received no neighborhood complaints. Sometime in 1990, the Suggs received three different complaints regarding the caliber of people residing in the park, who were causing trouble in the neighborhood. At the same time, without realizing what was happening, the Suggs began to experience more trouble within the park from vagrants breaking into vacant trailers or sleeping underneath trailers. They figured the problems with vagrants began with the relocation of the Salvation Army to their neighborhood. In addition, in the last three years during the recession, hardly a week goes by that Mrs. Sugg does not have y0 September 1`r11 1992 • T someone approach her, who reside at the Salvation Army, begging for any kind of work. Mrs. Sugg stated putting them out of business will not correct this problem. She believes they have made a diligent effort to correct the problems; however, the neighbors continue to complain. The Suggs pay the City $143 monthly for trash collection, and the majority of tenants put their trash out in plastic bags in the same fashion used by residents throughout the City. She further reported that during the past year, their records reflect that they have averaged approximately $125 per month extra for their trash collection. Mrs. Sugg stated they have in the past and will in the future make every effort to control the litter problem. In some cases, the items being referred to as "trash" are actually children's toys provided by the Salvation Army, or maybe an old tire which are strewn about. Mrs. Sugg reported they did erect .a privacy fence which they believed was being requested of them, and further made attempts to remove unlicensed vehicles parked at the trailer park. She was under the impression that she was expected to enforce the state licensing law without any authority whatsoever. However, she now understands the notices they received from the city refer to inoperable, unlicensed vehicles. Mrs. Sugg reported she personally spoke with every, owner of unlicensed vehicles parked at the trailer court and received responses such as they were finally able to buy the vehicle, but could not yet afford to license it. Mrs. Sugg stated under those circumstances, she simply cannot have a tenant's car towed off. There is one car up on blocks which was purchased with a guaranteed transmission; the transmission subsequently went out, and his efforts to repair the vehicle have been unsuccessful. The trailer park residents cannot afford fancy cars, and when the cars break down, they are forced to repair the vehicles themselves. She has on occasion paid to have abandoned cars towed from her property; however, the vehicles in question are not abandoned. If someone is in violation of the licensing law, it is the City Police Department's responsibility to enforce them. Mrs. Sugg stated they believed they were making progress in solving these problems by erecting the fence at the City's request, which they really did not want nor need. However, the next thing they know they are the subject of_a very unfavorable news report. The only conclusion they can draw -at this time is`that the neighborhood is attempting to closethem down, and if the"City joins forces with the neighbors, this can probably be accomplished. If this should happen, Ms. Sugg believes it will be done with no regard for the 30 families who will be uprooted and have no place else to go. She suggested the City may be'able to accomplish the closure of their trailer park with a clear consciences if~they were to provide affordable housing for these individuals. < Furthermore, it is questionable whether in the event that thel.park is closed and the property deserted, some of -the 14 families who own their own mobile September 1 , 1992 homes cannot afford to move to another location and will have to abandon their trailers. Ms. Sugg believes this would create even more of a temptation to the homeless and vagrants to break into the abandoned trailers. In addition, Ms. Sugg dispelled the notion some have that closing their trailer park and creating deserted property will increase the property values in the area. She further stated there are trash -strewn properties in every direction from them, so shutting down their trailer park would only add to the problem of trash -strewn property in this area. In closing, Ms. Sugg stated nobody has put in as much "sweat -equity" into this property than they have, and there is nobody that would like South Fayetteville to flourish any more than they do. However, she doesn't believe making this 3 acres a deserted haven for transients and displacing 30 families from their homes is the answer. Director Henry asked Ms. Sugg what the trailers rented for in her park. She responded she pays all utilities (water, gas, and electric) and depending upon the number of appliances used, the rent ranges from $125 to $250 per month. Director Spivey asked Ms. Sugg to comment on the suggestion to fence off the property. She stated it would be extremely expensive to fence the stretch from 20th Street to Cato Springs Road on the east/west dimension, and the access to the mobile home pads on 20th street is off of 20th street, so a fence along this stretch would block access to the trailer pads. Alett Little verified from 20th Street to Cato Springs Road is a distance of about 520 feet, and the 20th Street distance is about 500 feet, for a total of 1,020 feet. She explained that an ordinance exists which restricts fences within 25 feet of any corner, which would be deducted from the total, as well as consideration of the space required for maneuvering the trailers on and off of the property. Mayor Vorsanger asked if CDBG funds could be used in this area. Little responded this is not within the current target area. CDBG funds can be used for rehabilitation of permanent structures, but they are not normally used for mobile homes. In addition, CDBG funds could be used for repair to streets and sidewalks. Little further stated she doubts CDBG funds could be used for construction of a fence in this case; however, she would check with HUD. Director Blackston addressed Ms. Sugg stating it is not the intention of the City to close Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park, and there has never been, at any meeting he was involved in, mention made of closing down this mobile home park. The Board has merely looked into various methods for enforcing ordinances and regulations to maintain this trailer park in the manner in which Ms. Sugg would like to see it kept. September 1`., 1992 In response to Director Nash's question, Ms. Sugg responded the option of a buffer zone would cut-down their income by those two spaces, which consist of concrete pads with utility hook-ups. She further stated some sort of special variance would probably be required to move these trailers within their park, if there was someplace else to place them. As previously stated, moving trailers is extremely costly, requiring the old pads to be torn out, new pads poured, utilities capped to the old pads and run to the new pads. Jim Alexander stated the income lost from these two pads would be detrimental to the trailer park's survival as they are barely making ends meet at this point. The entire procedure currently taking place with the City and with the surrounding neighbors constantly complaining makes it extremely difficult to obtain financing and creates'a "no win" situation. He further explained one of the trailers proposed to be moved is 14' x 75' and relocating it would be extremely difficult and costly. Director Blackston addressed the bus which was subsequently moved from the trailer park and replaced with another bus in the same location and asked Mr. Alexander if this type of thing was encouraged and allowed, and whether this bus was hooked up to any utilities. Mr. Alexander responded they had been having a problem with the bus mentioned. The owner was forced to move out of an RV Park and needed a place to stay for the summer. Mr. Alexander advised this gentleman he would not find a trailer park in Fayetteville that would accept his bus and suggested he try to go to Greenland. However, due to financial and transportation limitations, he needed to stay in Fayetteville. Therefore, Mr. Alexander recommended the bus owner contact the City Administration and upon receiving their permission, he would allow the bus at the Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park. In response to this'request, the City advised this gentleman that as long as he meets the required codes, he is allowed to move his bus to the park. . Mr. Alexander stated he is not a code officer, although he sometimes feels like he is expected to be one. In the case of the bus, .this vehicle was licensed, contained bathroom facilities and following a number of•visits by the welfare department, they indicated nopproblems with -the bus. Director Spivey asked what the property owners were willing to do as a solution to the recurrent problems in -this area. Ms. Sugg responded they were under the impression they had complied with all requests by. building the privacy fence on Cato Springs Road, which they believed to be the problem, area. ` However, tonight is the first time she has heard the suggestion they totally fence the mobile home park. The fence installed on Cato.Springs Road with a total of 110 running feet,cost them $1,000., • , September 1 , 1992 Little stated under the City code and because this was an existing mobile home park, there was not a requirement found which required the construction of such a fence by the property owners. The request to totally fence the mobile home park came from the surrounding neighbors during their meetings with her. It was believed to be a reasonable solution, in light of their loss of the buffer zone, and something the property owners agreed to do. Currently, there is no requirement under City codes which would require a fence around the entire mobile home park. Therefore, this request by the City would be exclusive to Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park and not required of other property owners. Little further reported the Sugg's attempted to address this problem at one time, and even suggested constructing a fence on the south side of Cato Springs Road, which would essentially provide the neighbors with a fence. This option was not acceptable to the neighbors, as they wanted the entire mobile home park to be shielded; therefore, this a fence was constructed. Director Nash stated this is only one of many mobile home parks located in Fayetteville, and whatever the Board decides for this trailer park should apply to all trailer parks in the City. However, she disagrees with the attitude that since the trailer park in northeast Fayetteville is not required to install fencing, the same should not be required of Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park because these are two different situations. Whatever the City decides on this matter, they need to adopt long-range plans and keep their eyes on all trailer parks complying with the same ordinances which compliance is being required of Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park. With respect to a buffer zone, Director Nash asked what size area is being discussed. Little responded she does not have all of the measurements. However, she reported the original property zoned R - 1D was 110 feet in an east/west direction, and approximately 150 to 160 feet in a north/south direction which is a fairly large area. With respect to a buffer zone, unless some screening takes place, simply having an open space with everything clearly visible, other than a noise barrier, really doesn't accomplish a lot. Little stated a buffer zone would be better accomplished with some type of screening such as a fence or plants. Jim Alexander, manager of the Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park, addressed the Board stating his understanding that the buffer zone being referred to was originally set-up to accommodate a riding club. Alett Little responded that Mr. zone was originally set-up as a and her understanding is that access to the rodeo grounds. Alexander was correct. This buffer part of a riding club at that time, it was used as a bridle path for • 1 'f0 September 13, 1992 LaJoyce Thomas, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board explaining the rodeo grounds were located directly across the street from the mobile home park. The bridle path access which Ms. Sugg is referring to actually runs along the Genesis property to the U of A Engineering South and is not on Cato Springs Road. Land was donated to the City to construct a road in order to maintain the bridal path access to the rodeo grounds. At the same time, the Thomas' appeared before the Planning Commission for verification of what development was planned for the mobile home park which was supposed to be stationary maintained mobile homes, and not mobile homes being moved in and out. The two pads being considered for removal, although not completely within the buffer zone, are semi - located there. The neighborhood petitioners are requesting that.a fence be erected in this area so that the two pads will not be used. It is their belief these mobile homes can be relocated within the mobile home park which currently has 4 empty pads. In addition, petitioners are requesting all codes be enforced, not only for Fayark Villa Mobile Home Park, but for all mobile home parks within the City. Director Coody stated considering the concerns expressed by both sides of this issue, he would like to retour this property on foot with Ms. Suggs and Ms. Little. He is not convinced that 1,000 feet of fence is necessary to solve the problem, and whether 200 feet of fence may be sufficient to do the job. Spivey, seconded by Coody, made a motion to table this matter. Libby McDonald, resident of the area and a real estate broker with Dykes, Bassett, Mix & Associates in Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating they are not trying to displace anyone, but are simply asking and have been asking for the past two years, that the City help clean up this mobile home park. She reported showing property to customers in this area who were reluctant to even enter homes for sale in -this area due to the fact that they have to drive past this trash -strewn area: In addition,,- there are property owners in this area, which -if their property.was located anywhere else in Fayetteville, would have a greater value. She asked the Board members how they would_feel if their homes were located in this area and were confronted with the'same situations. Ms. McDonald further stated the surrounding property owners have tried very hard. to work with everyone concerned, but they seem to be getting a little resistance.', Unfortunately, -this matter has been blown out of proportion and has started to,become one group pitted against another, which is not the intent of petitioners. Director Coody stated the Board not only, needs to address the problems at Fayark Mobile Home Park but also.the ongoing problems encountered in all mobile home parks in: the City. Director Nash stated.it'was her understanding the property owners of apartment complexes were.responsible anytime their tenants broke r � A September 1 , 1992 the law or violated a code. The property owners, however, through the power of eviction or through rent increases, could make the situation difficult on the renters committing such violations forcing them to abide by the law. She further believes there may be a gray area in this ordinance. Although the City is responsible for enforcing the codes, the property owner is ultimately responsible. Lee Posey, resident of a '60 model school bus at 2025 S. School, #27, addressed the Board stating when he first moved into the park, he received complaints about the looks of his bus/home. He explained he has been recently employed, but at the time he purchased the bus, he was unemployed, and his wife was and still is disabled and unable to work. Mr. Posey reported he has painted his bus and helped with clean-up in the trailer park; however, there is a problem with area neighborhood kids entering the trailer park to play and have been caught breaking bottles and toys and littering the park. According to the recent news broadcast, it was reported that his bus is not equipped for water. However, Mr. Posey assured the Board he has water running to his bus including a bathroom, shower, and kitchen appliances. There are storage tanks for each item, and they all run through Fayetteville's sewer system. Mr. Posey believes the residents of Fayark Mobile Home Park are doing the best they can and doing everything possible to keep the park litter free. Certain things cannot be helped and should be expected, such as children and their toys, and vehicles which are waiting for repairs. Mr. Posey welcomed the Board to tour his bus/home to ensure that it is fully equipped with storage tanks. He reported there is no propane or gas running to his bus, the electrical wiring has been certified, and he has a fuse box to prevent a fire hazard. In addition, Mr. Posey stated he has skirted his bus, has a shed behind the bus for storage, and keeps his trash in a fenced area until time of collection. He finds it strange that City ordinances disallow the parking of school buses in RV Parks since they sell their school buses to people who commonly convert them into recreational vehicles. He agrees his bus is not much; however, it is a roof over his family, offering a warm place to sleep, and electricity and water for cooking and personal hygiene. Mr. Posey further voiced his complaint with the loss of privacy created by people entering the trailer park and taking pictures of his family in front of their bus/home while they are attempting to have a family barbecue. Director Coody sympathized with Mr. Posey's situation and with his wife's disability. He further stated he was unaware people were invading Mr. Posey's privacy. No citizen should be expected to endure snoopy, meddling, curiosity seekers driving by their homes and taking pictures. Coody asked if he knew the identity of these individuals. Mr. Posey responded the majority were people in the adjoining neighborhood. Mr. Posey reported he had contacted the September is'L, 1992 news media in an attempt to straighten up their misreporting of his situation, and stated that if his bus was not equipped as it is, the Sugg's would not have allowed him to park on their property. Director Coody stated in this case, the City's goal is to make the park as comfortable, safe, and well-equipped as possible for the residents, and also make it as pleasant as possible for the neighborhood residents. He believes this can only be achieved by efforts from both sides to come together and work out the problems. Mayor Vorsanger assured Mr. Posey it is not the City's intention to close Fayark Mobile Home Park. He stated the Board would table this matter, and Director of Planning Alett Little would look into the possibility of using CDBG funds in this area. In addition, Staff would meet with the other parties involved in an attempt to work out an amicable agreement between both sides. Nelda Posey, resident of the school bus in question, addressed the Board stating that even if a fence was erected around the entire mobile home park, there is no guarantee that this would increase the property values in the neighborhood or guarantee that they could sell their homes. Lee Posey further stated that whoever bought the houses in the adjoining neighborhood did so with the knowledge of the Fayark Mobile Home Park next door. Whoever sells these houses is also aware of the situation.. The children in the park, as well as neighborhood children who enter the park to play, create a lot of the disorder just as all children do, and the resident parents of these children do the best they can in the free time they have to pick-up after their children. A resident of the adjoining:.neighborhood to..Fayark Mobile Home Park addressed the Board refuting Mr. Posey's comment that the neighborhood children were.destroying the toys of the children in the park. They know the difference between toys and junk and trash. In many cases, whenever a code violation is reported to the City, by the time they arrive to investigate the complaint, the junk and trash has been mysteriously cleaned up. t1 .. Director Nash suggested a._dumpster?in the .park might help the situation in lieu of individual trash cans. 1 Carol Conger, neighbor to Mlle Fayark MobileHomePark,addressed the Board stating that =the situation •at this trailer park has provided a good "reality check" about economicdifferences between citizens of Fayetteville.: : Ms: Conger made the' following suggestions to help solve,this matter: ,+ 1. Instead of creating a 'conflict, through Christian charity, compassion, and, respect1 for their fellow citizens, neighbors couldreach„out to .help those in 3 September 1 , 1992 need. This could be achieved by a "neighbor day" whereby volunteers from the neighborhood assist in erecting a fence or constructing a playground in the park. A fence is necessary not just for beautification but for the health and safety of children playing close to the street. 2. The Suggs, owners of Fayark Mobile Home Park, do not present themselves as "slum lord" types who are making giant profits and unwilling to put anything back into their property. 3. Similar to the "Habitat Program", the City could also provide a special clean-up day in this area. 4. The various landscaping businesses who have received good business from the City could perhaps volunteer their services to plant a new lawn or flowers that would engender pride in the property. 5. The City itself could implement a program to assist with low income housing problems which do not fall under the federal assistance program (HUD). In conclusion, Ms. Conger stated this is a problem that can be resolved with just a little compassion and respect for each other, and south Fayetteville has become one ward and will have more involvement in the City Council. Hopefully, they can come together as a community to solve this problem. Darin Scott, resident of 2025 S. School, addressed the Board stating the majority of abandoned vehicles and junk cars located at Fayark Mobile Home Park belong to him. He stated these vehicles are neither abandoned nor junk. They might not be tagged and legal, but they are owned and have money owed against them. One of the vehicles was donated by a car lot in Rogers for which Mr. Scott has plans to make into a race car for Thunder Valley Speedway. Under these circumstances, he sees no reason to tag or insure the car. Mr. Scott has another vehicle which was involved in an accident, and he can't be expected to get rid of it as he has invested a lot of money and still owes on the car. Bryan McDonald, resident of Sally Drive, addressed the Board stating everyone seems to agree on what the problems are - low income residents and a lack of trash pick-up. He stated that the problem may be a result of too many people living in this small area and suggested whenever tenants of the mobile home park move, the Sugg's close down those lots and lower the number of people living in the crowded mobile home park. Director Coody reported the City conducts a "Fill -a -Truck" Program in which residents can reserve a truck to be parked on their September 1:', 1992 property over a weekend and will then be hauled away by the City on the following Monday. He suggested this may be an option for quick remedy for some of this problem. Jim Alexander responded that they have considered the dumpsters; however, they would experience the .same problem many apartment complexes experience with non-residents using the dumpster. Considering that Fayark Mobile Home Park pays $700 to $1,000 per month to the City of Fayetteville for water, sewer, and trash collection, between $600 and $700 per month to the electric company, and -the gas bill averages between $500 and $800 per month, they can not justify the extra cost for the •dumpster. With the lack of capital improvement funds to assist them with improvements, they are simply trying to survive. Another resident of Fayark Mobile Home Park addressed the Board stating if either of his neighbors allowed their property to be strewn with trash and refused to clean it up, he would complain, too. However, before complaining, he would speak with the neighbor to see if there was anything he could do to help. He stated this matter has been blown out of proportion by referring to problems in the park as "criminal activity" and "health hazards". The complaining neighbors of Fayark Mobile Home Park have never once, to his knowledge, asked the residents of the park to clean up the mess. They would rather talk about them than talk with them and work something out. He further stated his objection to lowering the number of families living in Fayark Mobile Home Park so that others can live better. Speaking for himself, he is working hard to get into a better place;. however, if they were to lose their current residence, they'd be taking three steps back. He stated he is feeling harassed by the complaining neighbors who think nothing of coming onto his property to talk about him and by television crews filming the trailer park over the fence. He further stated the suggestions offered for.:,placing a City truck on the premises for a weekend trash clean-up, or placing,a dumpster on the property were great ideas. t • A resident of Fayark Mobile. Home Park addressed the Board stating the recent story on television regarding Fayark Mobile Home Park referred to noise coming', from the. park. With approximately 20 children in the trailer park who catch a bus to school in the mornings and children playing outside during the daytime, a certain amount of noise should .be expected. F 4 Shannon Thomas, resident on. Cato Springs Road, addressed the Board and stated trying to pointifingers is not going to solve anything. She has nothing against the residents living in Fayark Mobile Home Park. Every citizen can only -do the best theycan to keep up their property, depending on various job schedules and lifestyles. She doesn't have a father to help -with the yard work, and she helps her mother with upkeep on their property. Ms. Thomas stated she would like to see an end to this dispute and everything return to normal. r September 1 , 1992 She stated she would be willing to help in believes that if everyone would just work solve the problem. Director Coody addressed Ms. Thomas stating he appreciates her attitude and believes the world would be in better shape if everyone felt the way she does. He invited Ms. Thomas to join the Board, Staff, and Ms. Sugg when they tour the property and discuss possible solutions to the problems. Another resident of Fayark Mobile Home Park addressed the Board stating when he moved into this park, the land owner advised him where to place his trailer, and he assumed he had complied with all codes in the placement of his trailer. However, if this is not the case, unfortunately, he does not have the funds to move his trailer even within the Fayark Mobile Home Park. He assured the Board he would remove from the property any of his vehicles which were inoperable and without tags and insurance. He agreed with Ms. Thomas that they all need to work together to clean up their community. any way she can, and together, they could OTHER BUSINESS TOLLING AGREEMENT City Manager Scott Linebaugh stated the tolling agreement between the City and Kutak, Rock & Campbell, originally entered into in December 1989, has expired. Staff is requesting that this agreement be extended until January 31, 1993, and ratify Mayor Vorsanger's signing of the tolling agreement in order not to lose the right to file suit at a later date against the firm. Blackstone seconded by Coody, made a motion to ratify the actions of Mayor Vorsanger in signing the tolling agreement with 'utak, Rock & Campbell before the deadline. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 0. RESOLUTION 137A-92 AB RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE INCINERATOR LAWSUIT Director Coody addressed the questions raised by Carol Conger at the August 4 Board meeting regarding whether payments of legal fees for the incinerator lawsuit were being made out of the sanitation fund. He asked whether it would be feasible to set-up a separate fund exclusively for the incinerator disengagement expenses in order to alleviate a lot of confusion. City Manager Scott Linebaugh responded he would take a look at that option and report back to Director Coody. 4 `3 ' September 1''l:, 1992 Mayor Vorsanger requested while researching funding the incinerator disengagement from a separate account, Staff should carefully review the bond indenture, as it clearly states the accounts required, how the expenditures are to be run, and what is required. If the City were to vary from the bond indenture in any way, in essence, it could be considered a default. VISION REPORT Director Coody stated the Vision Report was recently presented to the Planning Commission, and apparently the report did not receive very favorable or rave reviews. Director of Planning Alett Little stated she agreed to forward the Vision Report to the Board as an advisory document for implementation of City projects rather than as a goals document. She reported a good many of those projects have already been incorporated into the City's budget and work begun on them. Director Coody requested Ms. Little obtain a report on exactly what has been budgeted and implemented to date. He reported out of the approximately 1,000 people 'in attendance at the Vision meetings, a lot of citizens were heard to say they were wasting their time in attending these meetings because they didn't believe the City was going to do anything with the public input.- Coody assured many of those citizens the City would listen to what -everyone had to say, and if they don't make an extreme effort to do so, the Board would be confirming the citizens'. -worst fears. In addition, this type of behavior on the part of the .Board would probably cause a total lack of interest in the future when•the public was asked to attend hearings to give their input. Alett Little responded to Director,Coody that`the Vision meetings were information gathering sessions, and although the Planning Commission wished to hear every suggestion; there was never a promise made to the public the•City would implement everything that was suggested. She further stated it is.really unusual that of the number of suggestions received, they. have been able to take steps to address a great many of those. She could only think of a couple of suggestions offered for which the City declined to take action. Director Spivey stated there was never a mandate that the City would implement every suggestion made to the.Vision program. - e Director Coody responded he was not suggesting every suggestion be implemented; however, the,City needs to give every suggestion full consideration. • CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE TRANSITION PLAN 4 Mayor Vorsanger congratulated Jerry Cooper for his report, "City of Fayetteville Transition Plan", which pertains to the American September 1', 1992 Disabilities Act (ADA). Vorsanger stated this was as fine a report as he has seen on this subject, setting out exactly where the money needs to be spent, in what years, and what it will take to be in compliance. Vorsanger stated within his report, Mr. Cooper clearly points out in order to comply with the ADA, the City will be mandated to take certain actions which are estimated to cost $700,000 over a five year period and may run as high as $1.2 million. Mayor Vorsanger suggested if there was an award for such reports as this one written by Jerry Cooper, he certainly deserved to receive one. In addition, Vorsanger highly suggested all candidates for office to the new Mayor/City Council form of government read Mr. Cooper's report. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p.m. 1