HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-11-17 Minutes607
MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on
Tuesday, November 17, 1992 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Room of the
City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain Street,
Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Kit Williams, Conrad
Odom, Woody Bassett, Fred Vorsanger, Len Edens,
Joan Duc Chapman, Heather Faddoul and Stephen
Miller; 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.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with eight Aldermen
present. The Mayor asked those present to stand and recite the
Pledge of Allegiance.
OLD BUSINESS
Items that have been brought before the Council but were tabled or
no decision made to allow for further information to be presented.
COMPENSATION
Mayor Hanna reintroduced consideration of an ordinance setting the
compensation for'`the Mayor, City Council, and City Treasurer for
the remainder of 1992.
• Sri
This item was tabled at the November 10 Council meeting to allow
time for Staff to'gather comparison salary figures for use by the
Council in determining, these figures.
Alderman Bassettcverified they were discussing salaries for the
remainder of 1992,.suggesting.they set the salaries for 1993 and
then pro -rate those -salaries for 1992.
Bassett further asked for the amount of the city manager's salary.
Mayor Hanna responded the city manager's salary is listed on the
roster at $69,100 .for cash compensation, not including extra
benefits.
'r ,•
Director of Administrative Services Ben Mayes further verified the
city manager had the use of a city vehicle, in addition to health
and life insurance, and retirement benefits through the
International City Managers Association (ICMA).
In further response to Alderman Bassett, City Attorney Jerry Rose
verified his salary was currently set at $60,600, and he does not
receive the use of a city vehicle.
V V V
November 17, 1992
Alderman Bassett stated he had received a lot of citizen input on
this issue, and further commented he felt the mayor, as the top
City official, should be paid more than the city attorney. In
addition, the mayor's salary should be set at a rate at which the
City can continue to attract good candidates, who are willing to
commit their time and energy to serve the City. Under the new form
of government, the mayor will essentially be doing the previous
city manager's job, as well as ceremonial responsibilities.
Bassett, seconded by vorsanger, made a motion to set the mayor's
salary at $70,000.
Alderman Edens asked if the benefits previously mentioned would be
included in the salaries set or in addition to the salary.
Alderman Bassett responded his motion for a mayor's salary of
$70,000 would not include a City vehicle, and the mayor would be
responsible for paying his own vehicle expenses. However, health
and life insurance and retirement benefits should be provided in
addition to the salary as with all full-time City employees.
Mayor Hanna stated he would be more comfortable to start as a new
mayor with a salary in the range of $50,000 a year, with a possible
$5,000 per year automobile allowance. After six months to a year,
assuming he is performing a job that warrants a raise in salary,
the Council would have the latitude to increase his salary. Since
the job of mayor entails a change in career for most people, he
agreed the salary should be set to attract qualified people to run
for the position.
Alderman Williams asked for verification that the mayor would be
doing all duties previously performed by the city manager and that
the mayor had no plans to hire an administrative assistant.
Mayor Hanna responded he did not intend to hire an assistant and
believes staff already in place can take over some of the city
manager's duties. In addition, some ceremonial duties could be
delegated to various aldermen.
Alderman Miller addressed a salary survey that had been conducted
which reflected mayors' salaries in cities from Northwest Arkansas
comparable to Fayetteville. The salaries are $38,000 in
Bentonville with a population of 10,000, $44,500 in Springdale,
with the highest salary shown as $59,000 in North Little Rock.
Alderman Faddoul asked how the retirement fund works with employees
after they terminate employment. Mayes responded once an employee
terminates his/her employment, they do not continue to participate
in the City's retirement fund. In addition he verified the
retirement fund is available, but not required, for all full-time
City employees. Mayes further explained the City's retirement
609
November 17, 1992';,
funds require the employee donate or participate a certain
percentage for which the City matches.
Alderman Edens asked whether this retirement fund should pertain to
the mayor when the term changes every four years. Mayes responded
the City's retirement fund is a deferred compensation or a savings
plan where the employee,contributes4a certain percentage of his
salary and the City will match up to 6%,in this case. When the
employee terminates, they are fully vested, and the money becomes
theirs.
Alderman Edens commented they need .to be specific in what the
compensation includes and doesnot include, and he suggested they
resolve all related issues at this meeting.
1 .. k
Aldermen Bassett and Vorsanger withdrew their motion and second.
• R
Alderman Vorsanger stated he felt uncomfortable under these
circumstances discussing these salaries.' He can't imagine paying
the mayor, who wi1lm:be doing the city manager's job and the
ceremonial mayor's job, less than they paid a'city manager who was
doing three-fourths of the job. •Vorsanger further stated the City
has adopted a budget where salaries have been included. He
believes it is unfair to"the citizens and.Council to discuss their
own salaries at their first meeting and personally believes most
people run for these offices in+order to perform public service.
Vorsanger suggested they hold a series of retreats or meetings as
the budget is being discussed and make their salaries effective
'January 1, 1993.
4
Alderman Williams responded to Alderman Vorsanger that throughout
.his campaign he clearly and consistently supported reasonable pay
for aldermen and mayor.. He believes,, s do his constituents,
aldermen should receive,approximately $250.00 per month. However,
.Williams concurred with"Alderman Vorsanger that they should allow
additional time to hear from their constituents.
Alderman Williams further stated one of his campaign promises was
to increase citizen input by holding regular monthly citizen
meetings of Ward 1 to discuss the issues and controversies before
the City Council actually votes. He announced his fellow Ward 1
Alderman, Stephen Miller, and himself would chair Ward l's first
monthly citizen meeting at Jefferson School on Tuesday,. November
24th at 6:30 p.m. Williams suggested when the mayor's salary is
finally set, the salary be set retroactive to the date he was sworn
in.
Mayor Hanna reported Staff advises him funds are available should
it be decided to commence compensation in 1992.
Cyrus Young, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Council
suggesting they go slower on the question of retirement in order to
November 17, 1992
check into the types of retirement for elected officials, which are
set-up a little different than for a regular employee.
Kate Conway, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Council stating
a mayor's salary of $70,000 is extremely high. She believes the
mayor's salary should be a moderate and modest amount, and
concurred with the figure of $50,000. Since the majority of
citizens in Fayetteville make much less than $70,000 per year, the
Mayor's salary should be more reflective of citizen's average
salary.
Pat Beeson, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Council stating
they should keep the mayor's salary in line with those of
surrounding cities. She concurred with previous statements that
the city manager's salary was out -of -line for the services he
performed. In addition, Ms. Beeson suggested aldermen be paid at
least $400 per month.
Jerry Williams, citizen of Fayetteville, addressed the Council
stating they have used City Manager Linebaugh's salary as a
guideline and asked how long he was employed by the City. Alderman
Vorsanger responded he was an employee of the City for twelve
years, the last two and a half as city manager. Williams stated he
concurs with the figure of $50,000 for the mayor's salary.
Williams, seconded by Miller, made a motion to set the mayor's
salary at $50,000, plus a $5,000 car allowance per year, and health
insurance.
Alderman Vorsanger stated the mayor should also be entitled to the
regular City benefits such as payment of travel expenses.
Alderman Williams accepted Alderman Vorsanger's suggestion as an
amendment to his motion.
City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Vorsanger made a motion to suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its second reading. The motion failed for lack of a
second. The ordinance was left on its first reading.
Alderman Miller reported a survey of aldermen salaries of
comparable cities in Northwest Arkansas revealed that Springdale
pays $350 per month, Jonesboro with a population of 30,000 pays
$250.00 per month, and Pine Bluff with a population of 55,000 pays
the highest salary to their aldermen at $453.63 per month. Miller
suggested a minimum salary of $400 per month would be appropriate.
Alderman Faddoul stated she did not consider compensation when she
filed for this position; however, she has been questioned
frequently regarding this issue. She further stated due to the
amount of time the office of alderman will require, she would most
611
November 17, 1992:
likely work only.part=time next year. Therefore, she suggested a
salary of $300 per month would besatisfactory to her.
Alderman Odom stated he was against alderman compensation and
maintains he would not accept any money. He concurred with
Alderman Vorsanger that he too ran for office of alderman only for
public service. Odom stated he would vote against any form of
aldermanic pay.
Alderman Miller stated the reasons he has heard for some type of
aldermanic pay is to avoid only the independently wealthy people
from running the City. He further reported he personally gave up
his job to serve as City Alderman and currently has no income. In
addition, he has already incurred expenses in travel and upgrading
his phone system. Miller suggested any alderman who felt
uncomfortable taking compensation from the City could either return
the pay back to the City or donate it to a charity of their choice.
Alderman Chapman stated history has shown local government as an
enclave of the affluent. She believes they should not have
barriers to those of more modest means, and they want people to
serve as aldermen who are motivated by civic service. Chapman
suggested the figure of $300 per month would be a reasonable amount
of compensation.
Alderman Edens stated he agrees aldermen should be paid in order to
give people from all walks of life and levels of income an
opportunity to run for office. However, he reiterated they ran
with the idea of public service and not for compensation for their
services. He therefore suggested if they set a rate of
compensation for the Council, it should not apply to the current
City Council and take effect with the new Council in 1995. Edens
stated they therefore would not be voting on their own salaries.
Alderman Williams responded some of the aldermen running for this
Council did so hoping that they would and anticipate some form of
compensation. Some of the aldermen are in a position where they
need the income, and those who don't need the income should follow
Alderman Miller's suggestion to donate their income to a charity or
return it to the City. It has been a matter of state law that
aldermen be compensated; the question is how much. Williams
suggested that with a $60 million budget, this amount of
compensation is minor. He suggested since there are some good
principles involved, he would like to keep the system open so
anybody, whether rich or poor, can take the time to serve their
City. Since every other city in Northwest Arkansas pays their
aldermen, Williams suggested Fayetteville should also pay their
aldermen a reasonable amount. ,
4
Alderman Vorsanger stated forlthe past twenty-six years, members of
the community,.•both,rich andpoor, have served for no pay,
including himself. He, suggested the past members of the City
V J.
November 17, 1992
Board, the majority who were not wealthy, served and gave of their
time for no pay, in the true sense of public service. Vorsanger
stated he is not opposed to aldermanic pay; however, he feels
deeply about public service. He stated he will not vote against
aldermanic compensation; however, he will contribute his alderman
salary to city charities, including the Youth Center and Free
Health Clinic.
Alderman Miller stated $300 per month figures out to $75 per week,
and with a possible 30 hours of service per week, this comes out to
approximately $2 per hour. He stated they are all willing to be
public servants and will not get rich from this service. However,
a certain amount of compensation is necessary to cover expenses.
Alderman Bassett stated there is a lot of honest, sincere, well-
intentioned debate and disagreement on the issue of compensation.
He personally believes Council members should not be paid; however,
he has stated his willingness to listen to his constituents before
making up his mind. Bassett reported calls and comments he has
received have been approximately 50/50 for and against aldermanic
compensation. Part of serving on a City Council is having to make
tough decisions, and considering many citizens have served the City
for a number of years without any compensation, he will vote his
conviction the City of Fayetteville should not pay their aldermen.
Alderman Chapman stated two of the eight aldermen have indicated an
importance to them to be paid, and believes this trend will
increase in the future. She reiterated her belief that a socio-
economic profile on those who have served on the City Board for the
past ten years would conclude that they were substantially middle
class. She feels it is important to maintain diversification by
opening up this government entity to people of modest means by
paying the aldermen.
Alderman Bassett stated he sees a lot of diversification on the
current City Council; however, he believes this City should find a
way to take advantage of its diversity of citizens. He stated the
way he feels about this issue is based strictly on his personal
convictions about public service, and it has nothing to do with
being rich or poor.
Alderman Williams stated it is a lot easier to criticize those in
favor of aldermanic compensation. He believes in aldermanic pay
because he does not feel there is a lot of diversity on the current
City Council. He pointed out that four of the eight aldermen are
lawyers, a successful retiree, a businessman, a school teacher, and
one who quit his job to serve on the City Council. By setting a
precedent in not paying the aldermen, they are basically saying
that unless one is a lawyer, banker or possesses independent
income, they need not run for City Council. Philosophically, it
would be a mistake for the City Council to give the impression that
•
e r `
November .17, 1992
613
they either get paid or they[.do the job as a civic duty. He
believes there is a combination of the two.
Alderman Bassett stated his disagreement with Alderman William's
statement that it is a slap in the face to citizens who cannot
afford to serve on the city government for nothing.
Alderman Odom questioned how they would answer to those people who
voted not to pay Council members.
Alderman Miller commented the people voted not to pay the Board of
Directors, and they are a Council now, and that vote doesn't apply.
Casey Adams, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Council
stating when public officials are elected to do a service, it is
that service they are being asked to provide. Since he personally
might not be willing to provide such a service, he would be willing
to pay for this service. He further stated it was unfair to expect
anyone to provide any service without some form of compensation.
As a constituent, Mr. Adams stated he. elected Alderman Bassett and
expects him to vote not necessarily with his own conscience, but
with public opinion. He asked the Council to consider not why they
are serving, but who they are serving.
Cyrus Young, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Council
stating the people did vote against paying the Board of Directors;
however, the question of paying the Board was an issue in the
change of form of government and was given as one of the reasons to
vote for the change in form of government.
Alderman Odom responded the current City Council and past Board of
Directors had the same function, to represent the citizens of
Fayetteville.
Cyrus Young commented the citizens of Fayetteville consider the
Council and Board of Directors differently.
Alderman. Vorsanger reported his constituents don't consider the
Council and Board of Directors differently.
Kate Conway, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Council
stating although she voted against paying the Board of Directors,
she is in favor of aldermanic compensation. She commented it was
interesting that Fayetteville has not paid their Board of Directors
for all these .years, while all surrounding cities do so. Ms.
Conway suggested,an average of.the aldermanic compensation paid in
surrounding cities, or a monthly salary of $350 would be
reasonable. w
Miller, seconded
compensation _. at
reimbursement for
by Williams,4made a motion to set aldermanic
$350 per month, with the possibility of
travel expenses. Alderman wishing not to accept
November 17, 1992
said compensation could turn it back to the City or donate it to a
charity of their choice.
In response to Alderman Vorsanger's question, City Attorney Rose
stated it would take a majority of the elected members, or five
votes to pass the ordinance. In the event of a tie, the Mayor
votes to break the tie.
upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 5 to 3, with
Aldermen Odom, Bassett, and Edens voting no.
City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
The ordinance was left on its first reading.
Mayor Hanna reported discussions with City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton
regarding his compensation and what the job as Treasurer would
entail. It was decided that Mr. Bunton would attend all City
Council meetings with the Staff, receive quarterly internal audit
reports, and will present them to the City Council. Mr. Bunton
will also consult with the Mayor on all matters concerning the City
finances. Hanna reported a salary comparable to that of the
aldermen was agreed upon.
Alderman Chapman stated her concern that if they eliminate the
office of Treasurer as a full functioning office, demote the
Treasurer to merely a presentation of the budget determined by
Staff, the City would save money; however, the Treasurer does not
represent the Council or Staff, but the citizens. She doesn't
believe the Council has the appropriate authority to take these
actions regarding the position of City Treasurer.
Alderman Miller verified there is no action the current City
Council can take which would eliminate the City Treasurer until the
next election.
Mayor Hanna reported they had an ordinance which would designate
the City Clerk and City Treasurer's positions be combined at the
next election. He further stated Staff checked with the Municipal
League and discovered that in small cities the treasurer's office
has a designated function, while in larger cities, the office was
generally combined with the City Clerk.
Alderman Chapman stated the people had voted for a Treasurer who
assumed certain functions. In view of the troubled years in the
past in terms of discontent with financial matters in reference to
local government, a Treasurer does perform a watchdog function, and
by demoting him, the Council is going against the recent election.
City Attorney Jerry Rose read Arkansas Statute 14-43-507,
concerning the functions of the office of City Treasurer, which in
essence, provides that treasurers in cities of the first class such
as Fayetteville, shall be required to make similar quarterly
01j
November 17, 1992 :
financial reports as the City Clerk, and shall perform such other
duties as required by ordinance.
Alderman Williams quoted from Arkansas Statute 14-43-502, under
which the Council functions, which states. the Council shall have
the management and control of finances. He suggested they not move
so quickly in taking away the Treasurer's independence and restrict
his powers and duties, but rather wait at least a year before
deciding what to do with the office of Treasurer. Williams
suggested the Treasurer could help the aldermen with the financial
statement for the first 9 months of 1992, a 125 page document, by
condensing it down to a few pages which could be better understood.
City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton stated like Judge Moore and City
Clerk Thomas, he ran unopposed and considers this a mandate that
the citizens expect him to serve in the capacity of Treasurer. He
explained the City's finances are complex with 25 separate funds
and four different financial departments. In the event he does
serve as Treasurer in a capacity he is accountable to the people
for the finances of the City, Bunton requested he be provided with
an office in the City Hall and a salary commensurate with a full-
time position.
Alderman Vorsanger stated as an accounting major, he can verify the
City's finances are very complex with computer programs, a large
Staff, CPA's, and trained people. He further stated he could not
trust a $68 million budget, 380 people, and assets of over $200
million to an elected treasurer who comes and goes and is only
required to publish'financial.statements.
Kevin Crosson verified the treasurer,-is,required to "submit" the
financial statements,: not "present" them.
Alderman Vorsanger stated in terms of a "watchdog", the City has an
internal auditor reporting to the Mayor and independent public
accountants performing continual audits.
In response to Alderman Vorsanger's question, City Treasurer Bunton
stated he had submitted a request for a'salary of $30,000.
' x
Alderman Edens concurred with Alderman Vorsanger that the internal
control accounting set up in the City has received an award for
their work. Edens suggested the positions of Treasurer and Clerk
should be combined ,since the City Clerk prepares the financial
reports, as he does not see the need for an additional expenditure
of $30,000 to duplicate a function already being performed.
Mayor Hanna stated Glyndon Bunton has been elected as City
Treasurer and has a position for thenext two years. It has been
suggested the Treasurer receive a salary commensurate with aldermen
and perform duties as outlined by Arkansas State Statute.
November 17, 1992
City Treasurer Glyndon Bunton stated the Finance Department is
comprised of Director of Administrative Services Ben Mayes and his
staff and the Internal Auditor, whose financial reports are
excellent. His only concern is with the appearance to the voters
who put him in office, and that they have a smooth transition in
the form of government.
City Attorney Jerry Rose explained the ordinance he had prepared
combines the offices of City Treasurer and City Clerk upon the
expiration of the present City Treasurer's term of office.
City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the first time.
Alderman Miller asked whether the City Council has a right to
eliminate the office of City Treasurer without a popular vote. City
Attorney Rose responded they did have such authority.
Alderman Williams suggested they split the ordinance and make a
separate ordinance for combining the positions in order to allow
the Council time to work with the City Treasurer and assess the
position.
Williams, seconded by Chapman, made a motion to delete Section 3
from the Ordinance which removes the clause that they are
immediately eliminating the City Treasurer's position. Upon roll
call, the motion to amend passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
The ordinance was left on its first reading.
NEW BUSINESS
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which maybe 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 regular City Board meeting of October 20, 1992
and the October 27, 1992 Special Board meeting.
B. A resolution approving the payment of attorney fees in the
amount of $1,365.27 to the Niblock Lar Firm and of $5,397.11
to McDermott, Will A Emery for services rendered in the
incinerator disengagement and related lawsuits.
RESOLUTION 172-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
C. A resolution awarding Bid 92-45 for a Tractor/Backhoe/Loader
with a trade in of Unit 607 to the for bidder, Williams Ford
Tractor, in the amount of $27,900.
617
November 17, 1992..
This budgeted replacement will be used by the Water and Sewer
Department.
RESOLUTION 173-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
D. A resolution awarding Bid 92-48 for a Dual Control Cab Style
Rear Loader Sanitation Vehicle with a trade in of Unite 419,
to the low bidder., Shipley Motor Equipment Company, in the
amount of $89,915.
This is the only unit of this type budgeted for 1992. This
unit is designed to be operated by a 1 -person crew., For easy
access by the driver, it is built 7 inches from the ground
with doors on each side of the cab.
RESOLUTION 174-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Williams, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the
Consent Agenda. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8
to O.
WALKER PARK CONCEPT PLAN
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving the concept to lease
one acre for $1.00 per year at the Lake Fayetteville Hobby Use area
on Highway 265 to the,United Way of Washington County for the
purpose of constructing an office building.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board recommends approving this
proposed plan and working= with: the United Way to decide on the
exact location of the. lfacre.,,Shell Spivey, spokesperson for the
United Way, stated the Fayetteville and Springdale United Ways
would be merging into a•county wide organization and would use this
location for a centrally located office site.
I
Approval of the lease'and the,exact location will be presented to
the Council for approval at a later date. .
Vorsanger, seconded by Bassett, made- a motion to approve the
resolution. s,
Alderman Miller stated he has:a lot of.admiration for the United
Way, but expressed his.concern•that they may be setting a precedent
for anyone to approach.. the City to obtain land for $1 per year.
Alderman Bassett responded the City can always say "no".
Kent McVey, President of the newly organized United Way of
Washington County, stated there were many advantages to this type
of merger. He further stated anything that is good for the United
Way is also good for the communities involved. Beyond that,there
are many people working on the United Way, and when these people
010
November 17, 1992
get together and work in a unified
they develop relationships which
Regionalization has taken place all
started with wide regional interest.
Recreation Advisory Board is solidly
for the Council's blessing.
way with a unity of purpose,
continue after the drive.
over the county and projects
McVey reported the Parks and
behind this proposal and asked
Martha Noble, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Council as a
representative of the Ozark Headwaters Group of the Sierra Club, in
opposition to the concept plan for using the Lake Fayetteville
Hobby Use area land for this non -recreational, non -park use. She
suggested the City take a better assessment of land available for
such a scheme.
Alderman Vorsanger stated the subject property is across Hwy. 265,
and not near Lake Fayetteville. Ms. Noble responded this land has
been designated by the City as hobby use and recreation area.
Alderman Williams reported the City Council toured this general
area which sits across Hwy. 265, and the land where the United Way
facility will be built is located on a corner where a county road
currently intersects Hwy. 265. The City will not allow the United
Way to infringe on the open space except for the one acre.
Kent McVey stated for the long range success of this proposal, the
United Way believes by starting out in a neutral territory between
the two major cities involved, it is an ideal location on the
borderline between Fayetteville and Springdale.
Alderman Miller stated the surrounding property to the proposed one
acre would make excellent soccer fields, and asked Mr. McVey if the
United Way would have any objection to being surrounded by soccer
fields.
Mr. McVey responded the United Way would have no problem being
surrounded by soccer fields, and in fact, they fund a soccer
program in Springdale.
Alderman Chapman stated she assumes the City has explored other
possible locations for this facility.
Mr. McVey responded the United Way has been blessed with low rent
for many years both in Springdale and Fayetteville; however, either
facility is not adequate for an expanded operation. The United Way
looked for suitable land all over the county, and found there was
a scarcity of land available or the rent was extremely high or the
location required considerable modification. McVey reported the
United Way believes their money will be better spent in the long
run with the proposed plan to build a facility.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
US,
November 17, 1992,
•
RESOLUTION 175-92 AS RECORDED IN THE: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
REZONE R92-33
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning 1.01 acres located on
the south side of 15th Street and east of 8. School Avenue from R-
2, Medium Density Residential, to 1-1 Light Industrial -Heavy
Commercial, as requested by Lynn Kelly.=
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
The ordinance was reach for the first time. Vorsangerr seconded by
Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading. .,Upon roll Call; the motion passed 8 to 0.
The ordinance was read fortthe second time. Bassett; 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 passed 8 to 0.' The ordinance. -was read for the third and
final time. 14,
Alderman Miller statedThis understanding that Mr. Kelly plans to
locate a heavy equipment facility=on this property. He requested
in the process of the plannedi:construction, no oilor solvents be
dumped in the nearby creek. �. o
In response to Alderman Vorsanger,*.Director of Planning •Alett
Little confirmed the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
recommend rezoning.' in addition, there are regulations which
disallow the dumping.ofsolvents.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passe& bywa vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3653 APPEARS ON PAGE 3 03 OF ORDINANCE BOOK X X Vit
REZONE R92-34
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning 14.98 acres located on
the south side of 15th Street and east of S. School Avenue from R-
2, Medium Density Residential, to I-1, Light Industrial -Heavy
Commercial, as requested by Charles Woolley on behalf of Vonell
Dickey.
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend rezoning.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Vorsanger, seconded by
Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8 to 0.
The ordinance was read for the second time. Bassett, seconded by
Miller, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the
motion passed 8 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and
final time.
November 17, 1992
Alderman Miller reported this property abuts the Industrial Park
and is in the proposed Use Program. He stated they have not been
advised as to plans for this property; however, he requested the
owner obey environmental laws.
Kate Conway asked where exactly this land was located. Alderman
Miller responded the land lies directly south of the Walker Park
ball diamonds, west of the dairy, and east of the Salvation Army
building.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3654 APPEARS ON PAGE 30P OF ORDINANCE BOOK (X ill
REZONE R92-35
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning 3.14 acres located on
the south side of Old Farmington Road and west of Shiloh Drive from
A-1, Agricultural, to R-2, Medium Density Residential, as requested
by Truman Yancey on behalf of Ralph Carnes.
The Planning Commission voted 8-0-0 to recommend rezoning subject
to a Bill of Assurance limiting development to 48 units.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Vorsanger, seconded by
Bassett, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8 to 0.
The ordinance was read for the second time. Bassett, seconded by
Miller, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the
motion passed 8 to 0. The ordinance was read for the third and
final time.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3655 APPEARS ON PAGE 30/ OF ORDINANCE BOOK X XJ'
REZONE R92-36
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning .37 acres located on
the north side of Wedington Road and west of Rupple Road from C-1,
Neighborhood Commercial, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as
requested by the Hoyet Greenwood Estate on behalf of DiC Electric.
The Planning Commission
conditional use allowing
business. The Planning
parcel containing 1.76
request to rezone only
voted 5-1-0 to recommend rezoning with a
construction of an electrical contracting
Commission declined to rezone the entire
acres as requested. They amended the
37 acre to C-2.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Bassett, seconded by
Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
.November 17, 1992
on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 7 to 0
with one abstention. The ordinance was read for the second time..
Vorsanger, seconded by Bassett, made a motion to further suspend
the rules and place the ordinance on its third and final reading.
Upon roll call, the motion passed 7 to 0 with one abstention. The
ordinance was read for the third and final time.
Alderman Williams stated he represents D&C Electric on another
case; therefore, he will be abstaining from discussion and voting.
Alderman Edens asked whether they had a Bill of Assurance.
Director of Planning.Alett Little responded the Bill of Assurance
limits construction on the .37 acres to only an electrical
contracting business..
-
Curtis Ray, Lindsay•& Associates, addressed the Council, asking
whether the .37 acre includes the exclusion of the right-of-way
taken out. Little responded the right-of-way is taken out. The
tract contains .52 with,the right-of-way, and the dimensions of the
tract with the right-of=way taken out is42.32' x 98'.
%Ito ; . "
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed. by a vote of 7 to 0 with one
abstention.
.^
ORDINANCE 3656 APPEARS ON PAGE 3/3 OF ORDINANCE BOOR -XXVI/
RIGHT OF WAY VACATION _
s
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance vacating the 2000-2100 block of
Markham Road west of Bang Avenue as. requested by the property
owner, Julian Archer.
Mr. Archer is the sole property owner on all three sides of the
portion of Markham he has requested to be vacated. There were no
objections to the closahg, and the Planning Commission voted 6-0-0
to recommend the vacation.
Ms. Little stated the Council has a letter from Mr. Archer
regarding the right-of-way vacation.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Williams, seconded by
Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed 8 to 0.
The ordinance was read for the second time. Williams, 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 passed 8 to 0 with one abstention. The ordinance was read
for the third and final time.
In response to Alderman Bassett, Little reported she has spoken
with Mr. Archer and John McDonnell, U of A Track Coach, who
V L
November
verified the U of A track team
property.
Alderman Bassett stated this
understand why there has been
the City's need for additional
use.
17, 1992
will be allowed to run on this
is beautiful property, and he can
a problem. He suggested this shows
routes for bicyclers and joggers to
Alderman Miller reported he has taken his U of A classes to this
property, and Mr. Archer has always been amenable to allow biology
and botany students to conduct studies on this land.
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3657 APPEARS ON PAGE 3/$2 OF ORDINANCE BOOM WI,
EASEMENT GRANT REOUEST
Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution granting a fifteen (15) foot
wide easement to the City of Springdale for the extension of a
water line located at the northwest corner of Lake Fayetteville
Park on Powell Street.
Springdale has requested this easement in order to extend a six
inch water line that runs along the north side of Lake Fayetteville
Park and south along the east side of Powell Street. The Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board approved the granting of this easement.
City Attorney Jerry Rose read the resolution.
Bassett, seconded by Vorsanger, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
Alderman Williams asked whether there was a vote of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. Little responded it states only that
the approval of PRAB was received.
Alderman Miller encouraged the City of Springdale handle this
matter tastefully and leave the property as it was when they are
done.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
RESOLUTION 176-92 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOM
CONDEMNATION
Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance approving condemnation
proceedings on Tract #45 consisting of 9.02 acres, which has been
added to the Federal Land Acquisition Project, owned by Leona
Billingslea and Margaret Brinson.
V G J
November 17, 1992 '
An offer of $40,000 was made; however, the property owners counter
offered with a figure of $60,000. An additional $123.75 has been
added for filing fees. and summons delivery. Staff is requesting
authority to proceed with condemnation to keep from delaying 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. Williams, seconded by
Miller, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance
on its second reading. ,Upon roll call, the motion passed 8 to 0.
The ordinance was read for the second time. Miller, seconded by
Bassett, made a motion to further suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call, the
motion passed 8 to 0 with one abstention. The ordinance was read
for the third and final -time.
t
Dale Frederick, Airport Manager, confirmed for Alderman Bassett
this condemnation was- basically for safety purposes, and the
federal government pays for 90%, and.the;state pays 5%.
Alderman Faddoul asked for the appraised value of the house located
on the property. Frederick responded -the appraised value is the
$40,000 offer which includes the improvements on the property.
In response to Alderman Bassett's question, City Attorney Rose
explained how condemnationbcourt proceedings work. He stated the
City files suit asking for an order of immediate possession. They
place in the coffers of the court at the time of filing suit the
amount of the appraised value. The.. court, assuming the City can
show proper need for the property, will allow that order to be
entered, and the City then receives immediate possession of the
property. The onlyt..argument remaining is the price .for the
property. In most cases, the parties reach settlement prior to a
trial.
1
Alderman Williams asked whether a proposed settlement would come
back before the City Council. City Attorney Rose responded this is
generally true. In the event the settlement value is less than
$10,000, it may not require Council approval.
Dale Frederick addressed the Council stating condemnation
procedures occur after all other opportunities have been exhausted
in settlement. He explained this project is being built in three
phases: (1) single family residential, (2) commercial, and (3)
avigation easements. Frederick reported they are 98% complete with
Phase I, and will be completing commercial appraisals next week
with the project completed within 2 to 3 months. The consulting
firm has been successful in negotiating the various commercial,
residential and avigation properties, with only five condemnation
requests. He further stated the powers to condemn properties have
not been taken lightly.
November 17, 1992
Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 8 to 0.
ORDINANCE 3658 APPEARS ON PAGE 302/ OF ORDINANCE BOOK X)(JI1
OTHER BUSINESS
RULES OF ORDER & PROCEDURE
Alderman Vorsanger reported in the past, every two years the Board
approved operating procedures and regulations for the Board of
Directors. He strongly suggested they adopt similar rules and
procedures for the City Council.
ALDERMEN WARD ELECTION
Alderman Vorsanger suggested the Council consider passing an
ordinance that aldermen be elected by wards.
Alderwoman Chapman stated this item is to appear on the agenda for
the next Council meeting.
CITY LITIGATION
Alderman Williams suggested the City Attorney investigate the
feasibility of immediately assuming full responsibility for all
City litigation, including the incinerator bond suit and report
back to the Council at their next meeting.
City Attorney Rose responded he believes he can represent the City
in their current and future litigation and is willing to do so if
the Council so desires. He stated in order to do so, he would need
the necessary resources and clerical assistance.
Rose further reported on October 6, 1992, the Board of Directors
passed a resolution which authorized the Niblock Law Firm to
continue to represent the City as council in the appeal of the
Barnhart case before the Arkansas Supreme Court and to develop the
record of the transcript.
In response to Alderman Bassett, City Attorney Rose explained the
resolution passed on October 6, 1992 effectively removes McDermott,
Will & Emery from the proceedings. The resolution, however, allows
the Niblock Law Firm to call on any outside experts, including the
McDermott, Will & Emery Law Firm.
In response to Alderman Bassett's question, City Attorney Rose
stated other than two minor cases, the incinerator lawsuit is the
only legal matter of the City being handled by an outside attorney.
He further verified there has not been a briefing schedule set on
the incinerator appeal, and the record on appeal is in the process
of being prepared. Rose further explained the previous Board of
,.November 17, 19921
}
Directors felt they should not change horses in the middle of the
stream.
Alderman Bassett stated he is satisfied with the Niblock Law Firm
continuing with the appeal of the incinerator case. .Thereafter, he
would hope the City Attorney's office could handle everything from
that point forward. He stated his opinion that they had been
ripped off by the McDermott, Will & Emery Law Firm.
Alderman Williams stated the City has spent $1,340,000 so far for
a two and a half day trial. He expressed his concern Fayetteville
could be hit with 10's of thousands of -more dollars in legal fees,
and reported the latest. billing shows;$125 for a press conference
and $2,000 for xeroxing. Williams stated his motion was that the
City Attorney investigate the feasibility of immediately assuming
the incinerator representation. He asked whether there were other
defendants.. with outstanding law`•firms_.that are arguing the case.
City Attorney Rose responded the interests of these law firms are
similar to that of the.City. Be further stated FDIC, the insurance
company who insured the bends, has an attorney in New York; and
Union National Bank, the; trustee on the bonds, has competent
counsel at the Friday 'Law -Firm., '
Alderman Williams asked City Attorney Rose to assess what he would
need in support in order to assure the -,Council he could provide
similar representation.; L .r3
City Attorney Rose responded if the City Council wishes him to take
over the City's representation in the.incinerator appeal and can
provide the resources:and support he,would need, he would be happy
to do so. 'z •
-
Alderman Williams further asked whether Fayetteville would be
prejudiced by choosing to use the City Attorney for their
representation in the:incinerator appeal, as opposed to theNiblock
Law Firm and MCDermott,;Will & Emery.- He asked City Attorney Rose
to assess his expertise in this area and whether he feels at this
point and time, he would feel comfortable in representing the City
on appeal.
City Attorney Rose responded he would feel comfortable representing
the City on appeal. He stated he could lay out the pros and cons.
of such a change in representation, but he cannot make the final
decision for the Council.
Alderman Bassett stated he agrees with a lot of what Alderman
Williams is saying; however, he is not sure it is smart to change
quarterbacks in the fourth quarter. He further stated he does not
want the D.C. law firm to continue to bill the City for things that
may not be necessary. Bassett stated he had complete confidence in.
Walter Niblock and Kitty Gay, and they are competent to handle the
remainder of this case without the benefit of the D.C. counsel.
U L U
November 17, 1992
Alderman Miller stated he would like to have the assurance of the
City Attorney that he can pick up the ball and continue with the
current momentum. In addition, he questioned whether they would
have a problem of breach of contract with the Niblock firm if they
change representation. Finally, Miller asked whether City Attorney
Rose could save the City money by taking over representation.
City Attorney Rose responded to Miller's questions stating the City
has no formal contract with the Niblock Law Firm, simply a
resolution authorizing them to continue. The Council may, by
resolution, withdraw the authorization for Niblock to continue.
Rose further stated he could save the City money by taking over the
incinerator appeal representation.
Alderman Vorsanger stated McDermott, Will & Emery was hired before
he was a member of the City Board, and he is not defending them;
however, he prefers to dance with the partner he brought. In
addition, he stated it would be an imposition to ask the City
Attorney to now handle the appeal when in essence they have tolling
agreements with third parties. If the City lets their City
Attorney be the only attorney on this case, they may be a conflict
of interest if and when the tolling agreements would need to be
activated.
In response to Alderman Williams, City Attorney Rose stated he did
not see a conflict of interest problem at this time.
Alderman Williams requested City Attorney Rose discuss the entire
situation with Walter Niblock, and verify whether he is willing to
handle the case without outside experts, and whether or not he
could present the Council with a fairly firm estimate on the
remaining cost the City faces on this appeal. Williams stated he
would like to see a lid put on the costs associated with this
appeal and finally get the case over and done with.
Alderman Chapman stated her support for Aldermen Williams and
Bassett's comments, further stating that the type of statements
received from the D.C. Law Firm give lawyers a bad name. Appeals,
although a different undertaking, are handled by attorneys all the
time. Chapman further stated she too has confidence in their local
attorneys.
Alderman Edens asked City Attorney Rose what percent of his time it
would take for him to handle the appeal. He responded it would
consume most of his time for the next nine to fourteen months.
Rose further stated the record of this appeal is tremendous and
would be extremely time consuming and a lengthy process.
Alderman Bassett reiterated his previous requests that the City, 1)
remove the McDermott, Will & Emery firm from any further
representation on the appeal; 2) stay with the Niblock Law Firm in
the appeal, as they have an advantage in working on the brief and
:November 17, 1992
appeal.; 3) receive an estimate from the Niblock Law Firm on what
the City can expect as far as expenses and fees for this appeal; 4)
he would hate to see City Attorney Rose consumed and overwhelmed by
the appeal of this matter, as the Council will need to lean on the
City Attorney in a number of other areas.
RUN-OFF ELECTIONS
Alderman Chapman addressed the memo the Council received from City
Attorney Rose regarding run-off elections, and stated it was a good
faith effort to clarify and raise this question. She reported
receiving a phone call.during which a portion of a statute was read
concerning run-off elections. Chapman Stated her recommendation
was to inform City Attorney Rose, Mayor Hanna, and County Attorney
Butler of the statute. She stated the posed question which puzzles
her is whether a run-off election is required for both aldermen and
other elected officials if.a candidate does not receive a clear
majority in the general election. ItLappears in the statute that
under 1st Class Cities, run-off elections pertain only to the
mayor. Chapman questioned whether the Attorney General's office
should be questioned about this matter.`^
City Attorney Rose responded,with 20/20 hindsight, they all wish
they had been more clear regarding run-off elections. He further
stated the Attorney General's opinion includes reference to run-off
elections for the mayor, city attorney,'and city clerk.
r
Alderman Chapman further stated it would have been helpful if the
Council could have obtainedcopies,of the statutes in order to
interpret them. The public expects the".aldermen to stay informed
on these issues, and`if!there`is any"confusion in the minds of the
aldermen, the matter will become more. complicated.
In response to City Attorney Rose's, question whether he was being
chastised for not informing the Council, -Alderman Chapman responded
.she is simply requesting copies of the statutes.
.City Attorney Roser stated he would ,be pleased to provide all
aldermen with-copies''of the relevant statutes.
Alderman Bassett asked why the Council needed copies of these
statutes. Alderman Chapman responded she has received calls from
citizens asking her questions which she could not answer. Since
this is a public matter, the Council and citizens have a right to
be well informed.
City Attorney Rose verified from this point forward, the City will
hold special elections and run-offs which will require a majority
vote.
Alderman Bassett stated in his opinion, it is the responsibility of
those who may be considering filing a lawsuit on the basis that the
November 17, 1992
election should have been a majority race instead of a plurality
race, to research the law.
Alderwoman Chapman stated once this issue hits the press, it
becomes public business. She is simply asking for copies of the
statute to provide to those who have posed questions to her.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
1