Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-07-05 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL 219 A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Wednesday, July 5, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna, Aldermen Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker, Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper, City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of the staff, press and audience. ABSENT: Alderman Kit Williams CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fred Hanna called the meeting to order with seven aldermen present. INCINERATOR LAWSUIT DISCUSSION At Mayor Hanna's request, City Attorney Jerry Rose made a report regarding the recent Supreme Court decision finding that the City could not use the $2.02 charge to repay the incinerator debt. The Court found that the ordinance was unconstitutional and the waste supply agreement with which the City was obligated to pay the Authority debts was found by the Court to be an unconstitutional document which was "void at inception." City Attorney Rose stated that as it now stands, in seventeen days time from the issue of that order, a mandate will issue. The mandate is final. The only direction open to the City at this time to stay a mandate is to file a Petition for Rehearing. This is not an opportunity to re -argue the case, simply a time to point out specific errors in law or fact in the Opinion to the Court. City Attorney Rose explained that it has been his experience that Petitions for Rehearing are rarely successful but he advised the Council to file such a petition. Attorneys Gaye and Niblock have advised that there are claims worth asserting and this motion would not be frivolous. A secondary benefit to filing the petition is the time it would allow the Council to pursue third party claims. Attorney Rose explained that filing of third party claims are generally keyed to the issuance of Mandate. On three of the third party claims, the filings must occur within 60 days following the issuance of mandate. 220 July 5, 1995 Rose asked for a formal decision from the Council as to whether5 to proceed with the Petition for Rehearing and also a decision on who would handle that rehearing. He recommended Kitty Gaye and, Walter Niblock be asked,to:continue working on this. He stated that he could handle the�:petition with some time spent with Attorneys Niblock .and Gaye,toibe brought up to date, but he felt his best advice to the Council would be to continue with Niblock • and Gaye. Rose drew the Council's attention to a letter from Attorneys Niblock and Gaye, copiesof which he had.distributed to Council members, expressing that they did not wish to proceed!with any work for the City on the third party claims. In response to aquestion from Alderman Bassett, Rose stated that there is a Supreme Court rule .prohibiting litigants from !•A -, substituting new counsel for the purpose of filing a Petition for Rehearing, but it does allow for the participation. of additional counsel joining with the original counsel. Ibnr,r.,:- Rose stated if the Council wanted him to handle the rehearing';'he would have to work with Mr. Niblock and Ms. Gaye. Although he could. do the majority of the work in writing the petition; Mr. Niblock and Ms. Gaye would still have to be active and would not be able to resign as attorneys in the case until after the rehearing. Alderman Bassett stated that he felt strongly that Rose, as City Attorney; should handle all the proceedings.. if and when the case is remanded back to. Chancery Court,whidh will be the case unless a Petition for Rehearing is granted and the Court changes its decision. In response toa question from Alderman Bassett, Mr. Niblock stated that he would.considersigning off on the Petition for Mr. Rose.. but thane -would not be willing to file:the Petition for Rehearing free of charge. Ms. Gaye also stated that she would be unable to do the work free. Alderman Bassett expressed his - hope that after spending $1.5 million on this case, the. City might receive some services free.• • Attorney:-Niblock.asked that the record reflect that the City had not paid tis law firm $1.5 million`. Mayor Hanna asked, for discussion among Council members regarding whether or not to .authorize City Attorney Rose to proceed with a Petition for Rehearing. and, if authorized, to make a decision about whether to follow.Alderman Bassett's-suggestion that Rose be personally involved in:handling the -Petition. 221 July 5, 1995 City Attorney Rose stressed his intentions to be involved in all aspects of the lawsuit. He stated that there are three levels in the lawsuit. The remand level is where we are at this time. The second level is third party litigation and the third level is the possibility of a lawsuit with FGIC. In response to a question from Alderman Bassett regarding the cost of the Petition for Rehearing, Ms. Gaye stated that she charges the City $100 per hour, which is less than her current hourly rate. Ms. Gaye expressed her confidence in City Attorney Rose and stated that she would be willing to assist him, if he were directed to write the Petition for Rehearing, by reading and signing off on the Petition. Alderman Parker asked if the figure of $8,000, which had been mentioned as the cost of preparing the brief for Little Rock, was a legitimate estimate. Ms. Gaye stated that the would not expect this to cost was around $6,000 last time and she be more than that amount. Alderman Bassett suggested that the Council try to take control of the situation, stop some of the expenditures and move on. He expressed his support in having City Attorney Rose handle the Petition for Rehearing. He stated there would have to be some assistance from Mr. Niblock and Ms. Gaye. Rose should handle the case if and when it is remanded back to Chancery Court with the issue of refunds and attorney's fees. Rose stated he could present to the Council by Tuesday, July 11, some alternatives for proceeding with third party claims. City Attorney Rose stated that since starting as City Attorney in 1989 as a hired employee of the City Council, the members of the Council have completely changed, which means that his client has changed. In 1989 his client expected him to zealously advocate their position. Although this position has now been found by the Supreme Court to be in error, his advocacy of that position was expected and received at that time. Rose asked for some degree of understanding from the current Council. He stated that at all times, all members of the past Council tried to do what they thought was in the best interests of the City of Fayetteville. Alderman Daniel asked Ms. Gaye to repeat for the public the points she had stated at the Agenda Session. 222 July 5, 1995 Ms. Gaye stated that in legal terms, the City needs to.askithe ?^s Court torevisit its.focus:on the issue of control.• The City Board and the Authority were essentially one.. -The same elected . officials represented both. The Court:dealt with thesituation. as though on the one hand the City could say we don't want an incinerator and on the other hand the Authority could say.one was going to be built. Withthe City and the:Authority being ..4 essentially the same people._with the same mandate, this would not.- have been possible in practical terms. Ms. Gaye stated that the Supreme Court seemed to be basing its decision on what they called.a complete relinquishment of_any right of recourse that the City had:against the Authority:if:the Authority didn't live up: to its part of the bargain..-in>buildingy., and operating the incinerator. In fact,:.there were very strong. guarantees that everybody would perform as they had agreed to perform. Therefore., the;City did have recourse. The one thing" that was given up was the'right to not pay. Ms. Gaye stressed that the Court treated the Authority and the City as .if they were totally separate when in fact they were very much linked in what they were doing and'she felt that a Petition for Rehearing should focus on the issue of control and the factual error that the City -had not. -given up all rights of recourse. • 4 Alderman Daniel stated that she was in favor of an appeal of the Court's decision. In answer.to a question from. Alderman Daniel, City Attorney Rose stated that he is in favor of proceeding with a Petition for Rehearing. The odds of the petition being successful are not good. However, it is logical to followthe process through to'- its end.. Alderman Daniel stated that it was her opinion that a rehearing, would be, a kind of closure and the little remaining time involved would not make a great deal of difference. Alderman Bassett stated that the Council: has an obligation to file a Petition. for Rehearing.. He agreed with City. Attorney Rose that the chances of success were minimal but he stated that, if nothing :else., it would givethe Counciltime to.sort out whereto go from here and how toeget.there.:` Alderman Bassett suggested•the handle the Petition as .well as working with Mr. Niblock And M Council instruct Mr. Rose to the proceedings upon remand, s. Gaye as•necessary. Alderman Hillagreed with Alderman Bassett. 223 July 5, 1995 Alderman Miller stated there were people at the time this was happening who knew that some illegal things were going on. Miller expressed his concern that the Board was given some very bad advice from people who should have known better. The City is now stuck with a big bill as a result of this. He stated the City should now pursue those who were responsible for the situation. Alderman Miller stated that his understanding is that, since pursuit of a Petition for Rehearing is probably going to fail, the main purpose for pursuing it is to gain time to work on a lawsuit against third parties. City Attorney Rose stated it might be unethical to file a frivolous motion simply for the purpose of delay and he stated that was not the impression he meant to give. He has been advised by Attorneys Niblock and Gaye, and he agrees, that there are some meritorious reasons for filing a Petition for Rehearing. Alderman Miller stated that he felt it was important to pursue the third party lawsuits. Alderman Parker stated a small point that needs to be made is that by pursuing the Petition for Rehearing, the City takes away one of the defenses the third parties will likely offer. If the City does not ask for the rehearing, they will probably try to advance the idea that the City did not pursue appeal options to the furthest extent, and did not fight wholeheartedly against the judgement before proceeding to collect from them. Mayor Hanna opened up the discussion to the public for comment. Joe Robson questioned whether this was not an effort to buy time. City Attorney Rose stated that though that was a practical result of the petition, it was not the reason for it. In answer to a question from Joe Robson, City Attorney Rose stated that obviously the City's position in the suit has been opposed to the plaintiffs' position. Joe Robson stated his opinion that things have been misstated all along in the case. The definition of "win" for the City was intentionally misstated. There has been a tragic waste of money involved in this situation. "Win" should be redefined. A win is when the City, meaning the citizens, don't have to pay somebody else's bond debt and interest on that debt. Closure would come only when all parties agree on the definition of win and that the clients are the taxpayers of the City. 224 July 5, 1995 Mr. Robson asked for clarification as to whether the amount of money spent for legal representation in this suit was $1.5 million or $3 million asstated in the newspapers. Alderman Young stated that the $1.5 million was what was taken out of the escrow account for the $2.02 charge. Mr. Robson felt the amount of money spent for legal representation was being down played. He stated there would be no closure until it was .agreed upon what a win is and who really represented the taxpayers in`the City and not go after them. Mr. Robson stated that citizens need to be involved in decisions regarding third party lawsuits. He expressed concern that he was left out of the discussions in the past and would like to be included in future discussions. Mayor Hanna asked for any further comments from the public. There being none, he turned the discussion back to the Council members. Alderman Bassett stated that he represents the taxpayers and they are his clients. They have always been his clients and will be for as long as he sits on the City Council. Alderman Bassett stated that it is hisopinion unless the Supreme Court changes its decision, all third parties who have potential liability should be sued. He stated that though he will abstain from the vote regarding the pursuit of third parties, he realizes it is necessary. He also explained that he would stay involved in the discussion as long as he sits on the Council. The past cannot be changed and the Council faces a difficult situation, but Fayetteville is one of the best cities in the country and somehow we will get through this. Mayor Hanna pointed out that none of the current Council members were sitting on the Board when this issue first started but they were citizens of. Fayetteville. He expressed regret thathe was not more involved as a citizen, but -he stated that the people who made the decisions, right or wrong, made those decisions as citizens of Fayetteville. Mayor Hanna stated that all citizens of Fayetteville are in this together and will come out:of it still the best place to live in Arkansas. Alderman Hill, Seconded by Daniel,.made a motion to allow city Attorney Rose to -proceed with the rehearing request. Upon roll call, the motion passed with.a vote of 7 to 0. 225 July 5, 1995 City Attorney Rose sought clarification regarding his role in the Petition for Rehearing. It was restated that he was being asked to participate personally in the rehearing and to take the majority of that participation. Alderman Parker wanted to clarify for Mr. Robson that the action taken by the Council was not in opposition to the views expressed by many people who feel as he does. Parker stated that it was necessary to eliminate one defense third party litigants might have against paying Fayetteville back for much of the money paid out for lawyers. Alderman Miller stated he considers one positive aspect of all this is that Fayetteville does not have an incinerator. SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT David Jurgens reviewed for the Council the past problems with the sewer system and the actions taken to this point to eliminate those problems. Using overheads, Jurgens reviewed the number of reported overflows in 1989 when the EPA Administrative Order was issued and the number reported in 1994. He spoke to the Council of the efforts made to eliminate overflows and the successes to date. He also discussed future efforts to be made and the projected costs involved. Mayor Hanna spoke of the problems that occurred with meeting the requirements of the EPA Administrative order, due to the loss of sales tax money in 1993. Though the tax was voted back in 1993, it wasn't until 1994 that the department was able to get things going full steam again. In response to a question from Alderman Parker, Jurgens stated that a great deal of work is being done in the Gulley Park area with about half of his workforce dedicated to that part of town. Alderman Parker stated that there are still manholes in Gulley Park that overflow with every serious rain. Also in the area of Hidden Lake there are major overflows. Jurgens explained that the overflows in Hidden Lake have been eliminated. There have been no overflows from the last three rains. Alderman Parker expressed concern regarding signs in the Gully Park stream area which read, "Not a Play Area." Kids ignore these signs and the area is filled with children all the time because it is the best place to play. He felt the signs should indicate that it is not a play area because of health concerns and because of the contamination resulting from the sewer overflows. Parker requested that a sign be put up reflecting the possible health consequences of playing in the area. 226 • July 5, 1995 Jurgens •said he would need to defer such adecision to hist` `% %• supervisor.. He.did explain that in the Gully Parkarea, the overflows.go..down:quickly: and very littledebris comes out after' the first flush. 'Althoughthis overflow should:be eliminated entirely, the degree of contamination is very small in that creek. The .public health:hazard is small. Alderman Parker continued to feel a stronger •warning •should be issued to give parents the information they need to make A. responsible decision. Mr. Jurgens agreed that this would be appropriate. OLD._BUSINESS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have been brought before the Council but which were tabled or on which no decision made.to allow further information to be presented. A. ANNEXATION CONSIDERATION: An ordinance annexing 99.8. acres located north of Huntsville Road and east of Jarnagan Lane. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Since this matter had been tabled at the request of Mr. Bayyari,• Mayor Hanna asked: if Mr. Bayyari had any comment. Mr. .Bayyari stated that he appreciated Alderman Schaper'bringing this to the Council's attention for the second time. He stated that he had given a copy of the Bill of Assurance outlining his • plans to City Attorney Rose and that the Council members had now been given copies. In response to a question from Alderman Bassett, City. Attorney Rose stated that this issue Was on its third and final reading. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Mr. Bayyari affirmed that he is willing to give a conservation easement on the entire floodplain consisting of sixty six acres. Alderman Miller asked if. this meant that, other thanthe six acres intended for a City park, the remaining acreage would remain in its natural state. • Alderman'Schaper-.statedtthat the sixty acres -could be'used for agricultural`purpoees by Mr.'Bayyari or whomever the land was sold to in the future., The development rightsxtwill.be separated from the ownership rights'and theptoperty will -not be allowed to be developed. The owner.'continues to be -responsible for the property, not the City. 227 July 5, 1995 In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Alderman Schaper stated that the owner would indeed be responsible for paying the property taxes on the easement. Alderman Parker felt it would be much better that someone like the Ozark Regional Land Trust or the Nature Conservantcy hold the conservation easement rather than the City. He asked for the status of the negotiations that might result in one of these organizations holding the conservation easement. Mr. Bayyari stated that he continues to hold title to the 66 acres. He stated that he would continue to be responsible for the upkeep of the land. He pledged to the Council that he would never develop the 66 acres. Alderman Parker said he would like to see the development rights to the land held by an organization constituted to preserve land and would feel more comfortable if a vote wasn't taken until this was finalized. Alderman Schaper stated he thought that was the intent in this situation. He stated that there were benefits to Mr. Bayyari to do this. Schaper stated that he felt comfortable with the Bill of Assurance. Mr. Bayyari still must go through the entire development process. Mr. Bayyari stated that it was his intent to turn over the development rights to the land to a land trust; however, he does not want that issue to hold up the vote on the issue before the Council. The development he has planned will have houses in the range of $100,000, a City park, and money will be contributed to improving the intersection of Hwy 265 and Hwy 16. He stated he has made many concessions to the City over the past 6 months and he hoped that would be considered at this time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the public. Paul Justice, representing the Ozark Regional Land Trust, spoke of his understanding that the only people who could hold a conservation easement are a government body or a non-profit organization set up for that purpose. He wanted to introduce his organization to the Council and express the Land Trust's interest in holding the conservation easement on this property or any property that is of some environmental or agricultural significance which needs to be preserved. Mr. Justice had copies of the annual report of the Ozark Regional Land Trust which he passed out to interested Council members. Alderman Hill expressed his appreciation to Mr. Bayyari for addressing some of the concerns of the Council, especially the traffic problems, and making concessions to those concerns. 228 Mayor Hanna asked for being none., he turned - discussion. July'5, 1995 further comments from: the public. -There the matter back -over toLthe Council for Alderman Parker stated that he still held the same objections to the development as he held previously. He stated that he could not support another large development in the area of the overcrowded intersection of Hwy. 265 and 16 until that.•road is expanded. - Alderman Young stated that he would probably vote for this project because of its dedication of green space. However, he did not feel that this development, with half acre lots; is being built according to the village.concept. He expressed his concern that .continued development of this kind will create urban sprawl. Alderman Schaper stated that he agreed with Alderman Young in that this is not the village concept in the fullest extent. He expressed that Mr. Bayyari had responded to the requestfor a variety in the size of the lots. These are not half acre lots but range in size from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. This is a good development where clustering has happened. Alderman Schaper stated that he agrees with Alderman Parker's concerns about the overcrowded intersection and is not totally happy with further development in this area, but the benefits outweigh the disadvantages. In response to a question from Mayor Hanna, City Attorney Rose verified that this is the third and final reading of the proposal.. Alderman Miller stated that he does have some problems with this development. He stated he was considering voting for the development but was .still working out pros .and cons. He stated his approval of the setting aside of 66 acres to remain undeveloped.. Alderman Daniel stated that she had been voting against annexations, waiting for a plan for drawing up -boundaries. She expressed herappreciation to Mr. Bayyari for his patience and cooperation and stated that she would vote in favor of this development:. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Parker voting no. ORDINANCE 3699 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR 229 July 5, 1995 B. BMR TAX: An ordinance levying an additional 1% HMR tax to be used by the Parks and Recreation Department for the promotion and development of City parks and recreation areas and referring the ordinance to the people for adoption or rejection on.a special election ballot at a special election to be held on Nov. 14, 1995. Alderman Miller expressed his appreciation for the beauty of the city of Fayetteville and his feelings that the parks are a very important part of the city. Miller stated that the city does not have enough parks and that the system is underfunded. He stated that the HMR tax would be the best way to permanently fund green space acquisition and park development and he wholeheartedly supported referring the tax to the people. Young, seconded by Parker, 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 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Young, seconded by Parker, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third reading. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with Bassett voting no. Alderman Schaper expressed his support of the HMR tax. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Alderman Bassett expressed that he feels things are even more uncertain now than they were before the incinerator decision came down. Alderman Bassett expressed his strong support of the protection of the environment in the city and the parks and recreation system. It is very important to preserve as much green area and open space as reasonably possible for future generations. However, he stated his belief that a better way to go about getting additional funding for parks and recreation would be a temporary one cent sales tax to help meet the other pressing needs of the city as well. Alderman Bassett stressed that he is not opposed to additional funding for parks and recreation. He expressed his confidence that, if the proposal is put on the ballot, the people of Fayetteville would vote wisely. He will support whatever decision they make. Alderman Schaper expressed agreement with Alderman Bassett that money is needed to fund other pressing needs in the city. He stated the needs of the parks are not temporary and permanent funding is necessary to meet the demands created by growth in the city. He expressed his support of a temporary sales tax if necessary to meet the other needs of the city. 230• , July•. 5, 1995 g Alderman ..Bassett' expressed• concern that the -voters caP. only, be asked to tax themselves somuch.-..;;:Passage of: the• HMR tax would make it difficult, to pass any other kinflftaie. If it becomes absolutely necessary: to•.raise Sdditiorial'r`evehue, it might be impossibleto get a tax passed to raise_that.revenue. : Alderman Daniel expressed.; her support of putting the HMR tax on the ballot:. It is a very limited tax -on hotels:,, motels and,' restaurants and will not have a very great affect overall on the citizens of Fayetteville. . Alderman Hill. expressed his support of the recommendation made by the Committeeandsupported passing the decision along to the voters. Alderman Young stated that the citizens will have to decide what their priorities are and==..whether that includes.parks and recreation. The sustained funding of,parks created by the HMR is important and he will vote for passing the decision on to the citizens. Alderman Parker felt it was agood idea to let the citizens decide whether .or not they want to put their money into their parks: :We will always have..revenue problems and there would still be no guarantee that money from the sales tax would actually be available.for the.parks. Mayor Hanna expressed agreement with Alderman Bassett's.concerns. He also stated that he.had received some :strong support for' the tax from several .citizens and former members of the Parks and • Recreation Board. All have pointed out the:Parks and Recreation Board, .Susan Driver, and Bill Waite have done an excellent, job of preparing the projects and their program to see that this tax gets before the people. Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the public. Alderman Parker stated..he feels the Parks Board and Parks Department deserve a lbt.of praise for this and all the work that goes into"campaigning for this will be on their own time and will not cost the City any money. . Tom McKinney, -representing the local Arkansas chapter of the Sierra Club,, spoke of:his support for the HMR tax: He 'expressed thanks to th'e Council"for their input and actions -on this and urged them to'vote for putting the tax before the citizens. Mrs. ,William -Starr, who lives at 1966 Frazier Square, in a; small development. consisting mostly of young families, expressed her concerti for.the young -children in the area:playing in the streets because there is no other place to play: There are also other developments in the area, as well as one just going in; and 231 July 5, 1995 several apartment buildings with young families. She stated that there is a fairly large meadow close to these developments that would make a very nice park.. She would like to propose to the Council that the meadow be developed into a park. Carol Nellison stated that she has a small section of land along the creek that she would like to donate to the City to make.a park. She agreed with Mrs. Starr that the children need a place to play. She stated that she has lived a lot of places and this is the nicest city she has found. Alderman Parker expressed his appreciation to Ms. Nellison for her offered gift for the children of Fayetteville. upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a vote of 6 to 1. ORDINANCE 3900 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR Mayor Hanna stated that Alderman Hill has asked that Agenda items C and D be reversed. D. AMEND CHAPTER 162: An ordinance amending Chapter 162: Tree Protection and Preservation, of the Code of Fayetteville to remove all references. to Planning Management Director and inserting the title of Landscape Administrator in its stead; further, Section 162.02 definitions, of the Code of Fayetteville, shall be amended to repeal the definition of Planning Management Director. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Hill read this prepared statement: This amendment is to replace the title Planning Management Director with the title Landscape Administrator wherever it appears in the exiting ordinance. This change reflects the imminent hiring of a Landscape Administrator to administer the tree ordinance among other duties. Throughout the public meetings and hearing held over the past few months of the Tree and Landscape Advisory Committee, the one common thread and most voiced concern was the need for an experienced and knowledgeable professional to oversee the educational and enforcement aspects of the Tree Ordinance. The Landscape Administrator will take over this job from the Planning Management Director and this amendment will reflect this change. Alderman Hill thanked the Council for delaying this issue until he could be in attendance and he apologized for not being at the last meeting. Alderman Hill has met with Mr. Venable and Mr. Crosson and they have agreed on the job description for the Landscape Administrator position. The job description covers not only the Tree Ordinance but also provides for the Landscape Administrator to assist the City Engineer in connection with the 232 July 5, 1995 Grading:and Excavation.Ordinance and in other questions: that might arise concerning landscaping or site problems. - Alderman Miller expressed his appreciation to Alderman Hill for his efforts in this matter. In response to a question from. Alderman Young, Mr. Crosson stated that the staff has no problems with the job description.. He stated it would be standardized as are job descriptions for all City positions and some additional detail will be added. Mr. Crosson stated that the staff has interviewed four qualified candidates and hope to have someone hired very soon. Bassett, seconded by Young,._made a=motion. to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its•second reading.`."Upon roll call, the mot on.passed.7 to- City o City Attorney Rose read the:ordinance fortthersecond time. Miller, seconded by Parker, made a motion -to suspend the rules and place the, ordinance• ont its` third' and' final -reading. Upon roll .call, the.motion passed'? to 0.' City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Alderman Schaper commented that this ordinance covers only the tree ordinance and not the definition of -Planning Management Director anywhere else. It will be the Landscape Administrator's job to do all the things stated in the Tree Ordinance. The purpose of this ordinance is to assure that the Landscape Administrator has the authority to perform his job. Alderman Hill stated that this position will report directly to Mr. Venable and will be a supervisory position. The position will administer the existing ordinance:as well as work with the Landscape Committee to amend or bring a new tree ordinance,to the Council. Mayor Hanna asked if there was any comment from the public. Andrea Fournet, Chair-ofFriends for Fayetteville, distributed and read a letter to the Council members: The letter stated the support of the Friends for Fayetteville for the position of Landscape Administrator.. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7 to O. Upon roll call, the emergency clause passed by a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3901 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK 233 July 5, 1995 C. LANDSCAPE ADMINISTRATOR: A resolution establishing the position of Landscape administrator and setting forth a job description and the duties to be performed. Alderman Hill stated that he was proud to carry on the work that Bob Prichard had started on the issue of Landscape Administrator. Alderman Hill stated that he had worked with City staff on this position. He knows Mayor Hanna is behind the ordinance. He is willing to withdraw the resolution and is confident they will carry out the ordinance as it is intended. Mayor Hanna stated that several people had been interviewed for the position. Alderman Parker spoke of the non -enforcement of the tree ordinance. Mr. Parker played a video tape for the Council and for the public which showed an example of where and how the ordinance is not being enforced. Alderman Parker stated he had been told the Tree Ordinance was not enforced because it is a misdemeanor violation. He felt a Landscape Administrator is needed to ensure that the ordinance on the books is enforced. Alderman Hill stated that he looks forward to cooperation between the developers, engineers and everyone. Alderman Young stated that too much reliance was being placed on the position of Landscape Administrator. The preservation of the trees is with the ordinance and it is important to write the ordinance correctly and to clear up any vagueness that might allow a tree to be removed. The protection of the trees is in the ordinance, not in the position of Landscape Administrator. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion, or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a "Consent Agenda:" A. Minutes of the June 20 regular City Council Meeting. B. A.resolution approving a budget adjustment and awarding an engineering contract to RJN Group Inc. in the amount of $210,725 plus a 10% project contingency of $21,073 for a preliminary engineering study of the sanitary sewer system, White River Watershed Minisystems 7A, 14 and 15. RESOLUTION 93-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. • 234 July 5, .1995 - C. A resolution approving a.budget".adjustment,.•change•ord'er #.r to the construction. contract with Kim Construction Company Inc. in the amount of $173.,673.to complete the sanitary. sewer rehabilitation in White River Watershed Minisystems 5 and 18B/C and to approve maintaining the current contract contingency of $61,178 on the base contract. RESOLUTION 94-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.. D. A resolution approving an underwriting services agreement in the amount of $9.94. per $1,000 of bonds .issued for the refinancing .of the 1979 Continuing Education Center Revenue bonds with Llama Company of Fayetteville. The costfor services will be financed through the bond proceeds. RESOLUTION 95-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Schaper, seconded by Daniel, made a motion. to approve the Consent Agenda. Upon roll call`, the.motion"passed with.a vote of 7 to O. Mayor Hanna called a ten minute recess. PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving the implementation and collectionof a passenger facility charge on eligible passengers at Drake"Field. Dale Frederick spoke to the Council, advising them that the PFC program was initiated by Congress a little over three years ago. The City of Fayetteville has waited to see how the program developed across the country. The City. has .now filed with the U.S. government for the privilege of collecting=the charges. Mr. Frederick stated that the most important thing to consider with this program is that if the City does not collect at this airport., the money that would be collected here will simply go down the line to be collected at another airport. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Mr. Frederick stated that all the airports in the region connecting with Drake Field either have an approved program or are in the application process. By not entering the program, we simply do not collect the revenue. The passenger does not save any money. It will be collected from them at an airport further down the line. - Alderman Schaper had asked that this be removed from the Consent Agenda because it hadn't been clear to him that a traveler would pay this fee no matter what. The charge can becollected once for each leg of a flight. If it is not collected by the airport here it will be collected at the airport at the other end. With - that understanding, Schaper expressed his support. 235 July 5, 1995 Schaper, seconded by Young, made a motion to pass the resolution. Mayor Hanna asked for any comments from the public. There was none. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 96-95 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR REZONING R95-15 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 10.75 acres located north of Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71 B from C-1, Neighborhood Commercial to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial as requested by Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy Corporation. The Planning Commission voted 5-3-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna stated that since this and the following two rezoning requests were related, all discussion at this point could pertain to all three requests and a decision made on one would be a decision made on all three. REZONING R95-16 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 5.50 acres located north of Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71 B from R -O, Residential - Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial as requested by Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy Corporation. The Planning Commission voted 5-3-0 to recommend rezoning. REZONING R95-17 Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of an ordinance rezoning 4 acres located north of Joyce Blvd. and east of Highway 71 B from R-0, Residential - Office to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial as requested by Jim Lindsey and Southwestern Energy Corporation. The Planning Commission voted 5-3-0 to recommend rezoning. Alderman Young stated that the owner of the company he works for is presenting these three rezoning requests; therefore, he would not participate in the discussion of these issues and he would abstain from voting on the issues. Kirk Elsass, representing the petitioner, explained that before the contract was put together, they began looking at the concerns such as traffic flow. They met with the Butterfield Trail residents and have agreed to give a Bill of Assurance to the 236 July 5, 1995 residents that the area would revert to its cu rent zoning;if ..._ this particular development did not go in. They also, agreed to do a greenspace ares on the east side of the proposed road and to put a sidewalk in along the south .side of the road from Butterfield Trail all the way around to Lindsey Management's new office. Mr. Elsass said the company felt that having only one developer at this particular site would allow more control to abide by the guidelines of the Tree Ordinance. Mr. Elsass stated that he had talked with one of the property owners today who is interested in working with them in connecting this proposed road all the way through to Zion Rd. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Mr. Elsass explained that most of the property on the south side of -Joyce was in a floodplain. The creek has now been widened and brought out of the floodplain, allowing it to become a development property. He stated that there is some interest currently in developing this. area. Alderman Daniel expressed her feelings that the area on the south -side should be developed first. Alderman Schaper expressed concern about whether there is a real public need for more commercially rezoned land in that area of town. There is a great deal of commercial land available for development in the city, as well as areas that need to be redeveloped which are already zoned C-2. Alderman Schaper also expressed concerns about the development proposal submitted which he feels looks like three strip malls surrounded by a parking lot.. He feels the citizens of Fayetteville deserve better and he is not_. in favor;: of this rezoning. Tom Hopper presented a map to the Council showing the development as proposed and explained"the7teasbns.for thedesign and location. In response to a question from,Alderman Hill.,•Mr. Elsass _.. explained that.the first drawing with which the Councilmembers had been presented wa's'the'original proposal and does not directly correlate with the map he has now distributed.- Recent. changes in the plans are reflected on the new map. Mr. Elsass explained that the developer would like to develop on the north: side of the road because the area isdeeper and would allow for more of a planned development and more area for landscaping options.- 237 July 5, 1995 Alderman Schaper commented on the lack of connection between the three strip centers as shown in the drawing and the fact that there is no obvious way for pedestrians to get from one to another. Mr. Elsass assured Alderman Schaper that this was only a proposal at this time. When and if the rezoning is approved, the developer would add more detail. Alderman Schaper asked Mr. Elsass about the findings of the traffic study which has been mentioned. Mr. Elsass explained that the City is currently working on the intersection of Sterns, Joyce and Hwy 71. The person who does traffic study for the city was hired. Once all development has been accomplished in this area, the rating will be changed back to an F rating. Additional monies are being contributed to add two additional turning lanes to revert it back to a C rating. Tom Hopper discussed the need for improvements that the Joyce development will create for the traffic flow and the plans to meet those needs. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Kevin Crosson stated that the City staff has reviewed the findings as stated by Mr. Hopper. Alderman Daniel asked if the results of this finding would still be valid if the development were to occur on the south side. Mr. Hopper confirmed this. Mayor Hanna asked for public comment. Carrie Adams stated she had been opposed to this development originally. She stated that woods would be cleared for a large building and parking spaces. Ms. Adams stated she has the signatures of 73 concerned residents and homeowners on a petition that states that they in no way want their quiet neighborhood connected to any large scale commercial development. They oppose the proposal to run Sterns St. through from Old Missouri Rd. to Joyce Ave. The petition asked the Council to vote against this. Ms. Adams stated she would get copies of this petition and submit it to Council members. In response to a question from Alderman Miller, Ms. Adams stated her belief that nothing could stop the developers now, she simply does not want the connection with the commercial development that the through street would create and the changes that would make in her neighborhood. 238 July 5, 1995 Carol-Landruff who lives on Brookhollow Court stated that'she ._ counts 33.preschool.and young elementary age.children on Sterns St. and its connecting streets who would be placed at risk if.the street is connected to that area. She stated her concern about the children and asked the Council to deny approval for the proposed connection of Sterns St. to the commercial -development. Jack Washburn, resident of Brookhollow Subdivision who is retired, spoke of the area where he lives and his reasons for choosing this area. According to the map, the proposed Vantage St. would run 150 feet from his side door. He felt there was a question of good will involved. His group was told the traffic would not be heavy, and he questioned the need forthe street at all if that was the case. Don McGuire, a member of the Board at Butterfield Trail Village, represents another segment of the population of the area. His concern is for the residents at Butterfield Trail. They were at first hesitant about the development but after meeting with Mr. Elsass and working out some of their concerns, they have agreed to support the proposed changes. In response that.he was residents. to a question from Alderman Hill, Mr. McGuire stated representing Butterfield Trail Village Board, not the Alderman Bassett stated that he was told the residents' concern was that the assurances which had been given were fulfilled. Mr. Bassett.assured her they would be. Mr. Elsass stated that the petition from the Butterfield Trails: residents was signed before their meeting and before the assurances were given. Alderman Daniel stated that she was leaning in favor of developing the south Sideandasked Mr. McGuire how that would affect Butterfield Trail Village. Jackie Crisp pointed out the the school bus at the .corner stated she would like to see the traffic down. • number.of children who will catch of .Sterns and OldiMissouri Rd. and Sterns terminated at the end to keep Andrea Fournetquestioned;what the long term vision is for the city and why we keep"spreading out and rez.oning,.when there -is -so many properties aiready zonedp-commercial. _ t Alderman Sehapernstated that he hoped the land use planwouldsolve some of these -problems. He defined these types of single floor -commercial -developments surrounded by parking lots as commercial .sprawl, taking up a great deal of land and delivering little value. 239 July 5, 1995 Fran Alexander suggested that the proposed grading and drainage plans for the north side development should be reviewedand addressed to ensure compliance with the new Drainage Ordinance. Alderman Daniel suggested that the advantage of having one developer on the north side would be equally an advantage on the south side. The challenge presented by less space might prompt better ideas about usage of space. Mr. Jim Stewart who lives on Stern St. stated that his biggest concern was Stern St. and losing the division between commercial property and residential property. He stated he would like to ensure that the street never goes through. The trees are also a concern. Tom Hopper stated that it was not imperative that. Stern St. go through as a part of this rezoning and development. It was shown to gothrough on the plans based on the City's master street plan. If the City determines they don't want the street to go through, it will not be connected. Mr. Hopper stated that when his firm was involved in asking for the area to be rezoned last year to R -O and C-1, they did not realize that C-1 did not allow for regional use of the property as commercial. Alderman Miller stated he saw no reason for connecting a huge commercial area to a residential area. He suggested the possibility of the developer agreeing to preserve some or all of the trees along the east side to act as a buffer to the residential areas. Mr. Elsass explained that the property to be developed is below Brookhollow and that it does not even come up to Stern Street on the subdivision. He stated they do not have control of the trees and woods above this property. He stated they would be willing to give a buffer. Alderman Miller questioned the definition of buffer - vegetative verses R -O. Mr. Elsass stated they would be willing to leave a buffer area of existing trees. Alderman Hill requested a more realistic plan of what was really going to be done in this development. Alderman Hill requested clarification regarding process and was told that if this property is rezoned, this is the last time the Council will deal with the issue. The Planning Commission will handle the issue from that time. 240 July 5, 1995 In response to a question from Alderman Hill, .Mr..=Elsass stated=-. that the developer would pay for the road and the stoplight proposed. In response to a question from Carrie Adams, Mr. Elsass explained that the road is 200. feet over from the east side of the property. They are w-illing to work with the developer on whether to move the road further to the west. - Alderman Parkersuggested working with and alderman if anyone wishes to find out how to change something on the Master Street Plan. Alderman Parker stated that he had spoken with a number of the residents in the area. Many spoke of their concern about the heavy commercial development already extending down from the Mall to the east and west. They did not-wishfor the area that -is zoned R -O to be developed in heavy commercial as well. Alderman Parker stated that buffer between existing and and the residential areas. City Attorney Rose read the first time. he felt the area zoned R -O acts as a imminent heavy commercial development ordinance rezoning R95-16 for the City Attorney Rose read the ordinance rezoning R95-17 for the first time. All three ordinances will be on the second reading at the next City Council meeting. BUDGET. ADJUSTMENT Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving -a budget adjustment in the amount .of $210,000 allowing additional funding for a joint project .with the Fayetteville School District for building costs of school gymnasium/community centers being constructed at the Holcomb and Vandergriff School sites. Susan Driver explained that the budgetadjustment has been requested -to allow for the construction of full sized•gymnasiums•. Full sized gymnasiums would allow for adult recreation as well as for youth, thus creating a community center. Co -location is a very efficient use of tax money. The school system is the donor of the land and matching funds for these gymnasium projects. Ms. Driver stated that current population as well as future population warrant the construction of these gymnasium/community' recreation centers. 241 July 5, 1995 Ms. Driver explained that future plans for additions to these gymnasiums include office space for the staff to allow the centers to be open after school hours and through the summer. The facilities will be separate from the schools to allow for school security during those hours. Alderman Miller asked whether the City or the School Board would control the centers. He felt that there was need for a clear understanding of this issue on all sides to avoid future problems. Mayor Hanna stated that this situation had occurred before and all parties had agreed that the school would have use of the centers during the school days and it would be available to the community. Ms. Driver stated that her understanding was that the staffing and maintenance of the buildings would fall to Parks and Recreation. Mayor Hanna stated that during the school year, the school would do most of the maintenance and that after hours, weekend and summer use maintenance would fall to Parks and Recreation. In answer to a question from Alderman Bassett, Administrative Services Director Ben Mayes stated the funding and the maintenance was spelled out in an interlocal agreement. In response to a question regarding size, Susan Driver explained that the current request would allow building a full sized gymnasium. Alderman Miller stated his concern about the problems in the past with the City giving money to another government entity and the possibility of lawsuits. He stated that he had been assured that this was a mixed use community center and would be open for use of the community. Alderman Parker stated that Mr. Clark had told him the biggest need of Parks and Recreation was youth centers in areas of the City where there are none. Without the additional money, the gyms will not be suitable for use. as youth centers but with the additional funding, the facilities will be far more suitable for use of community and as youth centers. Alderman Daniel expressed her thanks to Susan and Dale for taking a stand on this and being vigilant. Alderman Hill spoke of the school's night black out policy and asked if it would effect thecommunity use of these facilities. 242 July 5., 1995 Mr. Carr assured that there would be ample gymnasiums. Bassett, seconded adjustment. Upon 0. by Parker, roll call., lighting outside: the: • made a motion to approve the budget the motion passed by a vote,of 7 to RESOLUTION 97-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. PROPERTY. PURCHASE Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a contract for .sale of real estate to purchase property owned by Kenneth H. Colvin and Gloria Kay Colvin for street right-of-way purposes. Mayor Hanna explained that this is for extension of Joyce Blvd. west from the mall area to Gregg St. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the public. There were none. Bassett, seconded by Miller, made a motion to approve the resolution. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 98-95. AS RECORDED IN THE.CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. WIDENING. LOCAL STREETS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution providing. for City Council review in the widening of Local Streets. Mayor Hanna explained that this resolution:Nita .presented by Alderman;Schaper regarding the'prccess used in doing local street work. Mayor Hanna stated that hisview wasethat this was an administrative.policy_and that. this sesolution_Will interfere with the way the city does its street work. • Alderman Schaper stated thatthere was,a{lbt of precedent t� say that policy issues are determined -by the'City Council. •Thete is a policy that states that the Master Street Plan must be approved by the CitrCouncil and the Capital Improvements Program must be approved by.the City Council. Alderman Schaper stated that these are the normal processes used to change the Use, designation or physical characteristics of streets. He .stated that he is -not advocating that every time repairs need -to be made, the administration must come to the City Council. He did stress recognition of the difference between repair and real changes in the nature of streets in neighborhoods. 243 July 5, 1995 Alderman Schaper explained that the resolution simply states that public notice should be given in instances of real changes in city streets. Mayor Hanna stated that if it becomes necessary to have a public hearing every time a street project was done, it will hamper the City's ability to do street work. Alderman Schaper stressed that this resolution would not address projects such as repaving or repairing, but that qualitative changes should not be done without public notice. Alderman Parker stated that the battles over the proposed expansion of Township indicate that the people who live around a given area have a right to a knowledge of proposed changes in their neighborhood and a right to be heard regarding their concerns regarding that change. Alderman Parker reminded the Council of his idea to post signs for a few weeks prior to proposed changes. He .was told by the Mayor that this was not the Council's business. He now feels the proposed resolution is needed. Alderman Parker stated that he was told the reason this street was being widened was because a lot of people wanted it done but no names have been mentioned. Forty two people signed a petition against the widening. If the administration is moved by those in favor of the change, it should also listen to those opposed. Mayor Hanna stated that he does have names of those who are in favor of the proposed work. Alderman Bassett stated that he would vote against the resolution. Alderman Miller agreed that when a street is going to be widened, there should be a method in place to notify the neighborhood involved in some way. However, he stated that he feels this resolution could become too much management. The City Council cannot automatically oversee every street project in town. Alderman wants to changes. problems Schaper stated that this is a rare occurrence and he insure that the people are notified of any proposed He feels the procedure is need to avoid conflict and in the future. Alderman Miller suggested getting together with the Administrative staff and work up an appropriate notification process that can be agreed upon by the Council and the Administration. 244 July 5, 1995 Alderman Young asked Alderman Schaper why+he didn't propose a resolution of notification:rather than review of each street. Alderman Parker reminded Alderman Young that he had proposed the use of signs for notification at the Agenda Session but that suggestion was not met with any acceptance from the administration. Alderman Young stated his support of the use of signs or similar notification. He stated he would support a resolution on notification but could not support a resolution on reviewing every street change. Alderman Schaper .stated that he was working on the process that will avoid conflict in the future. If there is notification but no recourse, whatgood will it do. The rezoning of the smallest area of land comes before the Council and he feels major street changes can be as important or more important than a rezoning. Alderman Young stated that the Mayor could be notified and if enough people object, the project could be halted. Failing this, the Council could pass a resolution to stop the change. Alderman Parker suggested at least small signs a minimum of three weeks in advance to allow people time to reach .the Council in- • time for action. Alderman Schaper stated he is amenable to any solution that makes sense but he feels the process should be a formal one. Most of the street .changes will behandled under the Capital Improvement Plan. The instance where it is handled in house is rare. In answer to a question from the Council, Kevin Crosson'stated that this was the first widening of any significance done in house. Phyllis Johnson stated that she likes the idea of a letter notice.. She feels this is a health and safety issue for the City, especially so far as Cross Ave. is concerned. She stated she feels even a local street must meet a certain standard. Alderman Schaper asked if Ms. Johnson would advocate a policy of wideningevery street to the normal minimum street standard of 31 feet. Ms. Johnson stated,that her point is that the City should have standards for local streets and local streets should be built to those standards. Alderman Schaper stated there was a difference between paving an street to the width of.the-existing gravel and adding eight feet to the street. 245 July 5, 1995 In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Ms. Johnson stated that she feels it would be appropriate to notify adjacent property owners of proposed street changes. Alderman Parker asked if Ms. Johnson feels there would be something lost in notifying neighborhood people and allowing them to come forward with opinions. Ms. Johnson said leading neighbors to believe they have the right to suggest the City keep unsafe streets because the neighbors object to the potential of more traffic on the streets, it would be a disservice to the entire population. Alderman Miller suggested that there is agreement that adjacent property owners of any major changes proposed. Staff have agreed to send adjacent property owners a letter and if someone wants to address the Council, they have a right to go to any alderman, get an agenda request and come before the Council. He questions why the discussion is continuing. Alderman Parker suggested again the possibility of signs in addition to the letter notification. Kevin Crosson stated there have been problems with the signs in the past because they are small and require people to pull off the road to read them which can create a hazard. Alderman Miller stated again that there is agreement that notification is necessary. He suggested sitting down with the Mayor and his staff and working out possible ideas. Phyllis Johnson suggested that upgrading a street to a level of safety is different from rezoning land. Ms. Johnson stated that she supports notification but sees no need for the Council to review every street that is brought up to a minimum level of safety. Alderman Miller stated his agreement to this. Jim Gaddis stated that it is a misconception that streets are the property of the neighborhood when in fact, streets are the property of the entire city. For the safety and convenience of the traveling public, the city needs to be unencumbered in bringing streets up to minimum standards. Mr. Gaddis stated that a test of the desirability of a policy is to determine the impact of that policy. He stated the proposed policy would have the effect of giving one more way for obstructionists to assert themselves and promote their own agenda at the expense of the overall public. He does not feel the City needs to be tying its hands with policies that will make it • 246 July 5, 1995 impossible. to. do the.things that need to be.done.to.bring:streets up to minimum standards for safe driving. Alderman Schaper stated that he agreed Mr.. Gaddis and felt that is exactly what -this resolution says. The resolution -states that the City Council will determine the policy. If the policy is • that the streets will be widened to certain standards, that is what will happen. Mr. Caddis stated it is misleading to characterize this as a widening when in fact it -was a correction of a substandard-. - situation. He stated that if the City Administration has to delay on correcting deficiencies, it will affect their ability to make the streets safe and adequate. Alderman Parker questioned motives in stating that some people should. not be notified because the are obstructionist. This seems to. imply that you don't want them to know what you're.doing because they might interfere. He resists labeling anyone in - those terms. Alderman Schaper stated that he does not want to be a part of a City government that insistson doing things in secret in the manner. suggested. Alderman Bassett stated that.this is the.most open City government in the State of Arkansas. He denies that anything was done in secret. Louise Schaper expressed herconcern about the reticence:of the Council in making a resolution that would. allow. public hearings when a neighborhood --is threatened. There are many narrow streets in the City similar to Cross St. and if all. are at risk of being narrowed, many citizens are going to be upset. Ms. Schaper advocates public:notice of: any street widening and would like to see it come automatically before a public hearing: David Hart spoke in favor of the spirit of the resolution. ' He was disturbed that much of the discussion has not been about the resolution itself. The spirit of theresolution is adequate, appropriate. notification and that is a good. idea`. Andrea Fournett lives on -Shady. Lane, which is 15 feet wide and she does net: want it widened. The fact that, it is narrow keeps traffic slow and. scarce. She does not want to see all the narrow streets widened, spoiling traditional neighborhoods:' Alderman Daniel stated that she was not going to support the resolutionbecause _She feeis: there is abetter way to handle - this..; She. does -feel there Is a need for a process of notif.icati,on. 247 July 5, 1995 Alderman Hill spoke in favor of notification. He suggested as a compromise that the Street Committee work with the staff when these situations come up. Alderman Schaper stated that the resolution says. Alderman Bassett agrees with resolution is necessary. this is basically what point two of notification but doesn't thing this Alderman Parker asked if signs could be included in that notification, possibly three weeks ahead of time. Alderman Young stated that notification is not easy and there needs to be a strong review of methods of adequate notification. A snap decision should not be made on this issue. Mayor Hanna feels this was an isolated instance and a lot has been made of it. Alderman Schaper asked if staff could work out a procedure of adequate notification that the Council could look at. Alderman Parker stated that he would like the plan to specifically address whether signs would be used. Alderman Schaper stated that if that could be done, he will withdraw this resolution. OTHER BUSINESS REPORT ON UBC PROPERTY Alett Little reported that UBC had been notified and they have complied with request that they stop work on the parking lots. UBC has picked up applications for conditional use, which they must file in order for any kind of parking lot to be developed. The Council had asked for a decision on removal of gravel. This has been discussed and she proposes that this is delayed until the matter is heard before the Planning Commission. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Ms. Little stated that a parking lot could not be built all the way up to the sidewalk. Alderman Schaper discussed the problem with a large tree which was being impacted by the gravel. He felt the gravel should be pulled back to the 25' setback to avoid damage to the tree. Mayor Hanna stated that he would call the person responsible for the gravel and he feels certain they will agree to remove the gravel piles to the drip line of the tree. 248 July 5, 1995 Alderman. Young stated that the situation reinforces;his feeling- that it. is easier. to face• the. consequences than to seek permission. He feels it needs to be easier to get permission. through normal channels than to get forgiveness. Alderman Parker feels UBC was well .aware of the`JParking..Lot Ordinance and they .simply ignored. it. CONDEMNATIONS Charles Venable stated that there were two condemnations on the - Razorback Road extension and four on Cato Springs flood control-. In en J- . City Attorney,Rose read. the ordinance authorizing imminent domain proceedings for the City to" obtain real property for the extension of Razorback Road between 15th St. and Highway 71. Young, with a second from Bassett, 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 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Bassett, with a second from Young, made a motion to Suspend the rules and place .the Ordinance on its third and final reading. Upon roll call the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. • Alderman Schaper stated he was voting without much information and though he trusts Mr. Venable to do the right thing, next time he would like to see the information before it comes up for vote: Mayor Hanna assured everyone that the owners involved have been given the opportunity to protest the condemnation. Alderman Parker stated that although he realized the necessity of doing so, he felt uncomfortable with voting on this condemnation without more time to review it. There followed a discussion of the process involved in condemnation and a review of some further detail about these specific condemnation requests. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed by a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3902 APPEARS ON PAGE OP ORDINANCE BOOR 1 • July 5, 1995 249 EMINErJT City Attorney Rose read the ordinance authorizing 4mE444ent- domain proceedings to obtain permanent easements for the Cato Springs flood control project. Young, with a second from Schaper, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Schaper, with a second from Daniel, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the ordinance on its third reading. Upon roll call the motion passed with a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed with a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3903 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 11:55 p.m.