Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-07 Minutes163 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF -THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, May 7, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. 'PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller (arrived late), Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, Woody Bassett, Steve Parker; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of staff, press, and audience. •ABSENT: Alderman Hill .CALL TO ORDER Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with six aldermen present. OLD BUSINESS Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items that have been brought before the Council but were tabled or no decision made to allow further information to be presented. A. DISCHARGE & PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE: An ordinance repealing Chapter 51: Water and Sewer, Subchapter: Discharge and Pretreatment Regulations, Section 51.070 through 51.089, of the Code of Fayetteville and adopting the Discharge and Pretreatment Code for the City of Fayetteville. This ordinance was left on its second reading at the April 16 Council Meeting. Alderman Williams moved to place it on the third and final reading. Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. Alderman Williams added it was a motion to suspend the rules. City Attorney Rose stated it would be taken as a motion to suspend the rules. He then read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna stated there have been several meetings about this. People from OMI were present to answer any questions. Alderman Miller arrived. Duyen Tran, OMI, responded to a question from Alderman Daniel regarding non -permit users. The user by definition would be anyone who discharged their wastewater into the plant, individual or industry. Non -permitted would be a user who did not have a permit from the plant. 164 May. 7, 1996• Tran responded to another question from Daniel concerning comments from American Air Filter about a list of those in good standing: A start. has been made on if. ,They will pursue it carefully with the City. Tran responded to a question from Parker regarding the criteria for non -permitted vs. permitted users. ..It will depend on what treatment they haveonsite. Some industries have more stringent limitations than others. The local limit study, the second part of the document, is a study to determine what they can and cannot have based on the plant's capability and the water quality study and the sludge application. The ordinance should not be more stringent for other, industries than the current permitted plan for Superior Industries. The ordinance has the local limits which affect businesses or industries who do not have a permit. That is the criteria for us to look at to see if they are of a concern and need to be permitted. It is like a flag but is not a real limitation. We have an inventory of pollutants we look at and say what they can discharge or not. As long as no one violates their permits, we will be fine. The ordinance has no means of changing any permit limitation. Jim Cryder, Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, thanked the City's staff.,and OMI. They came 'together in a forum at the Chamber of Commerce that involved our manufacturing community and gave them an opportunity to ask questions and lexpress concerns. It was constructive and promoted a :healthy environment to go on with business. Alderman Williams stated he is strongly in favor -of this and applauded the EPA for requiring cities all over the country to protect water resources. Alderman Miller, though having to abstain from this, commended Tran for the great deal of work she has done on this. Alderman Schaper agreed, from an engineering perspective, that this study is. well done and well written. It should be a success. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote. of 6-0-1, %with Miller abstaining. ORDINANCE 3965 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOR 1 165 May 7, 1996 B. TRANSIENT MERCHANTS: An ordinance amending the Zoning Code of the Code of Fayetteville setting rules and regulations for transient merchants and temporary or transient businesses. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the April 16 Council meeting and was referred to the Ordinance Review Committee. Alderman Bassett reported for the Ordinance Review Committee. There were five Council members at the meeting. This ordinance was discussed at length and the consensus was to recommend to the full Council not to pass such an ordinance. There was a feeling based on information brought by City Attorney Rose that there is County law that relates to this. After careful consideration, it was decided that this is an ordinance we do not need. Alderman Young stated that if the County has regulations passed on from the State, the County can take care of it. In response to a question from Alderman Schaper, Young stated the County is responsible for enforcement, probably working with the sheriff's department. Alderman Williams stated the County has a lot of what we were considering, except their permit cost is higher than ours. They are specifically empowered by State law, so there is no reason for us to duplicate that effort. Alderman Daniel reviewed concerns she has heard expressed. Regarding taxes, the City is not responsible for collecting them. There are regulations in place to deal with traffic hazards due to blocking views. This control from the City level is not needed. City Attorney Rose responded to a question from Alderman Schaper concerning agricultural products. There are State statutes which exempt sale of vegetables, grain, fruit, livestock, and other farm products. We would not be able to regulate them and they are not regulated by the County. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Rose responded to a question from Alderman Young regarding the possibility of voting on this again in the future if defeated now. The Council has the prerogative at any time to bring an ordinance forward. There is no waiting period. Alderman Parker moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. r 166'' May 7, 1996 City Attorney Rose read .the ordinance for the third..time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments or questions from tithe.. audience. There were none. Alderman Schaper had a concern about- the enforcement of this arid the appearance of the city when every street corner sports some sort of merchant activity. We need some way to .make sure the County ordinance, if there is one, gets enforced. Alderman Parker stated that rather than adding a second layer of. regulation, there are State statutes which require elected and appointed officials to enforce the laws in place. If laws are not being enforced, the proper thing to do is to require the officials to enforce the law -and- if they don't then execute the State statutes for that problem. Alderman Bassett saw no evidence that the County laws are not being enforced. He agreed that an ordinance on the books should be enforced. In this instance, there is no public need for this ordinance for the reasons expressed earlier. Also, ordinances really get enforced when.a significant number of people call it to the attention of those obligated to enforce it. -There has not been a compelling movement by citizens. to show this is a problem. All -things considered, it is a waste of time to put something like -this on the books.. Mayor Hanna asked for further comments. There being none, called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance failed unanimously. • C. GARAGE SALES: An ordinance amending the Zoning Code.of-the Code of Fayetteville setting rules and regulations for garage sales. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the, April 16 Council meeting and was referred to :the Ordinance Review Committee. Alderman Bassett reported for the Ordinance Review,Committee.- A seconded version of this ordinance has been distributed.- This version resulted from a lengthy discussion in the committee meeting. There was a great deal of talk about whether or not we need this ordinance and if so, perhaps some consideration should be given to scaling back some of the .provisions in it. It was discussed but no recommendation was made by ;the committee. Personally, he does not believe there is a significant need at this time for an ordinance regulating garage sales. Alderman Miller agreed this is probably not a needed:ordinance. He questioned whether it is enforceable, like the ,billposting ordinance. 167 May 7, 1996 Alderman Williams claimed responsibility for keeping this ordinance alive. While being opposed to the permit requirement, he does know of locations where garage sales are held virtually every weekend, which is not good. There have been complaints to the Planning Commission. They have studied this for a long time and passed this ordinance with strong support. If we remove the permit requirement, it is reasonable. It solves the problem without requiring another layer of bureaucracy in the City. Alderman Miller agreed, if all that we are doing is limiting the number that can be held. We already have ordinances covering other concerns. Alett Little, Planning Director, responded to a question from Alderman Parker concerning definitions of commercial activity. To enforce zoning code for commercial activities in a residential district, enough evidence has to be built that it is commercial activity and then it has to be undertaken to be corrected using that proof. Alderman Williams pointed out this would set up a definite criteria of four times a year, so everyone would be put on notice, rather than some general term. Alderman Parker was of mixed minds about this. If we have frequent yard sales, we could throw a line into the definition of commercial activity or non -conforming uses in the zoning code that would cover this as effectively. Little clarified what is currently covered under the sign ordinance. A sign cannot be placed in public right-of-way. The sign ordinance does not allow any signs in residential districts and this does allow a 4.5 sq. ft. sign, the size of a poster board. The sign ordinance does not have the collection fee. Alderman Daniel stated this ordinance does address the problem of signs left up too long. Alderman Schaper stated the nice part about signs for garage sales is that they generally lead you to the person who put them up, as opposed to what gets stapled on telephone poles. This is a good example of our ability to limit something so that it deals with the problem and is not wider than the problem. Little responded to a question from Alderman Young regarding the amended version and exactly what it provides for. The Council actually has three ordinances. The one with the lines through it compares the ordinance which was in the packet to the one that has been handed out. The lines simply take out references to a permit and take out the references to districts in which garage sales would be allowed. The clean version is the amended version. 168 May 7, 1996 Alderman Young noted that the ordinance which was read was the original one, so someone will have to make a motion to adopt this amendment. City Attorney Rose agreed it probably should be read. He understood that theywould move to amend by deleting Sections.1 - 4 of our current ordinance, which is on its first reading. This essentially eliminates all of it as there are only four sections. At this time Rose read the amended version of the ordinance starting with Section 1. 'Williams stated that was his motion. Miller seconded. Alderman Schaper wondered—if .the word "fee" had been left out after the word "collection" in paragraph (C). There was discussion regarding who would be in charge of keeping track of how many garage sales were being -held and for how many days. •This gives neighbors recourse -if there is -reason to complain. Mayor Hanna remarked that garage sales are an effective method of recycling but it can be a problem for neighbors if they occur too frequently. This is a method of patrolling the ones taking advantage of the sales. Checking every garage sale is not the issue. Alderman Daniel thought 8:00 a.m. might be a little early to expect the signs to be removed. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 7 t 0. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and' go to thesecond reading: Schaper seconded.. Upon roll -call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. - City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There were none. • Alderman Parker moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 1, with Daniel voting no. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the vote was 4 to .3, with Daniel, Bassett, and Parker voting no. [See page 19, Garage Sale Ordinance, for vote results.] 169 May 7, 1996 D. INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES ORDINANCE Alderman Bassett stated the Ordinance Review Committee had discussed this at great length. Alett Little, Planning Director, summarized the changes. We had titled this Facilities Manufacturing Explosives and it came to our attention that explosions could occur just in the handling, so the word manufacturing was changed to handling. We have also addressed the concern that notification of just the adjacent property owners was not sufficient, so a paragraph has been added to require publication of a notice in a paper of general circulation. One of the criteria for approving conditional uses would be that the Planning Commission shall be reasonably satisfied that the permitted use would not generate generally offensive or noxious odor. On the whole, this does list particular facilities which have the potential for emitting odors or explosion in their manufacturing processes and does set up a process where the Planning Commission does review those for conditional uses. City Attorney Rose noted this was referred to the Ordinance Review Committee before its first reading. Alderman Williams moved to place this on the agenda. Bassett seconded. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. This was left on its first reading to allow for public notice. CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion or contracts and leases which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a consent agenda. A. Minutes of the April 16 regular City Council meeting; B. A resolution approving a lease modification with Republic Parking System to install credit card equipment and adjust rates at the Fayetteville Municipal Airport; RESOLUTION 57-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE C. A resolution approving a budget adjustment and accepting the lowest qualified bidder, Ron Blackwell Ford, for the purchase of four intermediate pick up trucks for a total cost of $73,788; RESOLUTION 58-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE • 170 May 7, 1996 D. A resolution approving.. a letter agreement• with the Mitchell Law Firm to perform bond counsel services in _-connection with the proposed issuance of. bonds,which would be issued to develop and construct a Town'Center and Parking Garage in Downtown Fayetteville. The cost of $18,500 plus out-of-pocket expenses will be financed through the bond proceeds. [Item D -was read then removed. See below.] [Item E was previously removed from consent agenda. It became item 2a immediately following the consent agenda (Goose Creek)] Alderman Schaper asked that item D be removed from the consent agenda. It became item 2b, Town Center Bond Issue --Mitchell Law Firm, below. Alderman Young moved to approve the consent agenda. Miller seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 6 to 0. Daniel was not present for voting. GOOSE CREEK IN WASHINGTON COUNTY Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration a resolution acknowledging that the Fayetteville Subdivision Regulations do not apply to property in Washington County on which development of a subdivision designated as Goose Creek is proposed. Jim McCord, attorney, stated this approved by the Planning Commission. that the planning area of Fayetteville view of comments submitted at,agenda. alternative resolution, which the City is of general application. resolution was unanimously The purpose is to.establish complies with State law. In session,. he- has prepared an Attorney has distributed and Alderman Williams had requested that this be removed from the consent agenda because of the contract the City has with Farmington and several other local cities that we service with our wastewater treatment plant. We are using up our excess capacity at oiir sewer treatment plant and it concerns him that we have open-ended contracts with these cities. For example, the contract we have with Farmington is a 15 -year contract from March, 1994:. Inithis contract we are bound to serve Farmington as it. is and as it will annex. We can charge for transmission lines and sewer use but not sewer use facilities, which Fayetteville had to pass a sales tax in order to build. It is a concern to have open-ended contracts with other municipalities where we cannot control how much they can grow and how much sewage we have to take. 171 May 7, 1996 Alderman Williams had a question concerning paragraph 5 of the contract, Charges and Requirements for Sewer Service Connections. He wondered if we can include in the charges for making these connections to the Farmington system a charge for a pro rata share of using up our current capacity of our own wastewater treatment plant. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, directed him to paragraph 4, which pertains to rates charged on an ongoing basis. The sewer rates include maintenance and treatment costs. That is a part of the rate calculation. Alderman Williams expressed concern for when we get to the point that we exceed our capacity and have to build a new plant. This is something we want to avoid as long as possible. The rates we charge are the same for everyone, our own customers as well Farmington. He asked if we are building up a surplus with these rates. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, responded we are not building a surplus and have basically used up any reserves we have built up for sewer rehabilitation. Alderman Schaper wanted to put this in perspective. Goose Creek folks have said their intent is to build their own sewage treatment plant. If that were not allowed and this particular piece of land was annexed into Farmington, which it would have to be for us to be required to hook up to it, and if it was denied by the EPA and Farmington still wanted to have this subdivision built, then we would be left with treating the sewage and we would have given up our control because it is not in our planning area. Jim McCord stated that neither EPA nor DPC&E will have to issue a discharge permit for the on-site wastewater treatment plant because there will be no discharge into Goose Creek. The plans for the facility will be approved by the State health department. It will be discharged into a lake system on the golf course within the subdivision. Alderman Young suggested an incentive could be put into the rate studies to reduce the flow into Fayetteville's plant. McCord answered a question from Schaper regarding discharging into lakes on the property. It will be used to irrigate the golf course. There is a separate fresh water lake system in addition to this. Alderman Schaper felt this was a lot of water to be used for irrigation on a golf course. • 1.72 May 7, 1996 McCord questioned the relevancy ofthe current discussion., The request before the Council is to comply with State law as far as the designated planning map is concerned. Kevin Crosson further answered Alderman Williams question from above. Referring to paragraph 10, the intent was that anything pertaining to something that needs to be hooked up to our system through the Farmington contract would have to be reviewed and approved by City staff. City. Attorney Rose stated that McCord made a very good point. The contract we have with Farmington is what it is. If our purpose is to avoid this subdivision being hooked up at some future date to the Farmington system which hooks up to us, we have some defenses which could be explored at the appropriate time. 'That is not why McCord is here today. He is here to try to get a resolution that we are abiding by State law. The State law is very simple and direct. If the corporate limits of two or more municipalities are less than ten miles apart, the limits of their jurisdictions shall be a line equidistant between. If -you draw that on the map, it puts it on the Farmington side and not our • side so it is not a part of our planning area under State law. Rose was concerned about the redundancy of doing something already provided for by State law. He has been informed by. McCord that he is getting ready to issue some bonds .and the bond counsel would like such a resolution in order to straighten.up•some ofour maps. Alderman Williams recalled that the Council had turned this down because of concerns about our treatment plant and the cost of building a new one orexpanding the one we have. He..would like to extend as far as possible the time when we will have to build a new plant. We might want to relook at any contracts we .have with municipalities and give us some right to limit how much flow ;we will accept, though it may be too late to do that. This may be. something the Water & Sewer Committee should look at. Crosson stated that in a roundabout way we may have -already asked our consultant to do that. We have a sewer system consultant looking at our entire system. These concerns.will be•passed onto them. McCord stated there will be an on-site wastewater treatment: plant and the developer does not want to annex to Farmington. Alderman Williams moved the resolution. Young seconded. Alderman Williams .answered City Attorney Rose's question_as to which resolution had been moved, the original one in the agenda packet or the more general one given out at the meeting. Williams was looking at the more general one. 173 May 7, 1996 City Attorney Rose read the resolution. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 59-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE TOWN CENTER BOND ISSUE - MITCHELL LAW FIRM Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration a letter approving a letter agreement with the Mitchell Law Firm to perform bond counsel services in connection with the proposed issuance of bonds, which would be issued to develop and construct a town center and parking garage in downtown Fayetteville. The cost of $18,500 plus out-of- pocket expenses will be financed through the bond proceeds. Alderman Schaper stated this seems premature. The Council has not seen anything about the town center. It is being handled by the Advertising & Promotion Commission. It is not known if the Council will approve such a project. Alderman Williams responded that the City will not be out a penny if this doesn't go all the way through. They will only get their money if the bonds go through and are authorized by the Council and the citizens. Alderman Young stated the Council will not approve it, the A&P Commission does. Mayor Hanna reiterated these fees will only be paid if and when the bond issue is approved. Alderman Schaper was concerned about the blurry lines between commissions and governments. Alderman Parker shared this concern. These folks are going to do the preparations at their own expense in anticipation of these bonds being passed. He did not see why the Council should vote on anything that appropriates, however indirectly, money. They can make that preparation without our legitimizing it. We are not supposed to be appropriating money, yet there is a specific figure on here. They are supposed to be doing this at their own risk. He asked why this step is necessary. Alderman Williams guessed this is so that they are not just volunteers. If it is approved all the way, this is the figure they will get. If we had no contract, they would certainly be volunteers not knowing what they would be paid or if they would be paid. 174• May 7, 1996 Alderman Young stated if they were volunteers, .there would be no guarantee that the A&P would use their advice. City Attorney Rose explained some of the other things they would prepare. If the A&P Commission and the Council want to go forward with this thing, they would prepare some of the documents that they would suggest we pass in order to do those bonds. They would perhaps prepare the appropriate resolutions for the A&P Commission. They would more likely than not prepare the ordinance calling for the election. All of these things would be an integral part of the bond package they put together. All of it is contingent upon whether or not the voters approve it. It is nothing unusual. It happens in every bond that we have ever issued. • Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated that his staff brought this forward at this time because there are some things they need to begin working on. There are some questions that'have come up in the A&P Commission that need to be answered by a bond counsel. It is prudent . to negotiate the price before the work starts. This clearly spells out that the fee is contingent on the closing of the bond issue. Their fees will be paid by proceeds of the bond, not out of operating funds. This is simply to get them on board to answer the legal questions that. arise. This is the counsel we used when we refinanced the bonds to take advantage of lower interest rates. Alderman Bassett spoke as a member of the A&P Commission.. It isa correct that we are not committing anything here. This is good business and a good way to handle this. He wanted to make it clear that the A&P Commission is trying to put together something they believe would be good for the community and acceptable to the community. It will have to be affordable, with no tax.. increase: It will have to be financed through the bond issue. This Council will have to sign off on it and, ultimately, the people will have to vote. Mayor Hanna answered a question from Alderman Schapertregarding when this would comebefore the Council. It will come to the Council when the feasibility study is finished and we find out if the revenues we have will support what we would.like to build. .At. some point the A&P Commission will have to decide if we will accept whatthearchitects say we can do. Alderman Bassett did not know what the timetable for this is. It is discussed at every Commission meeting. Mayor Hanna stated the feasibility study is supposed to be finished by July. 175 May 7, 1996 Alderman Bassett's opinion is that this will only pass by the voters if it is affordable and can be done with no tax increase and if it meets the parking needs and if it is pretty and compatible with the square. At this stage, all of this is being addressed and will be a part of this project. Alderman Young hoped the feasibility study would study more than whether or not we can afford it. One of his concerns is about its use. He does not want to see an empty building sitting there. Alderman Schaper stated the one trouble when you have lawyers doing work in anticipation of bonds passing is the opinions go toward favoring the passing of such projects. Alderman Parker questioned the wording on this. It says the fee for the representation is $18,500 and is contingent on the closing of the bond issue. It goes on to mention being reimbursed for various out of pocket costs such as filing fees, publication fees, long distance phone calls, photocopying, and travel expenses which are to be billed directly to the City. This doesn't seem to say that these costs are contingent on the closing of the bonds. This is separate from their legal fee. It looks like we are buying into those costs directly. Mayes stated that historically the only costs we've paid are publication costs, where we publish the bond ordinance in a local newspaper, which we coordinate. Parker stated it is obvious this was written in anticipation of us paying the other costs. Mayes did not see that it was meant that way, but it could be changed. That could be struck. Alderman Parker moved to strike this paragraph. Schaper seconded. City Attorney Rose stated the amendment. They are only to be paid for their out-of-pocket costs should the bond issue go through. Mayor Hanna stated the resolution provides that the out-of-pocket expenses will be financed through the bond proceeds. Mayes suggested adding, "These expenses are contingent upon the closing also." Alderman Williams read item D from the agenda, "The cost of $18,500 plus out-of-pocket expenses will be financed through the bond proceeds." He moved that resolution. Daniel seconded. Mayor Hanna pointed out there is an amendment on the floor. 176 May 7, 1996 Alderman Parker stated it is not what's on the agenda the Council would be voting for. It is the letter agreement they would vote on. Two different things arestated. One is that we should limit our payments to the publication. In other words, their out-of- pocket expenses comes out of their $18,500, which is contingent on the bond closing. Under this letter of agreement, if we approve it, we will pay additional money for those expenses. City Attorney Rose offered to clear this up and bring it back to the Council. They will be paid only if the bond issue goes through and will be paid out of the bond proceeds. Alderman Williams moved to table the item until the next meeting. Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to O. . BID WAIVER --USED BUS Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance approving=a bid waiver -for the purchase of a used passenger bus which will be utilized in the Community Adult Center Transportation Program. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to thesecond reading. Miller seconded. Upon roll.call,the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Schaper moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Daniel seconded., Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Rose read the ordinance for the third time. ..Alderman Williams spoke for the Equipment Committee and gave a 'history of this item. We bought the '86 bus with 100,000 miles,on it It has almost 200,000 miles now and is getting pretty old. .Buying used vehicles has worked out well.. Wer are trying -to stick b: with all diesel as they are safer, have less maintenance, and get 'better mileage. Miller assured Alderman Daniel it would be air conditioned. Mayor Hanna asked for other questionsor comments. none, he called for the vote. There being Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a. vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3966 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK • May 7, 1996 BID WAIVER--AS/400 177 Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance approving a bid waiver for the purchase of additional disk storage for the AS/400. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams questioned the expense of this. Alderman Schaper stated this is the problem in having an IBM AS/400 system. No one else builds compatible stuff. Scott Huddleston, Data Processing Manager, stated we are buying for our mid-range computer system that all our accounting records and utility billing run on. It is quite a bit more expensive than personal computer storage. Changing to something else, such as PC network servers, would mean completely redoing all our systems. This purchase is approximately 60% of what we have now. We've gone since about '92 on our current level, which is 10 GB, and we are adding another 6. This comes with a controller that can handle more disks and we can add another 16 GB on top of this. Half of this cost is the controller. This is mainly for our utility billing and accounting records. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Schaper moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Alderman Parker requested that the Council be given sometime in the future a ball park figure of the expense of replacing and upgrading the system and our existing critical software. Mayor Hanna asked for further questions or comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0. VACATION VA96-5 0t 34f7 Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance vacating a utility easement located across lot 94 of Sequoyah Meadows Phase II as requested by Northwest Engineers on behalf of C.W. Combs 178 May 7, 1996 City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Young stated he works for thecompany handling this so.he would not participate in the discussion and will abstain on the vote. Alderman Schaper moved to suspend the:rules and go to.the second reading. Alderman Williams noted Alderman Miller was not present and would be needed for the vote. •He did not see any problems with.this.. It passed the Planning Commission without any problems. ,The staff didn't have any problems with this. There was no planned use for this. At this point, Alderman Williams, seconded the motion. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1, with Young abstaining. Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Parker moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6-0-1, with Young abstaining. . Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for questions or comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6-0-1, with Young abstaining. ORDINANCE 3968 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK VACATION VA96-6 Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration an ordinance vacating an easement and right-of-way located .on the proposed senior. center' site as requested by Daryl'Rantis for the Council on Aging. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Williams stated we need this in order tohavethe senior citizen center constructed at Walker Park. Alderman Daniel noted this passed unanimously at the Planning Commission. Alderman Parker movedto suspend the rules and go t� the second reading. Miller seconded. Upon roll call; the motion passed on a vote of 7 to O. 3 179 May 7, 1996 Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for comments or questions about this ordinance. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, explained how this arrangement works. We lease the land to them to construct the senior center and we also contribute money out of our community development block grant. They will have to raise the other funds. There will also be funds from the hamburger tax. This land was part of our park land and was approved by the Parks Board. Daryl Rantis, architect, answered a question regarding when the senior citizen center will be built. There has been enough money raised for the first phase and there are plans to go to bid in August. Some adult day care facilities of about 2,000 sq. ft. have been added to the original design. That was shown to the parks commission. They hope to raise all the money to do all the phases at once. However, being fiscally responsible, they have asked to have it designed so it can be phased so they can get going with a part of it. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 7 to 0. ORDINANCE 3969 APPEARS ON PAGE OF BOOK WATER & SEWER STUDY - BLACK & VEATCH Mayor Hanna introduced for consideration a resolution awarding a contract to Black & VEATCH Engineers to perform a water and sewer operations study and a water and sewer rate study. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, responded to a question from Alderman Daniel, who was under the impression this company had already been hired. There are actually two reports. One is an operations study of the water and sewer system required by our current water and sewer bonds. The second report is a revenue requirement cost of services rate study, which we do approximately every five years. We currently have a sewer system study going on that is much more detailed and is being performed by CH2M Hill. Black & Veatch did bid on that project. • 180 May 7, 1996 Alderman Young stated there were two considerations looked at. One was time constraint. These studies are required by the bond. Black & Veatch had some edge here because they had done one, before for Fayetteville. Another consideration was that they mentioned the wholesale users like Elkins. They were aware of the wholesale customers we have. Others did not mention it. Alderman Miller was glad to have found out at the Water & Sewer meeting that Black & Veatch will be consulting with CH2M Hill to be sure there is no overlap in their studies.We had budgeted $90,000 for this, and it will cost about $59,000. He gave credit for the savings to very good record keeping by the staff. Alderman Young wondered if there could be included in this study a small report or outline of the various methods used around the country for figuring impact fees. Blaine Bickel, Black & Veatch, stated'they would be happy to do that. There are about three generally accepted methods for water and wastewater. That material is available and he will send it to Sharon Crosson. Alderman Young moved to adopt the resolution. Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0, RESOLUTION. 60-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE OFF -PREMISES SIGNS Mayor Hanna introduced for conideration •a .resolution supporting the Washington County Quorum Court in its efforts to pass an ordinance to regulate off -premises signs along scenic and other roadways in Washington County. Alderman Daniel stated this passed the Quorum Court but was brought up again and on the first reading was repealed. It will come up on a second reading -this Thursday.-, One of the JP's asked her to 'present this resolution. Alderman Parker stated if we had an issue we were going to decide and the Quorum Court felt interested enough that they wanted to provide their input, that would not be seen as them trying to control or bully the Council. He would welcome their input. They may not have the same perceptions towards the Council's input, but our intent would be only to express of our concern. Alderman Williams supported the earlier ordinance that is now in danger of being repealed. However, .this may be taking the wrong way and may look like we are trying to influence where we should not have influence. City government is below county government. 181 May 7, 1996 Alderman Bassett stated there are instances when resolutions are appropriate, but we need to be careful of passing a resolution on every issue that's out there. He personally believes in the billboard ordinance but is not completely familiar with it and does not think it is appropriate for the Council to tell another legislative body what to do. It is perfectly all right for us as citizens of Fayetteville to tell our representatives what we think. He would not vote for this resolution. Mayor Hanna asked for comments from the audience. There were none. Alderman Young was leery of voting for things relative to politics. Voting to protect our water is one thing, but he would be uncomfortable voting just on politics or policy. Alderman Schaper questioned the wording. The ordinance to ban the billboards is already passed. This being the case, he suggested the "whereas" clauses in the resolution do not seem right. The Section 1 part is okay. He hoped we could use whatever influence we can with other governmental bodies. We do reside in Washington County, even though we are a sub -unit of government. They are taking our lead in this, from our sign ordinance. A recommendation to them saying this worked for us and we support your efforts is fine. Alderman Daniel thought the opening paragraph did not sound right either. Alderman Parker stated that since they voted to appeal, this would be a clear enough expression without spending time to tinker with the language. This would not be legally binding. It is dust our input into the process. Alderman Bassett wondered whether or not this resolution might hurt the cause. Alderman Williams agreed there is some resentment toward Fayetteville from Quorum Court members not from Fayetteville, since we are the biggest city. Alderman Daniel appreciated the comments and withdrew this resolution. GARAGE SALE ORDINANCE - CONT'D The Council was under the impression the garage sale ordinance had passed. City Attorney Rose now called the Council's attention to the fact that State law requires a majority of members elected to the Council in order to pass an ordinance. Accordingly, he asked the Mayor to vote on this item. If he voted against it, it would be a tie and would fail. 182 May 7, 1996 Alderman Parker stated that given the fact that the pleasure of the majority of the members present- was to vote for the .ordinance and if the Council wished to reconduct the' vote, he would change his vote and vote for it. City Attorney Rose said the Council could do a motion to reconsider and put it back up again, since the meeting had not adjourned. Alderman Parker moved to reconsider. Young seconded. Upon roll call the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Mayor Hanna called for the vote for the garage sale ordinance. -Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 5 to 2, with Daniel and Bassett voting no. ORDINANCE 3970 APPEARS ON PAGE OTHER BUSINESS Hobbs Mountain OF ORDINANCE 'BOOK Alderman Parker hada correction of something that appeared in the newspaper because it goes against the rules the Council operates by. Regarding the report of his testimony in the Hobbs Mountain hearing, it was quoted that he was denied the opportunity to speak for the Fayetteville City Council.. He specifically told them that aldermen cannot represent the City. Highway 265 Alderman Parker also had an item regarding Highway 265. He was talking with the folks of the highway department a't their public hearing about the fact that Fayetteville had expressed interest through a resolution in having a four -lane boulevard if it would not delay the project. The highway department people said Fayetteville'needs to tell them if they will officially take on the extra expenses like maintenance of the boulevard strip or additional right-of-ways that might be required. When making their decision, they need to know if we will supply the money if they did decide to make a four -lane boulevard. A letter needs to be sent stating our willingness to pay the additional costs. This would influence their decision making process. Charles Venable, Assistant to the Public Works Director, stated a letter had been written last year in which this was stated. He will get copies of this for the Council. Mayor Hanna stated that a letter was just written reiterating the City's wholehearted support of the resolution as presented. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:47. it