Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-16 Minutes295 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council was held on Tuesday, July 16, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Room of the City Administration Building, 113 W. Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Vice Mayor Woody Bassett; Aldermen Jimmy Hill, Len Schaper, Heather Daniel, Stephen Miller, Kit Williams, Cyrus Young, and Steve Parker; City Attorney Jerry Rose, City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; members of staff, press, and audience. ABSENT: Mayor Hanna CALL TO ORDER Vice Mayor Bassett called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL--THOMPSON VS. SWEETSER & CITY Vice Mayor Bassett announced there was a request to advance item six on the agenda to the front. The Council had agreed to do this. Vice Mayor Bassett introduced for consideration approval of the settlement proposal, Thompson vs. Sweetser & City of Fayetteville, E95-747. He asked for comments from City Attorney Rose. City Attorney Rose stated Attorney Pearson has written an extensive history of this. Approximately 12 acres was given to the City along a tributary of Mud Creek behind the Azalea subdivision. The property owners there objected to our acquisition and proposed trail. Two neighbors have filed suit alleging they own the property through adverse possession. This is a proposed settlement of that case. One settlement has been before the Council and rejected. This is a new settlement in which the City will give 50' of property to the Azalea Terrace and Brookeside East subdivisions' landowners to give them a buffer between the City and proposed use of the property. This proposal has been to the Parks & Recreation Advisory Board. The Council was given their recommendation in the packet. Their stipulations were that there would be no further request of the City in regards to buffer zones, that there would be no expense to the City for survey or deed preparation, and that all property owners agree to the settlement. At the agenda session, it came out that the property owners want to be treated as any other property owners in regard to the request for any future buffer zones, that there would be no expense to the City for surveys or deed preparation, and Mr. Butt was making efforts to get the assurances of all property owners along that area that they agree to the settlement. 1 July 16,..1996 Alderman Miller stated that the Trails Committee discussed this and agreed to the settlement. Alderman Daniel asked if all the landowners had signed. Attorney Jack Butt stated he did not have everyone's signature. He has about one third of the signatures. Mike Thompson is the plaintiff in the action and two of his neighborsassure him that all the neighbors are satisfied with the settlement and.will sign. Alderman Williams commended both the attorneys, Mr. Butt and Mr.. Pearson, for being able to work out this settlement which is acceptable to the neighborhood and beneficial to the City and everybody who wants to use Gulley Park and this trail. He stated it should be made contingent that all the terms presented, including the consent of Mr. Butt's clients, be included. Alderman Parker stated he would agree with this if it were a motion except not dust Mr. Butt's clients but all the owners who would have causes of action. Attorney Butt stated he is representing owners of lots five through twenty-one, he does not represent the owners of lots one through four. Their property is not part of what is disputed. Alderman Williams explained that he meant those individuals as Mr.. Butt's clients even though Mr. Butt is working primarily for the single individual. Alderman Miller was curious about there being no surveying involved and wondered who delineates what 50' is and how it would be done. • Attorney Pearson stated it will be 50' abutting and directly contiguous to the north for each property. Alderman Daniel stated the Parks & Recreation Committee,also gave their blessing to this, which was important. She thanked Jerry Sweetser and family for relinquishing all credit for greenspace in this. It is generous of them. Alderman Parker stated he would like to see all property owners agree to the. settlement as was recommended. The Parks & Recreation board gave the recommendation to approve this if all property owners agree Alderman Williams stated it is all property owners who abut, this12. acre tract.' City Attorney Rose stated it was five through twenty-one as he read it in the resolution. It 297 July 16, 1996 Alderman Parker asked if there were other lots along the route. Rose referred to the map which showed the only abutting property owners are lots five through twenty-one. Alderman Parker stated this satisfied his curiosity. Attorney Pearson amplified comments made by Alderman Daniel. The Sweetsers are not only giving up their credit of $57,000, they have also agreed to provide labor and equipment up to $10,000 for that to be developed as a nature trail. Alderman Williams stated he would make a motion or a resolution that we accept this settlement proposal with the conditions that the affected abutting property owners do consent. Daniel seconded. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for any further comments or discussion. Attorney Butt stated the Sweetsers reserved the property behind lots three and four. He has never talked to those property owners and does not represent them. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for further comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 82-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE REPORT FROM OZARK THEATER COMMITTEE Lance Weatherton stated there are two separate parties interested in purchasing and restoring the Ozark Theater. One proposal submitted by Sharon Hoover, an architect out of Houston, is lengthy with quite a bit of detail. The committee is working with her to finalize the proposal. The committee has also been contacted by Hayden Mcllroy who is working on preparing a proposal which the committee hopes to receive in August. At this time he wanted the Council to know the committee is working on making a recommendation. He asked for any questions. Alderman Williams asked what the use of the first group would be. Mr. Weatherton stated the Hoovers are proposing loft apartments for the second and third floors, anywhere between five and ten of them. The committee is encouraging her to keep the first floor more public. A specific use for the first floor has not been identified but she is leaning towards retail or commercial space. 3 :F ' ) t July 16, 1996 Alderman Schaper stated the Hoover proposal. was the only proposal received under the timetable- set for receiving proposals. The Mcllroy letter came far later. He asked, ifthe committee was recommending waiting for more concrete information. Mr. Weatherton stated this is correct. The committee is proceeding, because the Hoovers have submitted a lengthy proposal. =A11 they have left to identify is the property behind the buildirig' They are focusing on restoring and/or renovating the existing building, The committee has made clear to them since their second submission that the property behind the building is included. Alderman Williams asked if the committee `.-- Hayden Mcllroy was planning. Mr. Weatherton did not know at this time. He stated Mcllroy has contacted a local architect to do some investigations and put some ideas together. He has not yet identified a specific use. Alderman Schaper expressed concern in this kind of arrangement where you are giving away the building. He asked if the committee was thinking about some guarantees. In the past City property has been given away and what was promised never happened and.the City had no recourse. In this case, if we do let go of this property, we should insist on performance and a reversion clause. Alderman Williams felt there would be problems doing anything below market value. We might be able to say the market value•of this land would be such -and -such but with the cost of renovation or demolition, the market value of this land is almost nothing, which is what we paid for it. Alderman Parker stated we could while we might be able to raze purposes .at a. higher price,. revitalization of the downtown selling below market value. also proceed from the basis that it then sell it for commercial it is in the interest: of the to do this, so we could justify Alderman Schaper agreed. However, if we do this and what we;think will happen to the property doesn't happen then it is owned by somebody else who can go out and sell it or whatever. There should be -some hooks because we are buying into a specific idea. If that doesn't happen, the City should get it back and get another shot at doing it with someone else. .Mr. Weatherton referred back to the deadline for proposals. Hoover submitted after the deadline, which is another reason the committee accepted Mcllroy's interest. The committee is still discussing whether they can set criteria or guidelines for the building. What they have resorted to is that their recommendation would be based 299 July 16, 1996 on if any of the criteria the committee established was included in the proposal. The Hoovers have agreed to set a certain time frame to start construction to a point they could inhabit the building. They hope to restore a certain amount, move in, and keep construction going. They have offered to somewhat restore the facade. The committee had set the criteria that they would like to see the facade restored back to an early 1930's rendition. That proved to probably be too costly. The Hoovers have tried to address as much criteria as our committee suggested, so the committee felt if they would set a time frame to start construction, they will be sure the building will not sit for another five or ten years untouched. They have agreed to that. Alderman Schaper asked City Attorney Rose if we could build into the contract that if the proposed renovation is not accomplished according to a reasonable schedule it would revert back to the City. City Attorney Rose stated this could be worked out. Alderman Daniel stated that we cannot expect a restoration as it is much too expensive, but the Hoovers do want to at least give an idea of the old building. We cannot be really choosy about what goes in the building as long as it is economically feasible. Alderman Williams expressed his appreciation of the committee's efforts to save this structure. OLD BUSINESS CONDEMNATION Vice Mayor Bassett introduced for consideration an ordinance approving the condemnation of a portion of property located on the northeast corner of the intersection of Leverett and Sycamore for the installation of a traffic signal pole. This ordinance was table at the July 2 Council meeting. Charles Venable, Assistant to Public Works Director, stated there has been no response to the letter written. His recommendation was to proceed with the condemnation. The taking has been reduced a little. The controller will be located on the southeast corner rather than the northeast corner. We need to take about 105 sq. ft. We need that much because of the other utilities there. Public Works Director Kevin Crosson stated it has been reduced from 140 sq. ft. to 110 sq. ft. City Attorney Rose stated the ordinance states 15' by 15' and may need an amendment. First we need to take it off the table. 5 July 16, 1996 Alderman Williams moved. to take it off the table._ Daniel..seconded. Upon roll call, the motion .passed on a vote of 8 to 0.. . City Attorney Rose stated we have an ordinance authorizing eminent domain proceedings for the City to obtain a 15' x 15' portion.of property located on the, northeast corner .of the intersection of Leverett and Sycamore and a property description attached as exhibit A which describes that 15' by 15'. We will have'to amend it if we go smaller than that. Mr. Venable stated the actual size would be reduced to 12''x 13.7': it -1.s the same.corner with-the•area reduced asmuch as possible -City Attorney Rose asked for a motion to amend this froml5' x 15' to.12'x13.7'. - Alderman.Miller so moved. Daniel seconded. Upon roll call the .-motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Vice Mayor Bassett stated the ordinance has been amended and is on its second reading. He asked for any discussion. Alderman Hill stated he did not have a copy of the ordinance. Alderman Parker stated he did not have a copy of where it had been moved to. Alderman Hill stated the action required still mentions the installation of the traffic:signal --.control box. If that's in there, we need to amend it out. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance in its entirety for the second time. Alderman Williams. stated a traffic signal pole,was his.:amendment•. Alderman:Schaper.seconded. Upon roll call, the amendment_passed,on a vote of 8to 0. r Alderman Williams- moved- to go to,thethird.and final. reading.. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll all, the motion passed ona vote of -8 to O. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for ,the third time., Vice Mayor Bassett asked for comments from the audience.. There were none. He..then asked for comments from the Council: Alderman Parker stated he hoped they settle, that something is worked out. ,If not, this is an;appropriate step.-.. 301 July 16, 1996 Alderman Daniel agreed. This is an awful intersection. There being no further discussion, Vice Mayor Bassett called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3985 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK RAZE & REMOVAL Vice Mayor Bassett introduced for consideration a resolution approving the raze and removal of a structure at 414 S. Government Avenue. This item was tabled at the July 2 Council meeting. Mike McKimmey reported that there has been no progress since the last meeting. There is a foundation full of partially burned debris. Mr. Mahler has expressed that he wants to save the foundation. He has taken on five properties. McKimmey stated he has a certain willingness to let Mahler continue his good work. Mahler has been out of town for at least a week. He has satisfied the raze and removal. He has removed the structure. It is not a hazard. Alderman Williams thought an open foundation with charred remains is a hazard. Alderman Schaper stated he would still have 30 days and suggested passing the resolution. Alderman Young asked what would be done by the City if this was passed. He was informed the City would contract out the removal of the foundation in 30 days unless it was specified not to. Vice Mayor Bassett asked what argument could be made for leaving the foundation. Mike McKimmey stated the owner's argument is it is a piece of his property and a start at rebuilding. Alderman Williams stated the Council was clear at its last meeting that they would not table this again. It had been tabled several times. We should go ahead and pass this tonight. If he is serious about wanting to save the foundation, then he needs to clear the debris out of it. That would satisfy the requirements, as long as it is no longer unsightly, unsafe, unsanitary and everything else we have in our resolution. Alderman Schaper asked how deep the foundation is and if there is a danger of someone falling into it. 7 302 July 16, 1996 McKimmey answered there is no danger as .it is five bricks high at the deepest point and three bricks generally. Alderman Schaper agreed with Williams that this should be passed and the owner still has 30 days to get it cleaned up. We need to put folks on notice that weare serious about this kind of action. Kevin Crosson was concernedabout making sure we clarify that. When we have done these things in the past, we required everything to be cleared off, including the foundation. Alderman Williams moved to amend the resolution to clear all the debris, everything but the foundation. Miller seconded. Alderman Hill asked Mike McKimmey if the foundation meets all the codes and standards. Alderman Young stated this will come up if he wants to build on it and get abuilding permit. Bert Rakes, Inspection Division Director, stated this foundation and footing is a lot newer than the building was. The foundation was inspected and meets codes. The footing is all right.• This could be used to build on again. The building was moved in for this foundation. Alderman Parker asked if the owner cleared the debris out during the 30 day period and left the foundation, would the City have incurred any expense in letting a contract. He was told nothing would be done until the 30 days is up. Parker suggested giving the owner notice that if he didn't clear off everything but the_ foundation within 30 days, the City would clear off everything. This might be added incentive for him to get it done. Alderman Schaper had a reservation regarding keeping the foundation. It could sit there five years before he decides he is ready to build. Alderman Williams thought as it is not very tall, it would not be hazardous. Alderman Schaper stated it may not be hazardous but it is unsightly. 'Alderman Miller stated we hundreds of lots all over where would it end. - can't go by aesthetics or we'd be busting town for weeds, trash, foundations, and Vice Mayor Bassett asked Alderman Williams to restate his -motion. 303 July 16, 1996 Alderman Williams stated his motion was to not require the foundation to be removed but require all the debris be removed. Alderman Parker asked if the City had to go in and do that, would the City take out the foundation. Alderman Williams stated his motion says just the debris. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for public comment regarding the amendment. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Vice Mayor Basset asked for further comment on the resolution as amended. Alderman Schaper stated he would like to tack on a requirement that the owner begin building on the foundation within two years or remove the foundation. We should not allow the foundation to hang around forever. Vice Mayor Bassett asked if this was in the form of a proposed amendment. Schaper responded yes. There was no second. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for other comments. Alderman Williams moved to pass the resolution as amended. Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 83-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AMEND PARKING ORDINANCE Vice Mayor Bassett introduced for consideration an ordinance amending Section 72.99 of the Code of Fayetteville to increase the cost of parking violations to $5 which would rise to $10 if not paid within 72 hours and establishing other penalties for habitual violators. This ordinance was left on the second reading at the July 2 Council meeting. Vice Mayor Bassett stated there was a discussion about this in the agenda session. He recalled that the general agreement was that the Council wanted to vote up or down the proposed increase and there was a request for additional time on other things involved. Ben Mayes, Administrative Services Director, stated he'd asked for additional time primarily to look at the writing of tickets to multiple offenders. We can do that, but it would be very difficult with our current system. We need to look at the possible 9 July 16, 1996 acquisition of hand-held meter devices that can do that for us. We also want to work with the City Prosecutor to be sure we -do it right. We have not had time to sit down with the prosecutor and to get information on hand-held meters. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Vice Mayor Basset called for discussion from the Council. Alderman Williams supported voting this down. He has noticed that since we've been enforcing the parking ordinance, there are many more spaces than there used to be. The only problem remaining is the few multi -ticket violators. Alderman Daniel concurred. She did not favor raising the fine to $5 at this point. There will be some changes in the future that will increase the traffic. Alderman Parker stated the problem is the habitual offenders. We need to deal specifically with the individuals who: are repeat offenders and for whom we need specialized equipment. He would like to table this thing until the Council gets a report on how the administration thinks it would be feasible to deal with acquisition of new equipment and repeat offenders. Alderman Miller stated he is against raising the fine as it would discourage people from coming to the Square•and it is the habitual people who are the problem. He would be amenable to voting, this down and starting from scratch. Vice Mayor Bassett agreed the habitual offenders are the essence of the problem. He opposed the increase under any circumstances as it sends the wrong message. He is also anxious to work out a way to deal with the repeat offenders. Alderman Schaper stated the Council does have a strong recommendation from the merchants inthat area, who are the folks we are trying to help, that they would like this raised to $5 rather than $2. He did agree that the merchants' recommendations did not take into account our ability to wage. an effective battle against repeat offenders. That is a new item in the equation. We need to look at the whole thing and not dust a piece of it. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for public comment. There being none, he called forthe vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance failed on a unanimous vote. 10 305 July 16, 1996 CONSENT AGENDA Vice Mayor Bassett introduced for consideration 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 25 special City Council meeting and the July 2 regular City Council meeting; B. A resolution approving an engineering contract with McGoodwin, Williams & Yates, Inc., in the amount of $29,725 plus a 10°% contingency of $3,000 for the Fox Hunter Rd. Sewer Transmission Line Replacement Project; RESOLUTION 84-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, C. A resolution approving the swap of several State highways and City streets as contained in Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department Minute Order Number 95-105 dated June 4, 1996; RESOLUTION 85-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, D. A resolution approving a revised Investment Policy to allow participation in the Arkansas Local Government Cash Management Trust as an additional option for the investment of City moneys; RESOLUTION 86-95 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, Alderman Schaper moved the approval of the consent agenda. Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. NEW BUSINESS CABLE BOARD Vice Mayor Bassett introduced an ordinance amending Ordinance 3549 to provide for two additional members to the Cable Board for a total of seven members. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Cassandra Barnett, Cable Board, explained why the board has asked for the addition of two members. First, the franchise negotiations are coming up and they anticipate a lot of preparatory work and would like to be able to spread the workload out. The second problem encountered this year is there were three meetings without a quorum and no business could be conducted. Two of those meetings 11 306 July 16, 1996 were consecutive. They would like to add a couple of members so they could better do the job. Alderman Young stated he occasionally attends Cable Board meetings and has noticed the necessity of having more members. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for comments and discussion from the Council. Alderman Miller moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Young seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0, with Daniel not present. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams moved to go to the third and final reading. Hill seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 0, with Daniel not present. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for further discussion. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3986 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK INVESTMENT POLICY Vice Mayor Bassett introduced an ordinance allowing the.City of Fayetteville to participate in the Arkansas Local Cash Management Trust as an additional option for the investment of City moneys,. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for discussion. - Alderman Daniel stated this was dreamed up by the Municipal League and their primary interest is cities. They are a trustworthy entity. To make this work, you have to have reliable people- on staff who have to' make quick decisions. Ben- Mayes, ,our Administrative Services Director, is very capable as is his staff. This would be a beneficial way for us to have our money earn a little extra for us. Alderman Williams- stated this was extensively discussed. in the previous agenda session. Our funds will be quite safe in this agreement. Ben Mayes agreed with this and added they would be very liquid. 12 307 July 16, 1996 Alderman Williams stated they are backed by Federal government securities. Ben Mays agreed they are either invested directly in government securities or if invested in a certificate of deposit they are collateralized with government securities. Alderman Young stated the way this agreement is set up now is fine. He had a concern about the long term. If people in Little Rock changed the way things are done, he wants to make sure the people of Fayetteville are protected. The legislature would have to do something, that would give notice. This would have to be amended or any future Council would have to vote to change the type of investments, which would give notice to the people. Any of these investments are open to freedom of information. Ben Mayes stated we will continue to competitively bid our investments each week and only use this as an option if it provides a better interest or return. Our investment policy states that our first criteria is to maintain our investment, not risk it. Vice Mayor Bassett stated this is a good option. He has been impressed with the way the City has managed its money. The most important thing is it is safe. We are talking about safe investments. He invited Dennis Hunt from Stephens, Inc., to make any comments he had. Mr. Hunt said he had no comments but would answer any questions. Alderman Parker stated he was not at the agenda session and this is a complex issue. It seems like this is for short-term investments. We are already investing our money; this would just enable us to gap -fill or take advantage of strategies not available to us now. He asked if there was any significant difference in the private profits made off the investment of City money under this plan as opposed to the current bidding we do. Mayes answered that this trust is set up where they have hired one investment manager, Stephens, Inc., so anytime you utilize this plan it would go through the Municipal League and to that investment adviser. It is up to the Municipal League and the trust that is set up to hire the investment advisor. For now, that is Stephens. It can change anytime they want to. The City will look at what is the yield or returns to the City, net of profits of Stephens, if that is who the advisor is. We will first bid locally and competitively. Stephens bids our investments now as does Boatman's, Arvest, Citizens Bank, Merrill Lynch, Dean Witter, everybody who has an office in Fayetteville. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for public comment. There was none. 13 308 Alderman Schaper moved to reading. Hill seconded. vote of 8 to 0. July 16, 1996 suspend the rules.and go.to the.second Upon roll call, the motion passed on a City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams moved to go to the third and final reading. Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Ben Mayes made an additional comment. We also.would put money in here when we want tokeep money very liquid, not only if there are no bids received. There are times where we have to keep large sums of money. We could keep money in this type of fund which gives.a much better yield than a regular interest-bearing checking account... There would be times for cash flow purposes that we would have money in here that may, not go through the bidding process. The money would be available on 24 hours notice. Alderman Parker asked if the quarterlybudget reportswould include something about utilization of this program. Mayes stated this could be done and that each agenda packet has a listing of investments for the period. Alderman Schaper stated the cost to go in is half a point and asked if this..is a fee on the amount of money invested. Dennis Hunt,Stephens Inc., stated their. fee is established with the trust. The half point is for Stephens as well as the Municipal League. Whatever is net is the return on investments. There is no additional cost, not cost to the City. Alderman Schaper stated we are not penalized for putting money short team. Hunt stated if that fee causes the interest rate , to be noncompetitive than you will select other alternatives. .He agreed with Alderman Schaper that it is not an ,up -front fee on the *principal. It is a half point off the interest rate. Vice. Mayor Bassett asked for other questions, comments, or discussion. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3987 APPEARS ON PAGE OR ORDINANCE BOOK 14 July 16, 1996 SOUTH INDUSTRIAL PARK LAND 309 Jim Cryder, Director of Economic Development, Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, spoke representing the Fayetteville Development Foundation, Inc., which operates under the auspices of the Chamber of Commerce. The Fayetteville Development Foundation owns two properties in the south industrial park. Technically, the one in question would be identified in Fayetteville Industrial Park West, which is an addition to the old south industrial park. They have a an acreage of about 24 acres. Lot 7 is the lot in question, AA on the map in the agenda packet. The other one is on Pump Station Road. The Foundation has received an offer to purchase 10.7 of the 12.7 acre lot, leaving two acres under the ownership of the Foundation. This is contingent on providing to the curbside water, sewer, gas, electricity, and telephone. All but two have been cleared. Sewer and water come under the umbrella of the City. The distance to bring in sewer to that site is about a thousand feet. At the agenda session he was advised it would cost roughly $30 a linear foot. Because of the bid process, it could go $30 to $60. This is a correction the Council should be advised of. The other preliminary estimate was a guesstimate of about $1,000 to bring water under Highway 156. We found out it will be about $110 a linear foot and other processes involved would be about $1,600. Cryder stated they are looking at a very good client. A client that wants to place a 70,000 sq. ft. processing and distribution facility, about 100 employees at the outset. In about two years they would expand about 50%, which would take it out over 100,000 under roof. These are good paying jobs as well. The Council should also deliberate what they would prefer to do about bringing water and sewer into this site. It is not just for the benefit of this site. There are other properties adjacent to this site that belong to the City. There would be a much better chance for them on the marketing block with these utilities available. Alderman Williams stated it was indicated at the agenda session that the Chamber was not making a profit on the sale of this land. He asked how long the Chamber has owned this land. Mr. Cryder agreed the Chamber is not making a profit and stated his best recollection is they have owned the land since the early '80's. They are selling it to pay off the debt on it. There is no profit to be realized from this. Alderman Parker asked what general type of product was being considered. Mr. Cryder stated it is a process, but he could not be specific. 15 July 16," 1996 ► . Alderman Williams stated the newspapers have reported that this is going to be a postal distribution center: Alderman Parker asked if there was precedence for this, bringing water. and sewer to corporations who have bought land from the City. Kevin Crosson stated the City has made investments with Superior Industries and K D Tools. Alderman Parker asked how many operations located there have had to pay their own way. He was told this was set up like a subdivision and a lot of the sewer and water lines were put in. Alderman Williams stated the idea behind an industrial park is to encourage industry to locate at this spot, so the City usually does things to encourage industry to come in there. Alderman Miller liked the fact that if the City brings water and sewer there it will also serve the other. properties there and hoped the lines would be big enough to accommodate adjacent properties. Alderman Williams asked what the time situation is for this buyer. Jim Cryder stated they are on a fairly. rapid pace. He. has an.offer he is waiting to sign off on. The contract is contingent on the City choosing to support the project. Alderman Schaper asked if this is the kind of running of.awater and sewer line that our in-house crews could do or would it have to be contracted out. Crosson answered we can do it but is a big project and he would hate to commit the time to it because it would take away from other projects. Fie had not been aware earlier that the water line would involve boring. We would have to contract the boring out. Alderman Williams stated there are a lot of residents on City Lake Road who do not have sewer service. It is .to Fayetteville's benefit to extend the sewer as far as possible throughout the city. Crosson stated this line would be brought from the east, so if the goal is to extend the sewer, it would be extended much further than just to that property. We are assuming a residential flow for internal bathrooms. They do not have an industrial use for this facility. City Attorney Rose stated a resolution could be passed to extend existing water and sewer lines to serve this site. 16 311. July 16, 1996 Alderman Parker asked if it would adversely affect this project to clarify it and get more on paper. Alderman Schaper stated the Council would have to approve the costs when the bids come in. Alderman Williams stated we would be committed to do it. City Attorney Rose agreed the Council would be committed but they might have a reason to turn down a specific project. Alderman Williams repeated something he brought up in the agenda session if the City agrees to spend this money, that the Burlington Northern Railroad former right-of-way would be saved for potential trails throughout the industrial park. That is one of the only areas in town that has the ability to have extensive trails. Alderman Miller stated he had spoken of this to Mr. Cryder who was amenable to this concept. Alderman Young stated this property has been platted and what is colored on the map is the south portion of the lot which does not include the right-of-way. Cryder agreed. Vice Mayor Bassett stated this is a lot of money but under the circumstances is a fair and reasonable use of City money. If a postal distribution center is built here, there might be other options available to the existing site that might be accommodating to the public in terms of getting in and out. He asked if a resolution needed to be passed. Attorney Rose suggested a general resolution but cautioned that in passing such a resolution the Council is committing itself to extending the water and sewer lines to the site. Alderman Miller stated this is like writing a blank check and asked if there was a way to limit this. Rose stated we have done it in the past by way of reimbursing cost up to a not -to -exceed figure. Alderman Schaper stated a not -to -exceed reimbursement is in the spirit of what Mr. Cryder is asking for and doesn't commit us to writing a blank check. Alderman Williams said the Council should keep in mind they were looking at other locations. He suggested bidding it out but not to exceed $77,000. 17 July 16,; 1996 City Attorney Rose agreed this,could be done,. to extend existing water and sewer lines to service the site at,a cost not to exceed $77,000. He assumed Alderman Williams has made a resolution to extend water and sewer lines to service the Site in question at a cost not to exceed $77,000. Alderman Williams stated that was his motion. Young seconded. Ben Mayes stated the Council should.go ahead and appropriate the funds. This could be brought back'next time. City:Attorney Rose confirmed that_. the Council wants to do>.the budget adjustment at the time thecontract comes before it, not now. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for comments from public and Council.. Lloyd Calhoun, audience member, stated he understood the City is proposing to pay the cost of this line to the new owner Not,too long ago, the neighborhood on Sunrise Mountain had been without City water, forever., They agreed with the City at that time to:pay '28%- for the cost of that line.. He doubted that wasa precedent, but if it was, it should be considered for anything else. He did notsee the difference between residential property and industrial ..,property; He knows What needs tb be..done .to.attract.an.industry, but in spite of that, the precedent has been . set and should be followed. That 20% would not be a crippling amount-. Alderman Hill asked if we were tieing the bringing of this line to the building of the facility or just. the purchase of the land: Crosson .stated .his preference would be a reimbursement but'the Council has asked that it be bid. City Attorney Rose stated there is nothing that would tie it to the building. Alderman Schaper stated if we do a fixed-price reimbursement, they have to be very careful of how they bid it and get the best deal they can. Alderman Parkerstated it might also stall for time when we would have to pay this up. Alderman Williams stated he thought it unlikely they would purchase this land then not build the facility. Alderman Hill stated it would be simple to base this on actual construction. 18 313 July 16, 1996 Alderman Schaper stated if you do this as a reimbursement, they will not go out there and put in water and sewer lines if they are not going to build a facility. So you do it as a reimbursement, they build it, and its a cost share instead of picking up the whole ticket. We do have to be careful with the taxpayer's money. Alderman Parker agreed we ought to treat a private buyer and the government the same. Especially in a case like this where the buyer has a bag over his head. Alderman Bassett stated there was a motion and a second and asked for final comments before voting. Alderman Miller asked the Council to keep in mind this is not just for this one business, it will open up water and sewer to the rest of the region. Alderman Hill stated he would prefer to see it as a reimbursement because we will save engineering and staff time. Alderman Williams asked if we would have to reimburse them for engineering costs we can do in house. It was agreed this would still be a cost. Alderman Parker stated it would then be $77,000 -plus and that would be included in the $77,000 we give. Alderman Schaper stated there may be an economy if they do it themselves. We are only building it to the curb line. They have to have somebody else come in and build that sewer and water to their facility. There may be an economy for one contract to be let to do the whole darn thing. Otherwise, you are engineering it twice, you have the equipment there twice, and everything else. Alderman Miller asked Mr. Cryder how the client would respond to engineering and contracting it then the City reimbursing them. We are starting to change the rules here. Mr. Cryder stated that in their proposal they are holding back a certain amount of money for installation of water and sewer. Alderman Hill asked Mr. Cryder if the client had a preference. Mr. Cryder replied that has not been discussed. Alderman Parker asked if Mr. Cryder had a problem with the Council passing it as reimbursable and then if that caused a problem coming back to alter it. 19 4 314 July 16, 1996 Alderman Williams offered to amend his resolution to say, that we do not commit the water., and sewer line -in until they begin. construction of their facility. He asked if the reimbursement was viewed as a way to spend less. Alderman Schaper answered that we could spend less and the total cost for doing the whole thing would also be.less. If we run it to the curb, they will have to have someone come in an run it to their building. Kevin Crosson stated the reason it makes more sense to go ahead on a reimbursement basis is they have their contractors working on that anyway. He asked what would you do if the. City has that contract and it's over your $77,000 limit. Then you have to turn to the post office or someone to pick up that extra cost. That is typically how deals like this have been done. Alderman Young stated we are talking about putting the main there. A plumber has to take it into the building. That is two different things. Alderman Williams asked if they should say reimbursement not to exceed $77,000. Alderman Schaper stated he did not want to write a blank check for the upper limit of what. Kevin Crosson's estimate is. It is dust a guesstimate. We should decide what it is worth to us to have that facility. We are not going to give that money away to -the post office if the cost is under that. Alderman Williams asked City Attorney Rose if there was a way, regarding the privately owned land this would run across, that we could recoup the expense of the sewer line if they eventually decide to tie into it, once we run it across their land. He also asked if the City would have to condemn some of their land and pay them or do we already have that. City Attorney Rose did not know if we Kevin Crosson also did not know this. map to determine the cost of pipe. We the Council has. • had the easements. All we've done is.look at a are working off the same map - Alderman Parker stated it would be nice to get that report on easements, get better maps, get some idea of what we've -got on "paper, and maybe even vote on it at a special meeting at the agenda session. Alderman Daniel asked who would have to pay for the land. 20 • 1 July 16, 1996 315 Crosson stated he did not think there was any right-of-way acquisition. Vice Mayor Bassett stated it was obvious that most everyone wanted to support this project. It is also obvious everyone is willing to make some financial commitment on behalf of the City. There does seem to be legitimate disagreement on how best to do this. There is also some concern about the amount. He asked if it is imperative that the Council make a decision on this now. Jim Cryder stated it would help to make the decision now; but if the Council preferred to come back in some sort of special session, that could be worked around. It was his understanding in looking at the maps that there is right-of-way available to the site. Alderman Daniel pointed out that several aldermen would be gone the next week as there is not a meeting scheduled. Kevin Crosson stated the Council is approving an amount that may not matter if it's done right away. An amount was recommended for the project and saying that is reimbursable cost. The Council is worried about details of the project. We are just saying we will reimburse up to an amount. Jim Cryder stated that would be as simple as anything, to concern yourselves about the amount and let the people who deal with the route to get there and those other things take care of it. Alderman Daniel asked if it was legal to be considering who was going in there, as Mr. Cryder did not want this public. Vice Mayor Bassett stated it was on the front page of the newspaper and to dance around it would be too lawyerly. Alderman Daniel stated this is an investment. It seems like a lot of money but we are putting a cap on it if we go the reimbursement route. Alderman Schaper suggested $50,000 and if it is low then we pick up the whole thing, if it's high we cost share it. Alderman Daniel asked if Schaper was saying we would be willing to pick up any of the portion beyond $50,000. Alderman Schaper replied they would pick up beyond $50,000. City Attorney Rose asked if the resolution was stated correctly to reimburse the purchasers up to $50,000 towards the purchasers' cost of extending water and sewer lines to service the site. 21 316;. July 16,; 1996 ~Alderman Williams withdrew his motion. Young:withdrew his second. , .*Vice Mayor Bassett stated this motion was withdrawn and asked Rose to restate the resolution. City Attorney Rose stated you resolve to reimburse,the:purchasers up to $50,000 towards the purchasers' costs of extendingexisting water and sewer lines to service the site. Alderman Schaper stated that would mean the part in the street right-of-way,not the line to the facility. City Attorney Rose asked for a second. Parker seconded. Vice Mayor Bassett asked Mr. Cryder if he had comments in response to this. - Mr. Cryder responded that right now he would say this is okay because we don't know what the actual costs are. Vice Mayor Bassett statedthe practical effect of this is if it is $50,000 or less, theCity picks up .the tab; but. if it exceeds that then it is cost sharing where the buyer participates in whatever -is above $50,000. Ben Mayes stated at this point a budget adjustment would be needed up to $50,000. City Attorney Rose stated we are still going to reimburse the purchasers up to $50,000 towards the purchasers' cost of extending existing water and sewer lines to service the site and a budget adjustment. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for further comments. There being none, he called for the vote. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 8 to.O. RESOLUTION 87-96 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE'. AIRPORT INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM. Vice Mayor Bassett introduced for consideration approval of a contract with McClelland Consulting Engineering, a bid waiver, and an associated budget adjustment for required engineering and purchase of the Instrument Landing System to be installed on runway 34. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. 22 317 July 16, 1996 Alderman Williams stated this is the result of a lot of work that McClelland engineers and our consulting engineer and Dale Frederick have done over the last many months where we hired the top expert in the country on instrument landing systems to see if Drake Field could be served by one. It was commonly thought for a long time that Drake Field could never be served by an instrument landing system, but Dr. McFarland came in and ran tests and proved it could be. Recently, several of us went to Dallas and met with the FAA and they finally gave us approval for this. They indicated this is a good system. We should go with their recommendation. Alderman Schaper pointed out we are talking about a total cost of around $600,000. That money is not coming from taxpayers. It is coming from passengers who use Drake Field. It is a user -funded improvement. Alderman Williams stated it will be very useful to the users for increased safety. Pilots will not have to make visual contact with the airport under stormy conditions. They can land at a lower ceiling, which means fewer cancelled flights. Alderman Parker stated this immensely increases the viability of Drake Field both as a commercial and private airport. Everyone who comes in and out of Fayetteville will be safer in some degree. Vice Mayor Bassett asked for further comments. Kelly Johnson, Assistant Airport Manager, stated the FAA has agreed to pick up the maintenance on the system. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Parker seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Williams stated this is supposed to be a good time to be buying this system. They are at a fairly good price now. Alderman Williams stated, "I think we should suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading." Miller seconded. Upon roll call, this passed on a vote of 8 to 0. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third and final time. Vice Mayor Bassett called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 8 to 0. ORDINANCE 3988 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK 23 318.' July 16, 1996 ANNOUNCEMENTS - Vice Mayor Bassett announced the Ordinance Review Committee would meet at 4:30 the next day to discuss commercial design standards.: The Street Committee would meet immediately after. Alderman Miller reported on the ordinance that forbids marking on sidewalks. He had spoken to LaGayle McCarty; Assistant City Attorney, and found only ordinance 98.08, which forbids advertising on sidewalks. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:28. •