Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-06-03 Minutes1 A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville June 3, 1997, at 6:30 p.m., Administration Building, 113 W. City Council was held on Tuesday, in the Council Room of the City Mountain, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Fred Hanna; Aldermen Cyrus Young, Heather Daniel, Len Schaper, Kit Williams, Stephen Miller, Donna Pettus, Trent Trumbo, and Randy Zurcher; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; staff; press; and audience. Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with eight aldermen present. OLD BUSINESS REZONING RZ97-6 Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning 12.44 acres located east of Cato Springs Road and south of Treat Street from R-2, Medium Density Residential, to C-2, Thoroughfare Commercial, as requested by Jerry Allred on behalf of Robert Dowell. This item was pulled by the petitioner at the May 20 Council meeting. City Attorney Jerry Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Daniel stated this fits regional commercial and is in the design overlay. Alderman Zurcher stated this is another instance where the 2020 Plan needs some time guidelines. Right now, we may not be ready for more C-2. Mayor Hanna asked for public comment. There was none. The ordinance was left on its first reading. REZONING APPEAL Mayor Hanna introduced an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny RZ97-5 as requested by Michele Harrington on behalf of Prestige Properties, Development & Construction, Inc., for property located north of Mt. Comfort Road and west of Salem Road. This has been changed from RS to R-1. The ordinance was left on the second reading at the May 20 meeting. Alderman Williams moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Alderman Schaper voting no. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. 1 165 June 3, 1997 Alderman Young stated he was glad this went to an R-1 rather than RS because a lot of people in that area are saying there -is enough affordable housing there. Alderman Schaper stated in terms of City services, this is on the fringes of the City. He did not think :the City' -s infrastructure. wasthere for this intensity of. development.. Alderman Williams stated it is wise to do this as a Planned Unit Development, as it will preserve green space and allow some. clustering. Alderman Miller stated everything has been done that the Council asked for, they .saved the ponds, backed off from the E2S, and clustered the housing. He pointed out the new sidewalk law -calls for 6'.sidewalks there. Alderman Schaper had concerns regarding the infrastructure: It was confirmed it is a minor arterial onthe west side -:of these properties. Given .that we have had three parcels go into development in a short period of time, he asked' what the opportunities are for getting that road built aspart of the price of. getting in for these -developers. P Alett Little, Planning Director, replied the more development, the t.tcloser, twe, are o . ,gettingr€the ,road built.` At the time the . deve1'opment_comes through our process, we receive the right of way for- that and assign their share' of the contributions. With Salem Village, we .received the contribution of.the developer and a donation from'the person on the -other side who wasinterested in having the.: road in: The City has the complete right-of-way required for that 1,320 feet. and about $90,000 that goes..:towards the•'construction- of -.that. road.. - Alde'rthan Schaper asked if the right-of-way we are getting.is coming all from these parcels that front on Salem Road or is half from the property to the west. Little replied there is a quarter section line that runs along. there. Half will come from one quarter section and half from the other. This •is normally done. On this thirty acres; the City. would require one half of the right-of-way. Alderman Schaper stated he would like to push for getting that road built as soon as possible. Alderman Young asked if there is a time limit on .how. 1on we have to spend the $90,000. 167 June 3, 1997 Little stated that at the end of five years, the developer can ask for it back. At that time, the Planning Commission has to re -hear and make a decision as to whether improvements are imminent. If they are, the City may keep the money for a while longer. Alderman Daniel asked, regarding the road to the west of these developments, if the County has to participate in that since it is on the border. Little replied if we do not annex the property, then the County will have to be involved. There have been no discussions with the County. Ms. Harrington, attorney, had no comments but was present to answer questions. Rebecca Adam, Mt. Comfort Road, addressed how this affects Mt. Comfort Road. She stated intersection improvements, sidewalks, and east/west connections need to be made. She stated she was pleased with the R-1 request. There were no further audience comments. Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the ordinance passed on a vote of 6 to 2, with Aldermen Schaper and Zurcher voting no. ORDINANCE 4037 APPEARS ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK APPEAL --MEADOW BROOKS L.S.D. Mayor Hanna introduced an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Large Scale Development Plan for Meadow Brooks Apartments as requested by Tom Hopper on behalf of Jim Lindsey. This item was tabled at the May 20 Council meeting. City Attorney Rose stated this is an appeal under Section 159.54 of our ordinances of the May 12, 1997, decision of the Planning Commission, which refused to approve a large scale development for the Meadow Brooks apartments. The record of the Planning Commission was in the agenda packet. The developers have timely appealed, stating their large scale development met all City ordinances and, therefor, there was no basis for the denial by the Planning Commission. As required by ordinance, the Council voted to hear the appeal by a majority vote at the last meeting. It now must consider the appeal itself. June 3, 1997 Rose stated Section 159.54 requires the Council to hear all persons. desiring to be heard on the question of whether or not the findings and decisions of the Planning Commission were in error. Following this hearing, the Council may affirm, modify, or reverse any finding or decision of the Planning Commission or the Council may refer the proposal of the large scale development back to the Planning Commission for additional findings. The ordinance specifically states that the Council may refuse to approve a large scale development for any of the six reasons specified in the ordinance. The most relevant reason, and the one appealed from, is tthat.the Council,may.refusetto^'approve if the proposed development `_would violate a City ordinance... '1 Rose. stated it is hisopinion.that if that large scale development does: meet ali'.the.requirements,of the ordinance including the six reasons specified for`refusing'an application, you really. have no choice but to approve the large scale development. The Arkansas Suprenke Court, in the Richardson4case decided in 1988, held these ;applications are • to be � administrative functions of the Planning 'Commission and the' City Council. They are to be guided by regulatory standards which can be uniformly applied and which give notice to subdividers and developers of the minimum requirements with which they must comply in order to obtain their approval. When a subdivision ordinance specifies minimum standards to which a preliminary plat or a large scale development must comply, it would be. arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of. a large scale development application or plat that meets those standards. A primary purpose of these provisions is to ensure that a landowner's plat or a large scale development application will be measured against the concrete standards of the subdivision ordinance in effect. Thus, these provisions balance the interests of planned community growth with the private rights of landowners. In short, the Planning Commission or the City Council' may not disregard the regulations set forth in the subdivision ordinance and substitute its own discretion in lieu of those fixed standards applying to all cases similarly situated. Rose stated there has been a lot of discussion' over apparent differences in City ordinances.between general provisions and specific provisions. Rose stated every authority he is aware of agrees that the specified rules over the general. The general provisions in ordinancesare usually there to show the statutory intent or purpose of the specified requirements and to show they are not arbitrary or contrary to a proper public purpose. They cannot be used to create a contrary or different. regulatory standard than that set forth in the specifics. If the general requirement is used to create a standard separate and unique from any mentioned specific standard, it is generally .going to be violative of Constitutional due process, unless those standards that the Council sets are definite and certain in their statement i.mu mm mnsxw�u,. r 4 169 June 3, 1997 of prohibited conduct so as to enable persons of ordinary intelligence to understand what activity is prescribed and that they may govern their actions accordingly. Rose stated that, generally, zoning laws are held to a more stringent vagueness test since they are in derogation of common law and affect a Constitutional right of property. An ordinance must be framed in terms sufficiently clear and definite to show what it intends to require or prohibit. Rose stated the Council is going onto very legally thin ice if it should seek to set specific new or different regulations based upon general language in an ordinance. Instead, the best course of action is to amend the existing ordinance to provide specifically for the standards wanted. Rose advised the Council to follow City law. If the large scale development meets the ordinance, there is no choice but to approve it. If it does not meet the ordinance, there is no choice but to deny approval, then the Council may modify or reverse the decision of the Planning Commission or may refer it back to the Planning Commission for additional findings. Alderman Young stated the company he works for is working on this project, so he would not participate in the discussion and would abstain on the vote. Alderman Pettus stated she has done some research and agreed with everything Mr. Rose said. She commented on Section 161 which the Planning Commission used as a reason for denying the development, specifically regarding conforming to the natural contours of the land. While she agreed that seems to be contrary to the purpose, it is very general and vague and the specifics define what must be done to fulfill the general intent. The specific governs over the general. Alderman Williams agreed we should abide by the law but felt you could not read out of the statute the general requirements. You must read the entire ordinance and should be guided by the general requirements. • Alderman Pettus stated she believes the law says general requirement is defined by the specifics. When they conflict, the specific expressions control. Alderman Williams stated he did not think there was a conflict. Alderman Schaper asked Mr. Hopper to show the plan that pertains to the slopes. • June 3 199 Tom Hopper, engineer for.Crafton, Tull .& Associates,showed the plan and he and Alderman: Schaper reviewed it. :,Mr. Hopper produced:' another drawing to show the amount of..cut and fill across the -site. Alderman Schaper discussed a drawing he'd.prepared showing various slopes and:terraces. He quoted parts of Section 161.07(B) (2)4 also on the handout, regarding terraces being required for cut.and fill slopes greater than 15'.- He alsogave the definition of terrace. He- stated this would have to be brokenup with a couple of terraces, which were not in the plan. Mr. Hopper stated the ordinance in total stated such terraces were required unless information demonstrating slope stability, erosion control, and drainage control isprovided'. This information was provided. Alderman Schaper stated he was not arguing with. that. part. .,The other.part is referring to the cut or fill slope greater than 15' .in height. This is not a question of soil stability. This is for drainage. and maintenance- purposes. The terrace helps stop water flow. '.Mr.+Hoppe--r_statedthat is the reason for cut off ditches at the top # of'the` slope. Mr. Hopperagain..asked.him to read the whole section in total. ' He stated a 'soils report was°prepared which stated a 3 to 1 slope was -adequate. The -soils would support that. Alderman Schaper stated you cannot have a continuous 3 to,.1 slope for150i-feet of 'horizontai.land. Terraces are required. -. Mr. Hopper asked the -Planning Director for her interpretation. Alderman Schaper informed him the Planning Director does not deal with grading. This is an engineering issue. Alderman Schaper moved to affirm.the.Planning Commission's decision •to deny approval of this large scale development on the basis that the proposed development would violate Section 161,. Physical Alteration of Land, of the City Code. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Mayor Hanna asked for an opinion from engineering. Jim Beavers, staff engineer, stated this is a different interpretation than the engineering .department had. They felt terrace was required only for unstable vertical cuts. Mayor Hanna asked City Attorney Rose for his opinion. 171 June 3, 1997 Rose replied it is a. question of fact as to whether or not this plan meets an ordinance.' The Council is not obligated to take the City engineer's advice. Alderman Williams asked if this would be a general return to the Planning Commission. Rose replied the Council has the power to do that or to be specific. Mr. Lindsey stated he had never heard Alderman Schaper's interpretation from City staff. Mr. Roy Stanley, Lindsey Management, asked Allett Little, Planning Director, if any requirements had not been met by the developer. Little responded that planning staff coordinates the work of a lot of other divisions. Planning gets sheets telling what is required. The developer has met all the requirements asked for at this point. Mr. Stanley stated this is why they are appealing the Planning Commission's decision. If the Council turns this down it will be a de facto moratorium. John Williams, citizen who lives near this development, stated this development abuses the hillside and increases the traffic hazard by Ramay Jr. High. The Council has an obligation to protect the visual beauty of Fayetteville, one of its assets. He listed applicable codes and asked for the Council to use good judgement. Alderman Miller stated this has been an agonizing decision for him. He is looking at the letter and intent of the law. He felt 80% is excessive cut and fill. This does not follow contours. Traffic concerns is one reason that this can be turned down. He could not see how the intent of the tree ordinance could be met. He stated the envelope is pushed too far at this density. Mr. Lindsey showed a plan for eight buildings. Mr. Schaper stated the grades are the same, though to a lesser extent. Alderman Williams stated this comes closer to fitting the general requirements. Alderman Williams stated the Council is allowed to return it to the Planning Commission with some instructions. 7 172 June 3, 1997 A citizen who lives on Maine Street stated there is alreadya traffic problem there. There are drainage and erosion problems. The Council needs to look at the long-range impact: Brenda: Thiel, citizen, addressed the traffic problem as regards to school busses and other school traffic needs. This .would create or 'compound a,d'angerous,t-raffic.situation. 'Lona Benedict,»audience-member,'stated it is important to note that resideritssof B4'apartments'go down one narrow little street. Robert Albertson, adjoining property owner, stated perhaps the best ';t thing o do 'is redesign this: - ,It is` the first thing people see ;,when they enter Fayetteville. The buildings should be designed to fit the hill, not the hill designed to fit -them. He did not accept the developer's engineer sayingthey had offered to buy out the two houses on Stone Street. No offer has been made. Mr. Albertson handed out schematic pictures of another ravine that would be filled. He stated many people feel Mayor Hanna has a conflict of interest by being on the board of a bank loaning this developer money. Mayor Hanna stated this was off the subject and explained Mr. Lindsey is not borrowing money for this project from Mcllroy Bank, to his knowledge. Mayor Hanna restated the motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision. Alderman Williams offered a friendly amendment. He moved to return this large scale development to the Planning Commission for reconsideration of this development with eight buildings, 96 units, rather thanthe originally proposed ten ,buildings, with more consideration of the natural contours, preserving the undisturbed land and native. trees. He stated his. motion would be to return it to the Planning Commission, rather than to turn it down outright, with the offer that has been made by Mr. Lindsey about reducing the number of buildings so it can better conform tothe contours of the land. Alderman Schaper asked if that implied looking at the definition of terraces in a new light. Alderman Williams stated they would look at all the ordinances. Alderman Pettus asked if City Attorney Rose had heard anything to change his opinion. Rose replied he had not. 8 173 June 3, 1997 Sam Hill, citizen, reiterated the tree ordinance and the canopy. He asked the Council to mention this in presenting the specific instructions to the Planning Commission. Alderman Williams stated this is why his amendment mentions native trees. Alderman Schaper stated he had been advised this could be redesigned without adding significantly to the cost. Specific instructions should include they not approve a development suitable for a flat terrain on this hill. Alderman Williams thought this was beyond the ordinances. Alderman Miller thought reducing the density could confirm to the spirit of the ordinances and it did not need to be sent back with a slew of instructions. Alderman Schaper thought it would be difficult to agree on a set of instructions. Mr. Lindsey could come up with a new plan to submit to the Planning Commission. Rose stated there was no time penalty for Mr. Lindsey going back to the Planning Commission. Little added the Planning Commission does not want to see exactly the same plan, but frequently sees amended plans or changed plans. City Attorney Rose asked Alderman Schaper to restate his motion. Alderman Schaper stated his motion is to affirm the Planning Commission's decision to deny approval of this large scale development. Rose stated he believed Alderman Schaper had some reasons stated in his motion. Alderman Schaper stated he thought it said it would violate Section 161, Physical Alteration of Land. Rose stated the way the motion currently reads, the Council is affirming the denial of the Planning Commission and the reason is the Council believes it to be in violation of Section 161. Alderman Williams moved to amend to refer this back to the Planning Commission for further study. Alderman Miller seconded. Alderman Schaper stated Mr. Lindsey has that option. Mayor Hanna called for the vote on the amendment. 9 174 June 3, 1997 Upon roll call, the amendment failed on a vote Aldermen .Schaper, Pettus, Trumbo, and Zurcher Alderman Young abstaining. of 3-4-1, with voting .no and Mayor Hanna called for a vote on the motion. .- Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 5-2-1, with.Aldermen Pettus and Trumbo.voting no and Alderman Young abstaining.- The bstaining. The appeal was denied. RAZE & REMOVAL Mayor Hanna stated this was removed from the agenda. Mayor Hanna called for a five minute recess. SPECIAL ELECTION --TOWN CENTER Mayor Hanna.- introduced consideration of an ordinance. calling for a ;specil election n'thetCty ofFayetteviile for issuing bonds to construct -a `town center: • Alderman Young moved, tie.; Suspend" the rules .and. goto -the second reading`.t Aiderman:Millertsetonded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. - h City AttorneyRose read the ordinance for the Rose stated it was his understanding the Council had amended this ordinance two weeks ago. The City's bond counsel has recommended placing this in a different position. He had passed out;a copy -of the change. He stated it makes no substantial change and -puts' the phrase "for a term not to exceed 22 years" afterthe figure of $6,950,000 rather than at the end of -the sentence. •He asked for a motion to do this. - second time. Alderman Williams accepted this as a friendly,,.amendment, -Alderman Young seconded. - Rose- read the change for the record.. IEhowreads iindr..town- - center bonds, "Vote for or against -the .issuance of bonds of the City of. Fayetteville to finance the : constructionof. the Fayetteville town center as a new, multi-purpose civic center for meetings and conventions., exhibitions,...entertainment•events, related uses, and parking. The bondswill be issued in an amount not to exceed $6;950,000 and for a.term of not to exceedtwenty-two years and will be retired from all or any part of the proceeds of the City's existing 196 hotel and restaurant.'gross receipts tax." 10 175 June 3, 1997 Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. Rose stated the ordinance as amended was on its second reading. Richard Alderman, architect, reminded the Council of four things: 1. The town center is an important project for the development of downtown; 2. They have done a year and a half of study on this project; 3. The HMR receipts is again one of the most progressive taxes available to fund this; 3. The last issue is to let the people decide. Alderman Miller stated he and many people think this is a good idea but feared people would not go for the bond issue. Alderman Pettus stated the best thing would be to explain the bond issue completely to the people. She had submitted questions to the City staff regarding this. The Council had copies. When she asked if the proceeds of the 1% tax would be dedicated to the to the payment of the debt, the answer was they would be pledged. She asked for the difference between pledged and dedicated. Ann Parker, bond counsel, answered that pledge implies a financing was involved. Dedicating might not. Alderman Pettus stated she understood dedicating meant that the tax could only be used for that purpose, pledging meant it was security for repayment but not all of it had to be used. Ms. Parker stated that is true in this case. It is also at this point pledged to the existing center operated by the University of Arkansas. That financing does not use but a percentage of the available funds. This new bond issue will involve using more of that 1°s tax for bond issues because there will be two bond issues for a while. Alderman Pettus stated she wanted the voters to know the entire tax would not be used to pay off the bonds. Marilyn Snapp, Chamber of Commerce, gave a history of the CCE bonds. She stated they did get passed in the last legislation the ability to have State turnback funds if it can be proven that a certain number of out -of -region visitors are using the facility. That is the reason they are not dedicating all the bonds, because there are other needs of the A&P Commission. Alderman Pettus asked what the original cost of the CEC building was. 11 176 June 3, 1997 Brian Swain, Assistant to the Administrative &stated<thecriginal bond-issu-e was for $4.5. to build the CEC. Two' park'ing;iots were. also Servicesirector, It was not all used, built. Alderman._Pettus stated she -:did not. understand why this has not been paid-off.'with all'the tevenueethat. has been, generated: ,She was concerned the City as .pay ng --a-- tremendous :amount of ,interest it does not need to be paying. . Alderman Williams stated we could=immediately pay off the:bonds but would lose the State turnback funds. Swain stated this amount varies from year to year. Pettus asked how this compares to the savings we would have if we paid off the bonds early. Swain replied that the annual debt service is about $375,000 a year on the CEC bonds. The lease revenues are about $122,000 a year. Swain added the annual debt service would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $775,000 year starting out for the two bond issues. When the CEC bonds are retired in 2004, the ,same debt service payment would continue and all go toward the. -town center bonds. The maximum annual debt service in any given year of the new bonds cannot exceed the prior year's revenue times 1.20. You can build in call provisions, which allow you. to retire the bonds:.early: Mr. Alderman stated that page 15 of the proposal shows the - financing scenario. Alderman Young,stated bonds don't -have to .be used to do -things. Sometimes it is cheaper to borrow money from the bank. Alderman Pettus asked if the A&P_ Commission had considered this. Ms. Parker stated there are State. Constitutional constraints -on borrowing money. She did not think the City could legally go to the bank and borrow this. Alderman Pettus stated there might be a citizen. initiative to repeal the HMR tax and asked what.if,that happened. Ms.. Parker replied if this were successful, there would balawsuits against the City for breech of contract with the bond holders Alderman Pettus asked if -the City's. generalrevenues could be required to -Tay off the bonds. 12 • 177 June 3, 1997 Ms. Parker replied she did not have a lot of experience with defaulted bond issues, but did not know if a call could be made on the general funds to payoff a defaulted bond issue supported by a specific tax. The court might force the City to reinstate the tax and pay it. Alderman Young asked about the title of the tax itself. He stated he was thinking about changing the wording to be sure it applies only to the advertising and promotion tax and not to the parks tax. Ms. Parker stated this is a good point. The title has the name of the A&P tax taken from the 1977 ordinance, Hotel & Restaurants Gross Receipts Tax. She did not know the name of the parks tax and stated if it is the same, it needs to be distinguished. Rose offered to find out. Alderman Young stated it should be in the minutes that it is the Council's intent that it is just the advertising and promotion tax applied to this. Alderman Young asked if there has to be a definite location before the bonds are floated. Ms. Parker replied she did not think there was any legal requirement that the City have legal title to the location. It was her opinion the City did not have to go farther than it has gone. Mayor Hanna asked for audience comments. Tx Trumbo, audience member, felt a tax would be better spent in other areas. He questioned the amount of interest and asked for a choice on the ballot. K. Johnson, Malinda Drive, stated he envisioned the Fayetteville school system utilizing this facility and suggested several uses for a town center. Fran Alexander, citizen, had concerns about that the ballot wording did not say what the definition of a town center was. She felt this was needed. She had concerns about the way the town center will look. There is only a conceptual plan. Also, commercial space has not been defined. We need to get away from saying the out-of-towners will pay for this as the restaurant tax is the largest part of this tax. This ballot needs to be better defined. Mr. Alderman responded to requests for guarantees from Alderman Zurcher by saying that the funding and bond issue will not allow the City to make up a guaranteed space that doesn't have something 13 • 178 June 3, 1997 to do with the promotion of the City of Fayetteville. This can be called a town center because a,lot of things can be done in it, but cannot.guarantee something: like"that. Ms. Parker stated they could not legally guarantee usage to private organizations, even non -profits, without jeopardizing the tax- exempt,status of the bonds. ,This has nothing to do with whatever plans there are to allow usage of the space. • Mr. Alderman stated this would"berbrought back to the: Council two or'three times and there will be numerous design meetings. Bruce Dunn, downtown business owner, stated he supports the town center. Downtown is not as viable a community as it could be. He cited other cities that let their downtowns die and then spent much money bringing them back. Shirley Blackston, Chamber of Commerce,' expressed support for the town center. She asked the Council to take this to a vote of the people for a bond issue. Lamar Pettus, attorney, pointed out that honesty in government is important. He stated the City has an obligation to oversee its commissions, improvement districts, and facilities board. He stated because the City has not done this, he has filed.a petition that will bring him and the City to: loggerheads over what is going on with the downtown off-street improvement district. He gave a history of the CEC building. The City has allowed citizens to pay more than $5 millionin interest. He wants the City to give citizens the option of dedicating a per cent of .this tax to .the payment of the tax. He listed the cost. of several things the City will be asking citizens to pay for,wastewater treatment bonds, school taxes, and jail. The last priority should be a town center. He asked how the Mayor and City Clerk were allowed to sign the contract that gave up his Constitutional rights to repeal the HMR tax. Pettus responded to comments from Marilyn Snapp in the audience for which Mayor Hanna called him out of order. Mr. Pettus contradicted this. . Mayor Hanna instructed.him to sit down or be removed. Mr. Pettus refused to -sit down,, stating. he was about finished. Mayor Hanna called a recess and Mr. Pettus left. Maydr Hanna called the meetingfto order after a.five.minute recess. Alderman Young moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and -final reading. Alderman Trumbo seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 6-2, with Alderman. Pettus and Zurcher voting no. 14 179 June 3, 1997 City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. Mayor Hanna asked for further public comment. There was none. Alderman Pettus asked what would happen if it cost more than voted for. Mr. Alderman replied that, as with any project that has a budget, some things could be taken off. They would not change what they want to do on this particular HMR issue, though there might be other funding available. There being no further comments, Mayor Hanna called for the vote. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 7 to 1, with Alderman Pettus voting no. ORDINANCE 4038 IS FOUND ON PAGE OF ORDINANCE BOOK CONSENT AGENDA Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of items which may be approved by motion or contracts and leases which can be approved by resolution and which may be grouped together and approved simultaneously under a consent agenda. A. Minutes of the May 20 regular City Council meeting; B. A resolution awarding Bid 97-34 to the lowest qualified bidder meeting specifications, Williams Ford Tractor, for the purchase of Utility Tractors in the amount of $103,450 with a trade allowance of $45,000 for a net cost of $58,540. The units will be utilized by the City of Fayetteville Airport Operations and Pollution Control Plant/Sludge Management Site; RESOLUTION 49-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. C. A resolution awarding Bid 97-29 to the lowest meeting specifications with variations, Construction Equipment, for the purchase of a powered wheel loader in the amount of $88,846 utilized by the City of Fayetteville Street Maintenance Division; bidder Scott diesel to be RESOLUTION 50-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. 15 June 3°; 1997 A. resolution- awarding Bid 97-33.to the lowest: qualified =bidder meeting specifications, Williams Ford Tractor, for `the purchase of Tractor/Backhoe/Loaders in the amount of $324,.494.witha trade.allowance of $67,000 for a net cost of $257,494'. The units will be utilized by the'City of Fayetteville Water/Sewer Maintenance Division, Sidewalk & Trails Division, Pollution Control Plant, and Street Maintenance Division; RESOLUTION 51-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. E. Lake Fayetteville Trail Concept Plan --moved from consent agenda, see below; F. A resolution awarding a contract to Harrison Davis Construction Co. in the amount of $74,400 for the exterior renovation of the Fayetteville Public Library; RESOLUTION 52-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Alderman Schaper moved the consent agenda.. Alderman Miller seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a. vote of•7-0, with Alderman Williams absentforthe vote. NEW BUSINESS LAKE FAYETTEVILLE TRAIL CONCEPT PLAN Mayor Hanna introduced consideration of a resolution approving a contract with LandPlan Consultants, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $30,071.70 to develop a conceptual design of multi -use trail loop around Lake Fayetteville. Bill Waite, Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee, stated they are looking at five miles plus loop backs. This will be phased over a number of years. Bridging is a concern outside of their previous experience. He pointed out there is a $6,000 subcontract to address a concept design of the two bridges at Clear Creek and over the spillway. They have had requests from citizens regarding what this trail can accommodate. Usage, surface, and width have to be defined. Quite a bit of planning has to be done up front. Alderman Miller was informed three requests for qualifications have been received. Alderman Williams stated the concern at the agenda session was what kind of trail is wanted. He felt this was the Park & Recreation Advisory Board's domain and they needed to make a general concept before designing a trail. After that decision is made, the experts can be brought in. 16 181 June 3, 1997 Mr. Waite stated they really want the presence of experts for trail design and as a resource to answer questions. Alderman Pettus stated she has been asked by citizens if there is not someone locally who could do this. Mr. Waite stated he'd had a lot of local help for hiking trails but there is a difference between a hiking trail and a multi -use trail. Mr. Waite stated they are prepared to revise some of the public meetings and pull the presense of an expert out. Alderman Schaper asked how much money could be saved by bringing in the experts later. Keith Franklin, LandPlan Consultants, explained they facilitate a meeting, answer questions, and educate the public. Clients have found their being involved in public meetings from the beginning expedites the project. He stated there were three public meetings and they could be deducted out. He explained their preparation for a public meeting and stated some of this will still need to be done. Mayor Hanna stated this resolution reads an amount not to exceed $31,071. He asked what if the Parks & Recreation Board decided at some point to stop the project. Mr. Franklin stated their contract is on an hourly basis, with a not to exceed maximum. There is a not to exceed maximum for the fee of $22,000, a not to exceed maximum for reimbursable expenses, and the same for McClelland's engineers. If it is approved and some items are not done, the City will not be billed for it. Alderman Williams stated he would be in favor of this resolution with the Parks Board understanding the Council wants to save as much money as possible. Alderman Williams moved the resolution. Alderman Zurcher commented it is a travesty that the City is going to a company from Tulsa and not using local talent. Mr. Waite discussed the scope of this project and what and how things have been done in the past. For this project a company with experience and credentials was needed. This is not in keeping with a class project. Charles Venable, Assistant to this was sent to 40 different were received. Bids could not the Public Works Director, stated agencies and only three responses be taken on this type of thing. 17 • 182 June 3, 1997. . Alderman Young seconded the motion. Upon roll call ,,the .resolution . passed on a'vote of 8 to 0. RESOLUTION 53-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. ANNEXATION RZA97-7 Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance' annexing 39.95 acres located west of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road, and north of. Salem Village PUD as requested by Michele Harrington on,behalf of Pacesetter Properties. The Planning. Commission voted,6-0-0 to recommend the annexation. „City - Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Daniel asked staff if the City was going to continue sewer lines when the sewer plant "is ,nearing capacity. Alderman Miller stated the school was built out there with the idea :.ofsdevelopment. Charles"Venable, Assistant to the Public Works Director, stated the sewer is adequate for this now. The ordinance was left on the first reading. REZONING RZ97-8 Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance rezoning -39.95 acres located west of Salem Road, north of Mt. Comfort Road, and north of Salem Village .PUD from A-1, Agricultural, to R-1, Low Density Residential, as requested by Michele Harringtonon behalf of Pacesetter Properties. The Planning Commission voted 5-1-0 to recommend the rezoning. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. The ordinance was left on the first reading. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CODES Mayor Hanna -introducedan ordinance, replacing Chapter 111 of the Code of Fayetteville regarding alcoholic .beverages. • Mayor Hanna stated as this would take 10 to 15 minutes to read, the Council would listen to those present to speak but would not actually consider the ordinance until the next meeting. 18 183 June 3, 1997 John Gilliam, Ozark Brewing Company, stated he is being singled out because he manufactures beer to pay a permit fee of $375. He asked for the City to wait for another microbrewery to come to town before he is required to pay. City Attorney Rose went over six main changes. The purpose of the whole thing was that the liquor by the drink vote had no licensing law. We are adding provisions to require City permits for on - premises consumption, liquor by the drink. We are adding permitting provisions for large attendance facilities and satellite catering. We are adding liquor and beer manufacturing and rectifying permit provisions. We are adding permit provisions for microbrewery restaurants. We are clarifying requirements for a City permit to sell alcoholic beverages at wholesale. We are changing the fee basis of the retail beer permits to eliminate the necessity for establishments to estimate future sales; we are going on their past year sales. Rose stated the rest of it is routine. There are no particular changes, only reorganization. Rose stated the City does not have to have this tax, but it is allowed under the law. Mayor Hanna asked the Council to look at this before the agenda session and make changes there or at the next council meeting. Alderman Miller moved to table this. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion passed on a vote of 8 to 0. REQUEST FOR SEWER TAP Mayor Hanna stated the request has been withdrawn. ARKANSAS ATHLETES OUTREACH Mayor Hanna introduced discussion of a proposal submitted by Arkansas Athletes Outreach. Brad Freiss stated this was explained at the agenda session. He stated he was asking the City to fund one of the AmeriCorps positions, a $10,000 annual contribution for three years. AmeriCorps will contribute an educational award to someone who contributes 1,700 hours of community service. This can be used to go to graduate school, to go to a technical training school, or to pay off existing school loans. Alderman Williams questioned the Constitutionality of using City money this way. 19 '-Jude` 3 ;' 3997 - _ 1 City AttorneyRose stated he could:not tell from the materials he's received what the relationship to the schools is here.,.` Mr. Freiss stated legislation has been passed at.the State level. which now allows character curriculum to beused in .the.. public school system. Mr. Freiss stated they are under a deadline of.July-1. It was decided Mr. Freiss would meet with Rose to further explain' this. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Hanna adjourned the meeting at 11:02.