Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-11-21 Minutes341 A MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE CITY COUNCIL A meeting of the Fayetteville October 21, 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 Heather Daniel, Cyrus Young, Randy Zurcher, Trent Trumbo, Donna Pettus, Kit Williams, and Len Schaper; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk/Treasurer Traci Paul; staff; press; and audience. ABSENT: Alderman Miller Mayor Hanna called the meeting to order with seven aldermen present. 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 October 7 regular City Council meeting. B. A resolution awarding a construction contract to Heckathorn Construction Company in the amount of $51,711 plus a $5,000 contingency for the Central Fire Station Exterior Modification Project; RESOLUTION 98-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Alderman Schaper moved the consent agenda. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 7 to 0. OLD BUSINESS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution approving the 1998-2002 Capital Improvement Program. This resolution was tabled at the October 7 Council meeting. Alderman Williams explained that the reason it was tabled was so the Street Committee could again look at the Capital Improvements Project List suggested for next year. The Committee did meet and also met with school officials. The basic agreement of the Committee was that it would be premature to commit to that particular road [Rupple] at this time, before the annexation election or anything else. However, the Committee did want to commit that approximate amount of money to that area of town. October 21, 1997 Alderman Williams moved to List to say Rupple area particular project listed, call, the amendment passed amend the Capital Improvements Project improvement, instead of having that Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll on a vote of 7 to 0. Alderman Schaper expressed concern about the Parks' budget. After the 1998 year; where there are a bunch of well-defined projects, we go into a rather large slush fund. 'Alderman'Williams stated Park's ;is looking for sites now and looking Kat the annexation for.potential park sites. Kevin'Crosson, Public Works Director, agreed projects after 1998 have'notAbeen astthoroughly"defined as other areas. He stated this 'will -be more'diligently addressed next year. One thing they are .,workingtge on is locating larrapark areas. kAlderman Trumbo`added that; because of the greenspace ordinance, we have many parks adjacent to a subdivisions and maintenance is .getting hard to keep up with, with the funding we have. Dale Clark,' Parks & Recreation Director, stated the biggest problem is the City has not been able to identify parcels to purchase and it was left in such a way that Parks felt they could work with it in that. manner. They are looking at some parcels but have not been able to come up with any figures. Crosson agreed with Alderman Zurcher that if the City takes the right parcel, it can be left in a natural state and be worthwhile. However, a parcel taken in a subdivision often becomes a problem if left alone. It gets overgrown and generates complaints about maintenance. Crosson stated money was allocated annually to take care of capital maintenance. Alderman Schaper had a question about solid waste having curbside collection bins. He asked about the four-year changeover time frame. Crosson replied there .is $100,000 allocated in the 1997 capital budget to make the initial purchase. It will probably be rolled forward for next year. The initial purchase for whatever system is approved is budgeted for this year. Alderman Daniel stated she would like to see if there is any way to speed up traffic relief for Drake Street. She hoped the Street Committee would look at this. Alderman Williams thought there would be some relief for this when the Sunbridge project is completed. 343 October 21, 1997 Crosson added that Wal -Mart's moving should provide some relief. He stated costs will be further looked at next year, but it is possible that the amount allocated is not enough. It will be a very difficult and expensive project. There were no comments from the audience. Alderman Williams moved to adopt the Capital Improvement Program Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0 RESOLUTION 99-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. VACATION VA97-6/EIGHTH STREET Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance vacating a portion of Eighth Street between School and Locust and vacating all of the alley bounded by Eighth and Ninth Streets. This ordinance was left on its first reading at the October 7 Council meeting. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Jerry Allred, representing the petitioner, stated the drainage problem is created by the box culvert to the north. The only way to correct it is to extend the box culvert. That is too cost - prohibitive for this individual. He stated the drainage channel has been cleaned out and is better than it was. It will be recleaned after the leaves fall. Alderman Daniel asked about the turn in the channel Mr. Allred stated it was his understanding that Beth Sandeen gave the go ahead on how to fill that when the toy company installed the fence. This has been a problem since before the turn was put in, ever since the box culvert was put in about 30 years ago. He stated that to his knowledge this never was straight. He stated the Bank was told this week that it could remove the brush and clean out the drainage ditch but could not do any rechannelization. Kevin Crosson, Public Works Director, stated there is no drainage easement. It is all private, including the box culvert. Mr. Allred stated that the time to extend the box culvert or do what needs to be done will be when this area is developed. Alderman Young asked if the purpose of this vacation is for future development. Mr. Allred replied redevelopment is the objective at this point. Alderman Young asked why the vacation can't wait until a development project comes through. • October 21, 1997 Mr. Allred replied that a buyer would not want to wait while this is argued out. He stated all he is asking for.: is that the right- of-way easement be redefined as .a utility easement. The seller does not have the money to do extensive drainage_ work. He agreed the current easement is blocked by a fence on his client's property. Mr. Allred stated that if_this ordinance is passed, the property will be put on the market for sale. When it is redeveloped, a complete drainage study will be required. Alderman Young was concerned about this street being closed for a considerable time while it is neither sold nor developed. Alett Little, Planning Director, stated that the Planning Commission's vote was 8-1-0. The Planning Commission made the approval subject to the condition that the applicant provide a plan acceptable to the street and engineering divisions to accommodate the drainage currently on the Eighth Street right-of-way. If it is to be approved with that condition, the vacation will not be valid until that condition is met. She stated she believed the intention was for the drainage to be corrected. Alderman Schaper asked if she was saying the vacation should be contingent on the drainage being corrected. Little responded by reading from City Engineer Jim Beaver's report which listed three conditions requested by staff. She stated she did not want to speak for Mr. Beavers but had been with him when he made the report and believes it was his intent that the drainage problem be rectified, with a number of opportunities to do so. Alderman Young stated the ordinance reads that just a plan be in place. In response to a remark from Alderman Daniel, Mr. Allred stated the income from the trust is taken up with living expenses for the trustee. This is not a real liquid trust. Alderman Schaper asked what the total assets are. Mr..Allred:replied he did not know what the totaltassets of the trust,are..f He stated he!is,.representing the trustee, which is why she:was not present. He stated her financial situation has nothing to do with :this. vacation.y ;He `reiterated she does not have the funds to do,this.4 Alderman Zurcher stated that if the Councilis expected to take the petitioner'-sjfinariciai.,situation into regard when making this decision, then that person's financial records should be available or he would suggest not bringing it up. 4 345 October 21, 1997 Mr. Allred felt it was irrelevant. He stated he was asking for a 20' right-of-way, converting a street right-of-way to a utility easement. He stated you cannot put a 31' street in a 20' easement. He stated he was asking for the other alley to be converted from an alley to utilities. Alderman Young suggested amending the ordinance to say that a plan and actual improvements be made to the satisfaction of the engineering department. Then it would be up to the petitioner whether or not they had the money to do it. Alderman Young made that motion. Alderman Schaper seconded. Alderman Young explained his motion to the City Attorney. It is to require the plan and make improvements based on that plan to the satisfaction of the City engineering department. City Attorney Rose stated he understands it. Alderman Schaper elaborated that it would then mean if somebody wants to buy that property, they know the first thing that has to be done is to fix that drainage and will know it is vacated. Mr. Allred asked that it be open-ended on time frame, not 90 days or something like that. Aldermen Young and Schaper agreed there is no time frame. Mr. Allred agreed it is acceptable. Rose stated he did not think there is a legal problem in requiring this condition. The only thing that worried him is the Council is placing upon somebody the burden of determining exactly when this vacation takes place. It may become a bookkeeping nightmare, but there is nothing illegal about it. Rose stated this ordinance will be signed when passed and then recorded in the deed records of the County, which brings up the question of exactly when the vacation takes place. He assumed a developer would get some documentation from the engineering department stating a plan has been submitted and effectuated and would file that at the County courthouse. He thought the street and engineering divisions would want a time limit on the plan, not open-ended. Alderman Young reiterated his motion did not include a time limit. Mayor Hanna called for the vote on the amendment. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 7 to 0. Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and go to the third and final reading. Alderman Williams seconded. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 7 to 0. October 21, 1997 City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the third time. There were no further comments from C.oiuncil or audience. Mayor -.Hanna called for the vote. Upon'`.rolh;call,' therdinance passed on a vote of 5 to 2, with rAldermen Zurcher:;and Schaper;votiing no. ORDINANCE 4065 IS FOUND .ON ;PAGE:, - k 'ADVANTAGE ARKANSAS PROGRAM i NEW BUSINESS'. OF ORDINANCE BOOK Mayor Hanna introduced. a resolution certifying .local government endorsement of Staffmark, -Inc., to participate in the,Advantage 'Arkansas Program. Alderman Trumbo had asked that this item be -moved up, as the attorney representing Staffmark will be returning to Little Rock after this item. There was no objection to this. Mike Parker, attorney with Horne, Hollingsworth & Parker. of Little Rock, explained that the resolution is to endorse Staffmark „Inc., for participation in a program called the Advantage., Arkansas Program,- formerly known as the Enterprise Zone Program. It is one . of .the leading inducement tools Arkansas uses to encourage companies to locate -and --expand in the state. Mr. Parker stated Staffmark ie. preparing to expand its corporate headquarters here. By endorsing the company, it is permitted to avoid sales and use taxes on construction materials and equipment that go:ino the new facility and will receive a•State.income tax credit over the next three years. If Staffmark does not add 50 new jobs in Fayetteville in the next two years; it will lose the benefits. Jerry Brewer, Chairman of the Board of -Staffmark, stated his company has added close ta-60jobs in the last year.. His company has grown fromabout$150 million to somewhere in the $400 million area ,this year, in 23 •states.. He .stated about 50% of all the revenue is coming into Fayetteville. In about 30 days, plats. should be developed and the City approached fora permitto build a 25,000:sq.. ft. building attached to --their existing::building. This will be the national corporate .headquarters for Staffmark. Alderman Daniel asked how much this program would -save Staffmark. • Mr. Parker responded that the sales and use tax savings will be in the $50,000 to $75,000 range: Income` tax credits.will be from $50,000 to $150,000, depending on..how many new jobs they bring in. Alderman Schaper asked about loss of.sales.tax.revenue to the City. 347 October 21, 1997 Mr. Parker estimated the tax loss would not be more than $5,000 or $10,000. Alderman Schaper pointed out the bonus is new jobs generating income, which will generate sales tax. Alderman Trumbo moved to approve the resolution. Alderman Schaper seconded. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. RESOLUTION 100-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. WATER & SEWER CONNECTION FEES Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance revising water and sewer connection fees and establishing fees to recover City costs associated with water and sewer connections involving State or Federal highways. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Steve Davis, Budget & Research Director, explained that earlier this year staff prepared a full cost of services update for the water and sewer connection fees. The findings of the study were presented to the City Council Water & Sewer Committee at two public hearings. Staff proposed at the Committee hearings an increase to 75% of the full cost of the connection fees. Our existing fees are in the range of fees charged by neighboring cities, and the proposed fee will be more than currently charged. The proposed amount is, in part, in support of City Council's policy of encouraging infill development. Staff also proposed a $50 add on for water connections made outside the city limits. This is to recover the additional cost of travel time. Staff is proposing three new fees associated with connections made on State or Federal highways. Installation requirements for State and Federal highway work is more time consuming and costly than work performed on City streets. Davis stated the Water & Sewer Committee recommended the 75% that staff proposed. Alderman Zurcher stated he would be in favor of subsidizing true infill projects, which he defined as putting buildings where it is already covered with asphalt or making buildings denser. He also would support raising the amount to the full cost of the City. Alderman Schaper had mixed feelings about not charging the full cost, particularly when it involves a cash outlay of the City in order to do the work because it is only legal for City crews to do the work. Alderman Williams suggested making it cost neutral in the future. For now, this will be a substantial increase and it may be better to move up in a gradual way. There was no audience comment. 348 October 21, 1997 There was consensus to leave this on the first reading. APPEAL --SERENITY PLACE SUBDIVISION An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to require a third entrance and the dedication of right-of-way for a portion of Rupple Road as conditions of approvalof the preliminary plat for Serenity Place Subdivision. Michele A. Harrington, attorney, spoke about the north entrance first. She stated they do have approval of this plat from the. Planning Commission. She pointed out that the large street in the middle of .this development is a collector, which divides the. subdivision in half. It lines up with the City's master street plan. This amounts to four little neighborhoods within this PUD, all with an entrance to the collector Serenity Way. Ms. Harrington stated she understood why the PlanningCommission added the north entrance requirement for traffic flow, but she stated pedestrian and resident safety is also extremely important. She asked the Council to look at this as an issue of pedestrian safety in an effort to keepthis subdivision from opening up to flow-through traffic. Ms. Harrington acknowledged that other subdivisions in the .area have more entrances, but this subdivision is 25% smaller and the other subdivisions do not have collectors going through them. She stated there isa lot of traffic flow coming through this subdivision without adding another entrance. Serenity Way will have a three lane entrance. She stated that will be better for Salem Road traffic than having one more street dumping cars onto Salem. She stated she felt Rupple Road will be built soon as an arterial, and this north entrance onto Salem is a quick fix for a temporary time. Ms. Harrington reviewed softball"fields/park.,' traffic flow around the school and girls ' Ms. Harrington reviewed Sec. 159.49, Street Design Principles, of the Fayetteyille Code of Ordinances. She stated she is not aware of.a`written requirement for the extra entrance. She stated the north entrance does not make sense when considering the big picture over a several.year period. ' Alderman Schaper expressed concern>about how the collector streets will line up in the future and why there is no stubout to the south. Alert Little, Planning Director, stated the collector street going through the middle of the development is radically different from what was first presented to the Planning Commission, which showed the collector street at its southern boundary. When it was there, there was no need forconnectivity, so that issue was not addressed. In between the time the collector street was on the • • 349 October 21, 1997 bottom and then in the middle, a proposal was discussed which would have moved the collector street up to the uppermost street and angle it down to tie back into the collector street alignment as shown on the master street plan. There was an appeal from George Faucette relating to the Tuck lot split in which the Council decided that the dedication of right-of-way was not required as a condition of lot split if it were in the County and that a deed restriction would suffice. Little stated she had been of the opinion that the collector street would be moved to the north, which has not happened. It is now in the middle and does not line up She stated she did not think it was critical. No land was taken. There is only a deed restriction saying nothing will be built in that area. All of that work is ahead of us. She stated the deed restriction is not a big guaranty. Little addressed why there are no stubouts to the south. When this was put together and proposed, she did notice the connection to the south had been lost. By that time, it had gone to Planning Commission and no one else raised the issue and she felt it was inappropriate to raise that issue at this time. Little stated she felt is was important for the Council to take a look at the collector that goes through the middle of the subdivision. She stated she likes this design, particularly that there are no lots which front onto it and that there is an outlet to the north. She stated this is a traffic safety issue, not just pedestrian safety. She stated she believes this is what was primarily in the Planning Commission's mind when they made that requirement. Alderman Williams did not agree about the traffic safety issue. He thought most people from the northern exit would be coming into Fayetteville and turning right, which would block the collector. It would also create a cut -through situation. He stated he would like to see connectivity between the developments that is not along the road. He would like to see bridges and trails. Little responded there is a plan for that connectivity. Alderman Schaper stated there is no pedestrian right-of-way to get from that upper street to Salem Road. He stated he would like to see pedestrian access provided, for instance, between lots 43 and 44 so kids could walk to school. Alderman Williams suggested one between lots 30 and 31 so kids can get up to the greenspace. Little strongly urged the Council to consider what the Planning Commission has done and the work that has gone into this. She stated that to allow dust one entrance for 99 lots is creating a tremendous burden on one entrance. She stated two are not required but is consistently requested by the Fire Department and all of the emergency services. She stated connectivity is in the General Plan. She stated this will be a heavy traffic area in the future 350 October 21, 1997 and the Council.should provide a way for people to avoid that intersection, especially'to avoid left-hand turns. Alderman Schaper stated we need to stub out to the :south to maintain local connectivity that .isnot on the collectors and we need to keep thelocal access.as -the Planning Commission decided on the north side and. that would pave the .way for this to be integrated to future development. Ms. Harrington went of -way. She stated .given-to..the;north; there is angled owner. owner. on to the second issue, the Rupple Road right the developer is happy to gibe,,his 20', as was but,it'.doesn't line up with the street because :piece'of property owned by another property Alderman ;Williams stated -:Rupple is listed as a minor arterial, .,which means it.cotild.be e four -lane road or even a boulevard., He would like to see something like that designed, which'would need a tlbt-of land. ;In-the''future, if+itis 'seen this land -is not needed, i it might be t.raded'fforsome otherland.. Alderman Daniel stated she does not like the triangle of land that is left over and would like the Planning Commission :to revisit that. Alderman Williams stated 50' isnot enough to build a minor arterial, so we should hold on to the other dedication until we decide what will be done. Little stated that if a 20' dedication is given, that should provide enough.,separation. Also, at the time that the City needs to acquire that, if there is not a need for the 20' dedication, it could be vacated and returned to adjacent lot owners. She stated this triangle is an uneconomic remnant. If it is surrounded on all sides by right of way, it impossible to develop: -If it isnot surrounded by right-of-way, it could be sold off in'increments to the various property owners and could have a greater value. By taking the 20', we preserve it :in terms of if we need it for right-- of-way purposes, it would be easier to acquire. Ms., Harrington stated this is not.a.big issue for them. They are more concerned about the first issue. .Jim Kimbrough,.24.20 N. Salem Road, urged the Council to deny this appeal. He stated this •development. should not be treated any differently than any other development on Salem Road. . All the others have two accesses to Salem Road. They also have two stubouts to the proposed road on the west. Ian Beard,` audience member, stated this - subdivision Shows one of the fundamental. problems of development in Fayetteville. We have too many roads that don't' go anywhere. The'more entrances the better for fire, ambulances, etc., - He did.not-feel it would encourage more traffic on Salem. 10 351 October 21, 1997 Alderman Schaper asked if the Council couldn't either send this back or modify it to require a stubout to the south. He felt this was an omission due to all the changes that have occurred. Little read from Sec. 159.54, (F) (2), of the Code of Fayetteville, which pertains to subdivision appeals. She stated the Council may either leave it as the Planning Commission approved it, deny what the Planning Commission asked for, change what the Planning Commission asked for, or send it back for further study. Alderman Young asked what is being appealed, the entire subdivision or specific aspects of it. Ms. Harrington replied they expected it to be merely on this entrance issue. She asked for City Attorney Rose's opinion. Rose responded that a PUD appeal is covered under Sec. 160.121 of the Code of Fayetteville, which stated the procedure for appeal was the same as for the appeal of a rezoning decision. He stated it doesn't really say what the Council's powers are, but it has always been interpreted to say the Council can do pretty much whatever it wants to do with it. It can modify, adopt, or return it to Planning Commission. He stated it is Alett Little's call. Little stated PUD is a part of the zoning ordinance because it affects the density consideration. It is also a subdivision because it creates those various lots, and we have always applied the subdivision regulations to that. She stated she feels more comfortable using the subdivision appeal process and did not see how giving the Council a broader slate of options would be detrimental to either the clients making the appeal or to the general public at large. She felt reasonably certain the Council had the four options. Mayor Hanna suggested voting on the appeal and then if someone would like to make a motion to send it back to the Planning Commission, they could. Ms. Harrington felt it would be detrimental from their point of view to keep on going through this procedure. They would respect the Council's vote on the street to the north if they decide to leave it there. She stated they would like to go forward with the approved plat with it there, rather than continuing and trying to make everyone happy. Alderman Daniel moved that the Council deny the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to require a third entrance for Serenity Place Subdivision. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Alderman Pettus made certain the motion was to affirm the Planning Commission's decision. Upon roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 6 to 1, with Alderman Williams voting no. 11 October 21, 1997 Alderman Schaper stated he would like to see. the. developer put a stubout to the south. He stated it:did not need to go back through the whole approval process to do that. Alderman Daniel preferred to have the Planning Commission revisit this. Alderman Williams did not think it should besent back tothe Planning. Commission or changed. . The land to the south is County land. The Council •has no information about what that land is like. He felt this property is well connected and_hoped it gets further connected by trails between the -,subdivisions for the children to use when going to school. -Little stated the mechanism :is set up to provide 'for that pedestrian access. Ten aeres separate this parcel from. the City limits to the south, one parcel. At the time -that is developed, .pedestrian access can be worked out to the south..• Alderman Schaper stated we would have to leave pedestrian access somewhere in the vicinity -of lots 62 br 61, somewhere in that corner. - Ms. Harrington volunteered to put that in there, if it take three more years of planning to do it. Alderman Schaper stated he did not hear any support for that long. BID WAIVER would not it taking Mayor Hanna introducedan ordinance waiving competitive bidding and allowing the Mayor to enter into a contract for design, purchase, and installation of surveillance equipment for the Fayetteville Police Department. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance forthe first time. Mayor Hanna .stated the Police .Department was requesting this equipment; for their drug enforcement ..programs and other surveillance Programs. )The equipment has to be custom built. The Police Department does not want the plans for the equipment made public, but had invited any council member to. .visit with them individually. ,.Alderman.,Zurcher stated he -would feel very uncomfortable spending public_moneylonequipment usedtto do surveillance onsthepublic without the public knowing'what'the money is being-Spent:on...: • Rick:Hoyt; %Assistant Police Chief, -stated this .is specialized equipmentthat was: planned"for in the Capital Improvements Program a couple of years ago. When it was shopped for, it was found to be - much more expensive than* expected.'s.This has been a back .burner project%sincegnotobeing 1ableito find anything under budget. A w 12 353 • October 21, 1997 couple of months ago, while in another state on a quest for computer software, they discovered an individual who has expertise to put surveillance equipment together and has done it for other police departments at a great savings to the public. It involves video equipment and time lapse recording equipment. It is constructed to be operated remotely and will be used in accordance with the Fourth Amendment. We have had to borrow equipment like this in the past, which is not always readily available. This information has been given to the Mayor, and the City Attorney has looked at it. Alderman Zurcher stated he does not think knowing about the equipment will make it easier to perpetrate crimes. Officer Hoyt agreed to a point. Knowing how this equipment is assembled or used would allow the perpetrators to take countermeasures, which would defeat the purpose of having the equipment. Alderman Zurcher expressed concerns about privacy and spying without probable cause. Aldermen Trumbo and Daniel expressed faith in the police department. There was no audience comment. Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and go to the second reading. Alderman Daniel seconded. Upon' roll call, the motion carried on a vote of 6 to 1, with Alderman Zurcher voting no. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the second time. Alderman Trumbo moved to suspend the rules and go to the third reading. This was left on the second reading. GREENSPACE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance amending the Greenspace Ordinance to increase the contribution formula for greenspace fees to reflect an increase in the average market price per acre of developable land to $15,000. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Mayor Hanna stated he and staff had submitted three questions to the Parks & Recreation Board concerning this, which they answered. Alderman Daniel stated she favors the increase. She realizes the cost to some extent will be passed on to homeowner and we do need more affordable housing, but that is a separate issue. She felt constituents would support this. 13 354 • • October 21, 1997 Alderman Trumbo stated there is sometimes reluctance to approve a dollar amount in lieu of landjust because it is not enough money in today's market to buy good land for parks. Alderman Williams felt it .is required from developers; but equitable. The value must be a question of equity. Land can be if money is accepted, it should be kept as fair as possible. Alderman Schaper agreed. Iiis concern was in maintaining the equity `.in`determining the,valu&'of land_.;' He supported the $20,000 or more per acre amount given by Mr. Faucette and Jim Lindsey as the appropriate value of land in developed subdivisions. Alderman Young suppbrted'it"being equitable, but using current land values is a problem as that -is subject to change.- He thought an ',i•nflation factor should berincluded. ;He stated landdonatedby one :developer is often'worth'more-tb the developer than the fee paid by another developer. Alderman Williams pointed out that occasionally land that is excellent for a park is not always good for building homes on. Alderman Zurcher stated the onlycriticism he's heard of the greenspace ordinance is that the City often accepts money instead of land. He felt the purpose of the ordinance would be achieved if the City just required land, which could be given to a homeowner's association to run and the City's park dollars would not have to be used. Alderman Schaper stated the concern is that in smaller subdivisions the amount of land you would get would make for a very uneconomic park, which is the reason for takingmoney in lieu of land. The basic commitment is land, and that -is why it is critical to keep the price commensurate with land.values. Alderman Schaper moved to amend the ordinance to set the price at $20;000 per acre, instead of $15,000: Alderman Zurcher seconded. Alderman Pettus thought people on the. low end of -the scale were being punished. Bill Ackerman, Parks & Recreation _Board, stated there- is -a 'disparity in the cost of landwhich•is based on location. This was taken into consideration, but it was difficult to come up -with anything but a reasonable average. The answer to consistency and equality in the ordinance may have :to' be addressed every year or so. City Attorney Rose stated the figures used in the motion do not occur in the ordinance and would. need to be translated. Upon roll call, the-amendmentfailed on:a-vote of 3 to 4, with Aldermen. Young, Trumbo, Pettus, and Williams voting no. 14 355 October 21, 1997 Alderman Young moved to amend it to add wording to the end of it that requires the parks department to review this fee every two years and make a recommendation to the Council. Alderman Zurcher seconded. Upon roll call, the amendment passed on a vote of 6 to 1, with Alderman Trumbo voting no. This ordinance was left on the first reading. SKATEBOARDS AND SKATES ORDINANCE Mayor Hanna introduced an ordinance applying certain ordinances regulating bicycles to skateboards and in-line skates; requiring said persons to use a bicycle light or reflective tape after dark; and repealing section 74.08 (A) of the Code of Fayetteville. City Attorney Rose read the ordinance for the first time. Alderman Zurcher stated this is the result of several people approaching him to say this is their means of transportation and one man who tests skates for a company. He stated these are legitimate forms of transportation. The law stating these things cannot be ridden on the street is outdated. Safety is a consideration, but there is a way to deal with them and allow people to get to where they need to go. Alderman Daniel stated most of the people she has talked to see this as a safety issue and that skateboards are not in the same category as bikes. Alderman Williams stated this has been before the Street Committee many times. Skateboarders and the Police Department have attended. The majority of the Committee is not in favor of this ordinance. Alderman Pettus stated she has asked many of her constituents and people around town and has yet to meet someone in favor of this ordinance. Alderman Zurcher responded he has not met many who are against it. The issue is not having a whole bunch of skateboarders and rollerbladers who aren't on the streets already now take to the streets, which is what he thought came out of Street Committee meetings. This will legitimize a way to get around. There are vast stretches with no sidewalk. He asked how people are supposed to get from a major meeting place like Dickson Street to a major hang out place to skate, except by breaking the law as it now stands. The vast majority of people he's talked to who use skateboards would rather use sidewalks, if the sidewalks were any good. Mayor Hanna opened discussion to the public. He asked that comments be held to three or four minutes and not be repetitious. 15 356 October 21 1997 Ray Hague stated .he does not have a. car and :walks• to work. He would skate to work, but can't because .of the law. He sees skateboarders harassed all the time in front of his house on School Street. If the City wants skateboarders to use sidewalks, .they need to build sidewalks.. He felt the law is a law of badgering that gives police the right to harass. Michael Hill stated he has been riding a skateboard for 15 years to work, friends' houses, store, movies, parks, and wherever he goes. This is not an issue about recreation or transportation; it is about a way of life. Skateboards do blur legal lines; they are not bicycles or cars. They do not have a readily accessible breaking device but are going much slower. He,prefers using sidewalks and parking lots, but they are not always available. Mr. Hill stated a big issue brought up in the Street Committee by Alderman Daniel was pedestrian fear of skateboarders. He agreed people are afraid of what they don't understand and a lot of people don't understand skateboards. In that situation, it is better for the skateboarder to be on the street. Mr. Hillstated that according to Deputy Chief Hoyt, 15 tickets have been issued in the many years of the present law's existence. A•law that allows him to go on the street when necessary would be a good law. It would not impede the flow of traffic; skateboarders do not like to get hit by cars.. Riding a skateboard on a sidewalk in front of a business is dangerous for pedestrians. Mr. Hill stated skateboarding is safe.. Most injuries occur during recreational skateboarding. Jesse Cornwell first addressed previous comments from aldermen regarding constituents not supporting this. He stated he does not think many of them skateboard. He uses his skateboard to go to school, as it is easier than driving and trying to find a place to park. He stated he was hit by a car recently. He stated the fault was his, the driver's, and the fact that this has not been addressed and neither he nor the driver knew what to do. He attested to the fact that sidewalks are often not there or are not in good condition. vAlan-Short agreed that sidewalks are preferred by skateboarders. .He•'stated he has.been'stopped:fdr'riding his skateboard on Dickson -Street on the sidewalk at a slow speed. Anthony Sutter has used the; street rather than a sidewalk heavily used .by,tpedestrians and "been. given a citation for disorderly conduct. He stated skateboards should be allowed on the streets '..Where sidewalks,are full of pedestrians and where sidewalks are not .present A citizen stated he was riding his skateboard on the sidewalk on Dickson Street with abox of potatoes, was pulled over, and now has to go to jail for five days since he cannot pay his ticket. 16 357 October 21, 1997 Brandon Flammang stated he skates for recreation, exercise, transportation, and to test skates for a major manufacturer. About two months ago, when using the street to skate around an unskateable portion of sidewalk, the bicycle police stopped him to inform him skates and other toy vehicles are not allowed on the street. They also alerted him that this law is being enforced primarily in the Dickson Street and Square area of town, not residential areas. He stated sidewalks are not always available. He noted the disorderly conduct law is a State law, which will not be affected by passing this ordinance. He suggested building bike lanes everywhere or giving the option of using the street when it's prudent. A citizen stated this is not an either/or issue; there are alternatives. This emphasizes the need for infrastructural change in our town. She stated she is a bicyclist, not a skateboarder, but totally affirmed that method of getting around. The City needs to start thinking about lanes for skateboarders and bicyclists and compromise on the parking. A University professor stated she lives where there are stretches of road with no sidewalks. She feels uncomfortable walking there in the dark at this time of year. There are major infrastructural problems here for people who do not want to use an automobile. Shoulders are narrow. She stated skateboards and skates are a way for kids to get around before they can drive and is a healthy activity. Anna Butler stated her son skates back and forth to work. She gave Gainsville, Florida, as an example of a community that has resolved this issue. She stated it is dangerous to criminalize men and women for doing something that is not a criminal activity. Mark Holt addressed the criminalizing aspect. In this information age, such a record immediately criminalizes a person and can affect unrelated future events. Ian Beard stated he lives in a neighborhood that has no sidewalks, not even curbs. He did not see how an in-line skater or skateboarder could visit him without breaking the law. The City should regulate this now and should look into alternative methods of transportation to relieve traffic problems. This is a good place to start. Mayor Hanna closed the public hearing. Alderman Williams responded about the sidewalk situation. A lot of this town was developed when there was no ordinance requiring sidewalks. New subdivisions are required to have sidewalks. Additionally, the amount of money spent on sidewalks has increased by 500% since he has been on the Council. The City has a sidewalk division to improve and build sidewalks. Mayor Hanna has requested matching funds for three major trail developments. The Trails Committee has worked hard on a bike trails plan and there are bike 17 October 21, 1997 lanes..throughout the city. He felt the Council has been responsive to this need. Mayor Hanna stated the budget allows $250,000a year for the next five.years for sidewalks.: - IAlderman-Young asked if:'aipedestrian is in violation of the law 'when he walks onthe.road where there is a break in the sidewalk. f 4 s r +.w Officerr-Hoyt did not;know of -such a laW. He was aware of only four tickets=written `on skaters'fffor-this. Others have been written for •disorderly*coriduct, a' Stae law, for impeding traffic.; He stated the police department is on the,side of safety. •, s : a c: r Iv .t :r ;Alderman Zurcher,,.'asked if the ordinance could say, instead..of •. giving the same tights as bicycles, that skaters can use the road when sidewalks aren't useable. Officer Hoyt agreed that would be a little:better, but the -police department could not support something that has the propensity to -, cause more accidents. Alderman Young stated he was`thinking about giving them the same rights as pedestrians. There was consensus to leavethis on the first reading. A member of the audience asked for clarification of where' this -issue ,now stands. Mayor Hanna' stated nothing ,has changed. Alderman .Williams explained about the requirementfor three readings of an ordinance. Alderman.Zurcher stated this will.'be- addressed again at. the next Council meeting. OFF-STREET PARKING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS Mayor Hanna introduced a resolution appointing E. Lamar Pettus and Thomas D. Stockland as commissioners on the Board of Improvement of the Off -Street Parking Development District No. 1 of .the City of Fayetteville. -Alderman Pettus recused from this issue. Shestated she owns .property in the district . City Attorney Rose stated that the petition states the Arkansas. Code Annotated 14-88-304 says the people who sign this petition declare that John Lewis and Leon Fowler are no longer property owners of the'Off-Street Parking Development District No. l of the City of Fayetteville and therefore the positions are deemed to be vacant. It: gbes on to say that.according to this statute, these people request that Mr. Lamar Pettus and Mr. Tom Stockland replace those individuals. Corroboration from Washington County Abstract is attached to the petition. The.:petition was filed May.30 and the statute requires the Council.to`look at,it. 18 • October 21, 1997 Rose explained that on June 9, a suit was filed in Circuit Court. He generally explained the five issues: 1) Can a corporation be a person who can be a member of an improvement district; 2) May a corporation appoint someone to represent them as a commissioner; 3) If the answer is no, does the statute violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution; 4) Is the City bound to name a commissioner named in this petition or may further nominations be considered; 5) Whether or not we should require proof that the petition signers are property owners. Rose stated a temporary restraining order was obtained to prevent the Council from looking at this matter further back in June. Since that time, that order has been lifted. Rose explained that a parking district is an improvement district formed under the statutes of the State of Arkansas. Its purpose is to have parking for the benefit of the improvement district members and property owners. They have purchased parking facilities in the downtown area and have a bond issue. The property owners within the district are assessed a certain amount to pay off those bonds. There are three commissioners. Rose reviewed the State statute and how this petition follows it. The petition must be signed by five or more property owners in the district affected. Rose stated there are more than five signatures that purport to be property owners. He stated he knows nothing different than that. The petition must recite that a commissioner is no longer a property owner in the district; this petition does that. It must be accompanied by a certificate of an abstractor; the Council has that certificate. It says the person shall automatically cease to be a commissioner. Rose explained that Council action is not required to eliminate Mr. Lewis and Mr. Fowler from the improvement district. That was done by the filing of the petition. Rosestated what is before the Council is the sentence that states the office is declared to be vacant from the date of the filing of the petition, May 30, and the Council that created the district shall forthwith name as commissioner of the district to fill the vacancies the person named in the petition and recommended for commissioner of the district if the person is a property owner in the district. Rose stated that on Sept. 10, three new petitions were filed with the City Clerk. Those petitions ask for McRoy & McNair, the Bank of Fayetteville, and Mr. Lewis to be named to fill the vacancy. Rose stated the statute makes no provision for that and he is not aware of any case law pertaining to whether the Council should consider them. He stated on the face of the statute, there is no choice for the Council other than the petition that has been filed and the two names that have been filed. Rose explained what would happen if the court later decided the Council's actions were in error. He stated he would never advise the Council to do other than follow a statute or court order. If the court order should be in any way contrary to any action taken 19 359 360 October 21, 1997' by, the Council, he would ask the Council to amend what they had done. The City of Fayetteville is a party. to that action and would be advised of what to do. He stated this petition does not seek to remove corporate representation. It seeks to remove individual representation. He stated it would be his opinion if the court should decide that these people are corporate representatives, that this petition would be moot. He stated the Council -could ,delay its action until the court acts, but he had problems with the "shall forthwith" language. He stated the temporary restraining order was removed with the permission of all of the parties of the lawsuit and it was his opinion they knew the Council would consider this. He also understood that the parties wanted to eliminate the temporary restraining order to further the ability of the parties to settle this matter without further litigation. Alderman Williams pointed out the certificate of the abstractors states Lewis and Fowler do not own real estate • in the district boundaries but it doesn't address the fact of whether or not a corporation that they might represent owns the property. Rose stated the petition does not seek to eliminate any corporate representation. It seeks to eliminate the personal representation. He did not doubt that it is possible' for a corporation to be represented on an improvement district board. Whether or not Mr. Lewis and Mr. Fowler are corporate representatives may be a factual issue for the Council to decide. If the court should decide they are corporate representatives, the Council's action would be a nullity. Rose stated the self-interest here is to try to get clear title to a piece of property that we wish to build a town center on. He.,' stated he is not sure there is any way at this point in time to get the title needed for the issuance of bonds. That will have to wait until the court rules, the case is dropped, or something of that nature.- He did not think that was a factor in the Council's decision at this time. He advised the Council to follow the r statute. "Alderman Williams stated he believed the Council should forthwith name.a commissioner when there is a vacancy but if there is a question thet,Council.should not act. Alderman Young stated State law says, it was declared vacant by the 'filingof the petition.,' • 1 . t 6 Alderman Daniel asked what would happen if the Council voted against this resolution. Rose replied his best reading of the statute is that the Council has little choice. Alderman Williams stated Rose had said that if the Council accepted all this they would resolve their issues so we would know we are dealing with commissioners everybody agrees on. 20 361 October 21, 1997 Rose stated that hope was extended by a letter. It was his understanding that when the parties agreed to remove the temporary restraining order, it was done so the Council would take action on this matter and the case would be settled after that point. They would attempt to settle it, if the City took action. Lamar Pettus stated that the ordinance passed on July 5, 1988, was passed at a time when the Bank of Fayetteville did not own property in the district. John Lewis's appointment as a corporate representative would have been improper. Resolution 52-88 clearly indicates that the City Council appointed Bobby Lee Odom and John Lewis to the Board, not the Bank of Fayetteville. He stated the same type of resolution was passed for Leon Fowler. Mr. Pettus assured the Council that he owns property in the district and stated he had another certification done that shows that Tom Stockland and all the signers of the petition own property in the district. He encouraged the Council to follow the law and accept the petition and go forward. Mayor Hanna felt it is spelled out very plainly what the Council is supposed to do, accept the petition. Alderman Schaper stated he would abstain on this issue due to a legal conflict with Mr. Stockland. Alderman Zurcher moved the resolution. Alderman Trumbo seconded. City Attorney Rose assured Alderman Williams that his being a leaseholder in the district does not present a conflict of interest, as he does not pay any assessment or have a financial obligation towards the parking district. Upon roll call, the resolution passed on a vote of 4-1-2, with Alderman Daniel voting no and Aldermen Pettus and Schaper abstaining. City Attorney Rose explained the abstentions go with the majority and so this resolution was passed. RESOLUTION 101-97 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. OTHER BUSINESS AMERICAN EAGLE/O'HARE AIRPORT Alderman Williams stated it is possible that Fayetteville will receive jet service between Drake Field and Chicago O'Hare Airport by American Eagle. It has been requested that the Council support this request. Alderman Williams read the following resolution: Whereas the citizens of Fayetteville and the surrounding region would be benefited by the proposed American Eagle non-stop jet service to Chicago, therefore, the City of Fayetteville supports the 21 362 -October 21,; 1997 application of American Eagle for an exemption from the high density slot.•rule to.4..initiate•.non-stop, regional jet service from ;.Chicago:s,O'Hare Airport t6 Fayetteville's Drake'Field. Alderman Zurcher moved the resolution. Alderman Young seconded. Upon roll call',`the'resolution passed on a vote of 7 to 0. .RESOLUTION 102-97 AS RECORDED. IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. 1r-1Y•.a ADJOURNMENT Alderman Zurcher announced a teen center subcommittee of the Juvenile Concerns Committee meeting. for Thursday. Mayor Hanna adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. 22