Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-01-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE FAYETTEVILLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD & ARTS CENTER BOARD A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held on Tuesday, January 14, 1986 at 7:00 P.M. in the Directors' Room. of the City Administration Building, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayette- ville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Martin and Orton; Acting City Manager Murphy, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy, members of the press and audience ABSENT: Director Lancaster CALL TO ORDER • The meeting was called to order by Mayor Noland at 7:00 P.M., with five directors present. Director Bumpass arrived shortly after the roll was called. FOURTH LOT SPLIT The Mayor introduced further consideration of a request by Len Edens for Board approval of a fourth lot split, for property located at the southwest corner of Highway 16 West and Highway 71. The Mayor explained the Board tabled this request at its last meeting, until the Planning Commission's action on a request for a third lot split. C.D. and Planning Director Sandra Carlisle reported that at its January 13 meeting the Planning Commission approved the third split, 7-1, and recommended approval of a fourth split, 7-1. Director Martin, seconded by Hess, made a motion to approve the fourth lot split. Director Orton asked if the Board was circumventing the Subdivision Ordinance by approving lot splits; and she asked why some parcels should be split many times while others are developed as subdivisions. Orton asked what criteria is used by the Planning Commission in their consideration of requests for lot splits. Director Hess stated he understood the property owner made the request in order to create a buffer zone between residential property and a liquor store, because of a requirement that a liquor store not be located immediately adjacent to residential property. 15 15.1 15.2 15.3 15.4 15.5 15.6 10 January 14, 1986 16.1 Ervan Wimberly, speaking for Northwest Engineers, stated he thought the subdivision regulations ensure that lots which are created have all the facilities necessary, such as water, sewer, streets and storm drainage. Wimberly noted that, in this case, street right-of-way has been dedicated, curb and gutter has been installed, and all utilities have been made available to the property. Wimberly added that he thought lot split waivers were granted to help property owners in exceptional cases to avoid the process of filing a preliminary plat if it is not really necessary or required. Mayor Noland asked if a sidewalk requirement would be imposed for the property and Wimberly stated this would be required either at construction time or by a Bill of Assurance. Wimberly added that the owner would retain ownership of both lots resulting from the fourth lot split. 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 16.6 Upon roll call, the notion passed, 6-0, with Director Lancaster absent. Director Orton asked that the Board have some criteria for making decisions regarding lot split requests. Orton asked City Attorney McCord to write a sample ordinance which would included such criteria. McCord noted an alternative would be to refer the request to the Planning Commission Committee which is presently in the process of preparing revisions to the subdivision regulations. McCord added that he could review a recommendation from that committee. Orton concurred with McCord's suggestion. OTHER BUSINESS PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED Director Johnson announced that a Personnel Committee meeting would be held at 3:00 P.M. on Thursday, December 16, to discuss final appli- cations for "super" department head positions. Director Orton expressed surprise that this committee would review such applications, commenting that she did not think it within the domain of the Board of Directors to select personnel other than the City Manager. Director Johnson responded that the committee's intent is to look over the applications to make sure that those are the people they want brought in for interviews. Director Orton stated it was her understanding that the City Manager would conduct the hiring for such positions. Director Martin remarked that, in the case of Police and Fire Chiefs, the City Manager relies on input from the Civil Service Commission in terms of recommendations for final decision. Martin added that he was under the impression that the City Manager and Acting City Manager would ask for input from the Board Personnel Committee on these new positions. 1 January 14, 1986 Acting. City Manager Murphy commented that the original intent of the Personnel Committee was for it to be an ad hoc committee which would deal with this issue, among others. Murphy -remarked that he thought it important there be a selection process which not only satisfies City Manager Grimes and himself, but also the Board of Directors. Murphy stated that although the committee provided a means for having three representatives from the Board, he thought it was also an attempt to obtain impartial evaluations of applicants, rather than Board approval. 3; 17.1 Director Johnson explained the committee would also discuss job des- 17.2 criptions for positions which were approved in the budget. NOMINATING COMMITTEE MEETING SCHEDULED At the request of Director Johnson, a Nominating Committee meeting was scheduled to fill a final vacancy on the city Planning Commission, for Tuesday, December 21, at 9:00 A.M. SENATOR BUMPERS TO ADDRESS CITY BOARD Director Bumpass noted that he had made arrangements for Senator Bumpers to meet with the City Board in a round -table discussion, for Thursday, December 16 at 1:30 P.M. in Room 326. Bumpass stated he thought this would be an opportunity for the Board to discuss with Bumpers issues such as. Fair Labor Standards, the House Ways and Means Tax Bill and its affect on General Obligation and Industrial Revenue bonds, as well as any other legislative issues of concern to the Board. MEETING OF CITY BOARD AND PARKS BOARD SCHEDULED Mayor Noland announced that there would be a joint meeting of the City Board and Parks and Recreation Advisory Board on Tuesday, December 21, at 6:00 P.M. JOINT MEETING OF CITY BOARD AND ARTS CENTER BOARD The joint meeting of the Fayetteville City Board and the Arts Center Board -began at 7:30 P.M. PRESENT: City Board members: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Hess, Johnson, Lancaster, Martin,. and Orton; Acting City Manager Murphy, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk Kennedy; Arts Center Board members: Stephen Adams, Sarah Burnside, Mary Margaret Durst, Frank Sharp, Loris Stanton, Billie Jo Starr and Roger Widder; Architect John Mott; members of the press and audience. 17.3 17.4 17.5 17.6 January 14, 1986 18.1 Mayor Noland explained that on December 18, 1984 the City Board appointed seven members to an Arts Center Board to make recommendations concerning location of an arts center, financing of construction of a new facility or renovation of an existing facility, and allocating the use of an arts center to best serve the overall needs of the community. 18.2 Frank Sharp, Chairman of the Arts Center Board, introduced committee members Stephen Adams, Sarah Burnside, Mary Margaret Durst, Loris Stanton, Billie Jo Starr and Roger Widder. Sharp gave the following background behind the arts center project: In 1977, the H/M/R tax was passed by citizens before the City Board passed a resolution which stated that the excess money, after paying off bonds for the Continuing Education Center, and after earmarking a modest amount for advertising, would go toward a "performing arts center". In 1981, the city/county sales tax was passed, with 4% of one cent being earmarked for an arts center. In 1982, the Mayor formed a committee to determine the needs for an arts center in Fayetteville, what art forms should be included in the center, size and location of a center, its relationship to the University, and funding. A report was presented which included a recommendation that the city obtain the services of a professional firm to answer some of the questions which had been posed. 18.3 John Mott reported on the results of the study conducted by Architects Mott Mobley McGowan & Griffin of Fort Smith. Mott noted that the firm was not retained to design a building, but to study the usage, cost and location of the center. Mott explained the scope of the work had been divided into six parts: (1) data gathering; (2) programming; (3) site evaluation; (4) preliminary design for the purpose of developing a cost estimate; (5) an economic study; and (6) preparation of a report. 18.4 Mott explained that questionnaires were distributed to interested parties and potential users of the center, data collected, and represen- tatives of thirty interested groups were interviewed. 18.5 Regarding the "program" aspect of the study, Mott noted the major complexes identified in the report were "performing arts", "visual arts" and "administrative". Addressing the performing arts function, Mott stated it was determined that the greatest need for the city as a whole is for a mid-size theatre of about 650 seats, including a recommendation for two rehearsal halls, and other usual facilities included in a performing arts center. For the visual arts function, the report recommends the inclusion of a gallery and two teaching studios. For the administrative complex, the report recommends offices, conference rooms and a facility for television production. Mott stated the report recommends a building of about 49,500 square feet. 18.6 Mott commented that at the beginning of the study it was recognized that the University of Arkansas was in the midst of developing a program for a performing arts center; that studies performed as part of this study and also done by the University indicated that there is a need 1 January 14, 1986 in the community for both-a•large auditorium and a mid-sized theatre. Mott stated a Cooperative snort could involve either a shared facility or multiple facilities on a single.site,ioi different facilities on different sites with shared scheduling and usage. Mott explained that, for the purpose of the study, the architects decided to pursue two options on behalf of the City of Fayetteville -- (1) a'stand-alone facility including the mid-sized theatre and (2) a facility on a shared site with the University of Arkansas. r, k'; Mott explained -that,-with the assistance of .a firm named EDAW; a.site evaluation was -done 'over the period.. of a week. The sites -selected by the Arts Center Board for -.study' were (1) . downtown on the Square; (2) near the Square;" (3). the Ozark.Theatre; and (4) a.suburban site located 'at .Colt Square. At the completion :of the study, Mott stated it wasadetermined that a site'on or near the Square seemed to be .the best, .with. the•Ozark theatre not' being capable enough to handle -a facility of the size recommended.. Mott added that, given .the site recommended, and including fees, permits, site acquisition, and equipment, as well as other necessary aspects, for a -building Diagram, the cost for the Arts Center is estimated to be between $4.8 and $4.9 million. •.. Mott noted''that the idea of 'a 'site shared'.with the -University.-was not studied in great detail because, at the time, there.was•a .lack of information about the University's plans. • • ' " 1. Mott commented that a' series of other recommendations were made do the report; including that there be a continuation of a cooperative effort, that` a site bet acquired and an architect be selected, -and that there be consideration of theselection and hiring of an arts center manager who can be involved in the. development of the facility during its planning stages. 4 • va Mott reported that the development of an economic impact study was done by'Business Research Group of Tulsa.. Mott noted 'that BRG,felt the economic benefits of a.centerfor the arts fall into four•categories: (1) quality of life considerations are becoming more•and more important in the struggle to attract and hold high quality employers and employees; (2) the direct impact of expenditure's.in the local economy construction spending ($2,000,000 plus.), and annual operations ($70,000 plus); (3) the :indirect.impact of these dollars being,spentin the Fayetteville economy -- an additional $2.2 million from. construction, and ,$230,000 per year'from operations; and (4) the Continuing Education Center; and the Square in general, will benefit from an aggressively managed and marketed center for the arts. - Stephen'•Adams, Arts Center `:Board member,' stated ithat,i by- the: •end of 1986,'the City of Fayetteville.. will have.almost 25% of the cost set aside for the -arts center,'from'the accumulated unrestricted excess H/M/R'tax tcollections,'and from the` accumulated balance of the '4% portion of: the county 1% 'sales tax. Adams projected the H/M/R tax 19 19.1 19.2 19.3 19.4 19.5 19.6 January 14, 1986 20.1 excess by the end of 1986 to be approximately $811,000; and projected the 4% of the 1% sales tax to have a fund balance of approximately $450,000; both projections totaling $1.2 million towards construction costs. 20.2 Adams commented that, according to a report from the city's Finance Director, if the center were to be financed using only the continuing H/M/R tax excess plus using continuing funds from the 4% of 1% sales tax, it would probably be necessary to issue bonds over a 20 -year period at an interest rate of approximately 8%. Adams stated the report also presented the option of using the same city sources of funds plus additional revenues projected as "continuing private contri- butions by way of membership fees, and grants from the State of Arkansas and/or the National Endowment for the Arts". Adams remarked that City -University collaboration on a project could add additional expense, but could also add some additional funding for the project. In conclusion, Adams stated that the city alone could build and operate an arts center as proposed in the report, and that the Arts Center Board would present a proposal to the City Board on April 15. 20.3 20.4 Roger Widder, Arts Center Board member, noted that for the past year the University of Arkansas has also been involved in planning "a performing arts center", and has been given impetus by a grant of $5 million from Mr. and Mrs. Sam Walton of Bentonville. Widder explained that a "Cooperative Planning Statement" is proposed by the Fayetteville Arts Center Board and the University of Arkansas -- including the appointment of a joint committee consisting of the members of the Arts Center Board and a like number of University representatives, to determine and explore the possibilities of a common presentation for the arts needs of the area. Widder explained the group would then present a report to the City Board and to the University Board of Trustees. Widder stated the report would include: (a) a general recommendation as to whether a common operation will best serve the art needs of the area; (b) a general plan for the size and character of the facilities; (c) a preferred location for the arts facilities; (d) an estimate of the total capital cost; (e) a timetable for construction of the facilities; (f) recommended structure for the long-term management and main- tenance of the facilities; (g) an estimate of operating costs and plans for funding of ongoing operational expenses. Adams recommended that (1) the city continue to work closely with the University of Arkansas; (2) the City Board give the Arts Center Board a general idea as to whether the proposed financing ideas are "out of line"; and (3) that the City Board approve an extension of the current contract with Mott Mobley McGowan and Griffin, at a maximum cost of approximately $2500. Adams pointed out that, if the city's January 14, 1986 and University's needs mesh, changes will be considered to the program Just presented. Adams explained there is a provision in the contract with Mott Mobley that allows an hourly consultation fee as an addendum to the contract. Adams reported that Mott has estimated such a Consul- tation would take a maximum of about 40 hours, and the maximum rate which could be charged would be $56.25 per hour. Director Orton .asked if the $2500 cost would be shared with the Uni- versity. A representative from the University responded that the University has retained its own architectural firm -- Wittenberg, iDeloney & Davidson. Director Orton asked how both architectural firms .would cooperate. Mott responded that the firms would cooperate "as any joint group would cooperate". Director Orton remarked that starting out with two architectural firms seemed to be a duplication of effort at the outset. Adams stated he thought an architect was needed who would be veryfamiliar with the city's program, in order to determine the affect any changes would have on the needs for the city and the Costs involved. In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Adams stated that about $96,000 had been spent in fees thus far. Director Bumpass, seconded by Orton, made a motion to approve a not - to -exceed expenditure of $2500. Director Johnson asked how far apart the two groups were as far as size and total costs for a facility. Dr. Dan Ferritor, Provost for the University of Arkansas, responded that he thought the groups were quite close on many discussion items. He added that there has not been time to meet on specific questions but that, for the past month, the two groups have been in the process of "agreeing to agree". In answer to a question. from Director Lancaster, Adams stated the next report would include information such as the difference in costs to the city between a 650 -seat theatre and a joint facility, joint operating costs to the city, and who would own and administer the facility. Lancaster commented that the Arts Center Board had come up with "almost a final report" and "then we decide we're going to go back and start over". Lancaster remarked that this was the first time the City Board had heard of any real concrete proposals from the University. • Director Hess commented that he cooperating and expressed hopes be presented which will meet needs on an expanded basis. was very glad to see the two Boards that, on April 15, a proposal can the community's and the University's City Attorney McCord suggested the joint committee report. include a recommended structure for financing the construction of the facility. 21 21.1 21.2 21.3 ,21.4 21.5 21.6 21.7 21.8 22.1 22.2 22.3 22.4 22.5 January 14, 1986 Upon roll call, the motion passed, 7-0. RESOLUTION NO. 11-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 255 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION BOOK XXIII Director Martin remarked that the Business Research Group had referred to tax and direct subsidies as "non market support" and referred to a large component of support from "individual contributors". Martin asked whether or not the non -market support and support from individual contributors was typical of a successful arts center. Martin also asked what affect this might have on the ultimate success of the program. Martin pointed out the total "non market" subsidies were just under 80% of total funds available, with individual contributions representing about 6%. Martin asked if that was an abnormally low level of individual support. Mott responded that the procedure used by the Business Research Group was to sample other arts centers of approximate size. Martin asked if any shortfall in operating costs would be made up by a blend of individual contributions and additional subsidies, or primarily additional subsidies. Mott stated he thought it would be a blend but pointed out that, in a cooperative effort, the operational costs would be shared by more than one entity. Director Martin asked that the next report address how "unpredictable operating costs" would be met by the city, or met jointly, and what kind of flexibility the University would have in coming up with its share of any shortfalls. Adams stated that the current report "amply provides for operating costs of the center" but remarked that over the long term the City Board would be asked to commit, on a permanent basis, the 4% of 1% county sales tax to the arts. Director Martin noted that Business Research Group had estimated the direct impact of annual operations expenditures on the local economy to be $70,000, and the indirect impact of these dollars being spent in the Fayetteville economy to be $230,000 per year from operations. Martin asked from where the $230,000 would be derived. Mott responded that figure is impacted by an expectation that, if the Square is the chosen location, the operation of the facility would increase sales figures of other facilities near the Square. Director Martin expressed concern regarding cost estimates in the report, pointing out that a future Board would be responsible for funding any mistakes made at the outset. Director Lancaster stated he thought there was never any intention to earmark tax moneys for continuing operations expenses. Sharp stated he thought it essential that users fees be kept low enough so that everyone can use the facility. Sharp noted that, when community groups were polled regarding how much they could pay to use an arts center, the results showed total users fees of about $22,000. Sharp stated he thought the projected operating fees were in line. 1 1 January 14, 1986 Director Bumpass stated he thought it might be good not to rush into the project and he expressed hopes that the city might have the foresight and vision to "bring this marriage of town and gown together". Bumpass added that it would be a tragedy for the community not to try to utilize all of its resources for a joint project. Bumpass remarked that the report assumes that "all unrestricted fund balances from H/M/R taxes would be capitalized in this project", and he noted that, as a member of the Advertising and Promotion Commission, the "modest amount" to be set aside for advertising "was open for discussion". In answer to a question from Bumpass, Mott stated that the cost projections did not include any expenditure for parking. Mott noted that one reason why the area of the Square was preferred as a location was because of "some 1,000 or more parking spaces available" in the area of the Square. . Audience Comments Kathy Thompson,, speaking from the audience, pointed out that the Uni- versity's original intent was for a performing arts center only and she urged that the community's needs for visual arts be taken into consideration. In answer to a question from the audience, Mott explainedthat the two sites recommended in the report were located on the south side of the Square, and south of Rock Street. A member of the audience expressed the wish that a member of the press investigate the history of what funds were obligated from the H/M/R tax at the time of the election. A member of the audience stated he thought restrictions were placed on how the money could be used, when the Walton donation was first made to the University. A representative from the University responded that there are "no substantial restrictions" on the donation made by Mr. and Mrs. Walton, other than that it be used for a facility for the arts and that it serve not only the University of Arkansas but the City of Fayetteville, and the people of Northwest Arkansas. A member of the audience spoke on behalf of the Community Concert Association, stating their needs would not be met by a city facility. She pointed out that this association would need a larger facility. Option on Proposed Site Director Orton pointed out that a verbal option on property proposed as a site for the facility would expire on January 21. Director Orton asked if a decision would be made within the next week on this site. Director Bumpass commented that the sites recommended in the report were chosen before the University indicated any interest in a combined 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.6 23.7 23.8 24.1 24.2 24.3 24.4 ' January 14, 1986 facility, and suggested the Board should keep an open mind regarding a site. Dr. Ferritor commented that the University had looked at several sites and has concluded that "there is no perfect site", with every one having its advantages and disadvantages. Loris Stanton pointed out that it may be necessary to expend a certain amount of money to retain the current option, until such time as a decision is made regarding a site. It was agreed that this matter would be placed on the agenda of the next City Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at about 9:15 P.M. 1 1