HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-07-14 MinutesMINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A special meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Monday, July 14, 1986 at 2:30 p.m. in Room 326 of City Hall,
113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Noland; Directors Bumpass, Johnson, Hess and 212.2
Martin; City Manager Grimes, Administrative Services
Director Linebaugh, City Clerk Kennedy, members of
the press and audience.
x:12
212.1
ABSENT: Directors Lancaster and Orton
Mayor Noland called the meeting to order at 2:40 p.m., with five Directors
present. The Mayor explained the purpose of the meeting was to discuss
a site for an Arts Center. He noted the Board had been presented
with some material from the Arts Center Board regarding comparative
costs of sites, minutes of the July 9 meeting of the joint City/University
of Arkansas Arts Center Committee, and proposed resolutions for con-
sideration.
212.3
212.4
Director Bumpass stated he had attended the last joint meeting and 212.5
it appeared to him that the decision for the location of a site was
imminent in order for the project to go forward.
City Manager Grimes stated that there had been an impasse of sorts 212.6
on that issue, with the University's first choice being Maple Street
north of the stadium and the City Arts Center Board of the opinion
that site was not acceptable, for valid reasons. Grimes said it came
out in that meeting that the City Arts Center Board's first choice
was Rock Street, which is not acceptable to the University because
they feel the facility needs to be within walking distance to the
University. Grimes said it became obvious there is a need to reach
a compromise and he had conversed with some Directors last week who
indicated a desire to schedule this special meeting in order to avoid
any more strained relations among committee members and to get moving
on the project.
Grimes said he prepared a resolution pertaining to the site on Dickson
Street because he felt it would begin discussion and hopefully result
in a decision on a site. Grimes said he thought Dickson Street needed
some attention from City government anyway. Grimes said the Arts
Center alone will not be able to revitalize Dickson Street, but the
merchants and property owners have indicated a willingness to make
a commitment to spend money for parking and to "dress up Dickson Street".
Grimes said, however, that he did not think an Arts Center on Dickson
212.7
213
•
July 14, 1986
213.1 Street in its present condition would be appropriate. Grimes noted
that, although a compromise decision will not make everyone happy,
it was important to reach an agreement under which everyone can work
together.
213.2 Bumpass stated he was encouraged that the University and at least
one member of the City Arts Center Board saw Dickson Street as a feasible
compromise location. Bumpass said he thought this showed a great
deal of flexibility on the part .of the University to actually spend
money away from the campus, in a place where it will be a challenge
to update and renovate other structures. Bumpass said he thought
the two issues to be faced are (1) the decision on the location; and
(2) the financing structure as conceived by the joint committee.
213.3 Director Bumpass made a motion that the resolution as submitted by
the City Manager be adopted regarding location.
213.4 The Mayor read from part of the resolution which stated that:
213.5 ...the Dickson Street site will best serve the interests
of both the University of Arkansas and the community if
the Dickson Street merchants and property owners, the City
and the University will all work together to make it the
type of area where an arts center facility will be in its
proper setting, where persons utilizing the facility and
attending events will feel comfortable and secure and where
adequate, convenient parking is readily available. As a
minimum, the Dickson Street property owners will be required
to form an improvement district and construct at least 500
off-street parking spaces which will be conveniently available
for use by patrons of the arts center. The City and the
University will also support the upgrading of the area as
available resources permit.
213.6 It is the expressed intent of the City of Fayetteville to
make the arts center and its surrounding area a place of
which we can all be proud.
213.7 In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Arts Center Board member
Loris Stanton explained the boundaries of the Dickson Street site
include all of Block 6 which lies between Dickson and Spring, and
between West and School. Stanton noted the original site considered
only the north half of that block.
213.8 In answer to a question from Director Bumpass, Arts Center Board member
Frank Sharp explained that the figures on page two of the Report on
Comparative Costs are figures provided by John Mott, of Mott -Mobley -McGowan
and Griffin, who conducted an evaluation of three sites.
Cs I el
July 14, 1986
Director Bumpass pointed out that, in the new figures provided by 214.1
Stanton on appraised values of the sites, the Dickson Street site
is double the original size which was proposed by Mott. Stanton said
the original value for half the block was estimated to be $458,000
but there was feeling on the part of some people that the whole block
should be considered because of the need for adjacent parking.
Director Martin, noting that he had been unable to attend some of 214.2
the Arts Center meetings, asked if the University accepted the Dickson
Street site as a compromise. A representative of the University responded
that the University's position is to move forward with plans for this
site, but to acknowledge that there may be problems with this site
and if these are encountered, that there may have to be an alternative
site which, in the University's point of view, would be the Wedington
site.
Director Martin stated that he respected the Arts Center Board's judgment
that the Rock Street site is their preferred site. Martin said that,
when itbecame obvious that the University would not accept the Rock
Street site, he felt it necessary to move forward with the Dickson
Street site in the interests of the partnership between the City and
the University.
214.3
Martin agreed that the Dickson Street site may turn -out not to be 214.4
feasible and he commented that, if this should be the case, cooperation
on both sides will have to increase. Martin said he thought both
sides had a solemn obligation to do everything they can to continue
to increase cooperation.
Mayor Noland asked that there be a professional appraisal done on 214.5
both the Dickson and Wedington sites before voting on a site. Noland
said, if the Dickson site will cost 25% of the available funds, he
did not think the budget could withstand the expense and still accommodate
the University's desire to have a 1200 -seat auditorium.
Director Bumpass commented that different figures were presented in 214.6
the public opinion poll than those which have been provided today.
Bumpass said he preferred to exhaust the possibilities of the Dickson
Street site before considering a second compromise location.
Director Hess pointed out that the Mott report was based on the assumption 214.7
that a specific amount of land was required to built the center.
Hess noted that the required amount of land has now been expanded
to double its original size.
The Mayor pointed out that the property values have been reassessed 214.8
since the time Mott obtained values for the sites.
Carlton Woods, speaking from the audience, expressed concern regarding 214.9
the problem of noise from the train on Dickson Street. He suggested
.LJ
July 14, 1986,
215.1 the possibility of conducting an acoustical study to determine the
cost of keeping the train noise out of the center.
215.2 Rick Mayes, speaking for the Dickson Street merchants association,
asked if the additional property now beans proposed for the Dickson
Street site was for parking. Loris Stanton replied that this was
the case. Mayes said his understanding was that Dickson Street merchants
and property owners would provide the parking. Mayes said this fact
did not appear to be taken into consideration in the asking price
of $1,554,700 for the whole block. Stanton said that, although the
original estimate from tax rolls for half the block was $458,000,
the current asking price for half of the block is actually between
$900,000 and $950,000.
215.3 Arts Center Board member Mary Margaret Durst stated that she hated
to see a decision made on a site without knowing whether the City
and University can agree on how the center will be operated. Durst
said such an agreement is in the process of being drafted but has
not yet been reviewed by the Arts Center Board.
215.4 Mayor Noland asked how long it would take to obtain a professional
appraisal. Grimes responded that, without advertising, but with obtaining
sealed quotes, an appraisal could probably take place within two weeks.
215.5 Bob Huff, speaking from the audience, stated that he was upset at
the manner in which the University rejected the Rock Street site,
and commented that the University seemed blind to the potential of
that area. Huff said he thought it would be better for the City and
the University to go their own ways on building a center.
215.6 Loris Stanton noted that the asking price for the original north half
of the site is $780,000.
215.7 Mayor Noland asked Frank Sharp what comments John Mott had made with
respect to costs for soundproofing the facility. Sharp said these
costs were included in the $135,692 under "Increased cost over Wedington"
but he did not know how much of the total amount was for soundproofing.
215.8 Director Johnson seconded the motion.
215.9 Arts Center Board member Billie Jo Starr stressed that the operating
agreement is an important part of the process and said she did not
think the Arts Center Board can say whether the Dickson Street site
would be acceptable or not, until they have seen the operating agreement.
215.10 Director Hess suggested the City staff work with the joint committee
to determine the acceptability of the operating agreement.
215.11 In answer to a question from Director Johnson, Bernard Madison (rep-
resenting the University) explained that the subcommittee working
July 14, 1986
on the operating agreement consisted of two University representatives,
Ginger Crisp and Alex Lacy, and two City representatives, Jim McCord
and Stephen Adams. Madison said the subcommittee will report to the
joint committee at least four days prior to the July 22 scheduled
meeting.
216.
216.1
Director Hess stated the Dickson Street site was not his first choice 216.2
but he would vote for the resolution in the spirit of compromise and
because he saw no alternative.
Mary Margaret Durst raised the possibility of the University having 216.3
a large auditorium at the Maple Street site, and a smaller facility
being located elsewhere -- with both facilities being jointly operated.
Director Martin said that although satellite facilities would work
in an idealized world, what he hears from the community is that this
would not be a tenable idea.
Sara Burnside (Arts Center Board member) asked that it be clarified 216.4
whether the resolution refers to the north half of the block or the
entire block). Director Hess said he considered the Dickson Street
site to be the original site - the north half of the block, based
on the information from the architects that the facility can be built
in this space.
Upon roll call, the motion passed, 4-1, with Mayor Noland voting in 216.5
the minority and commenting that he was not opposed to the site but
voted against it because he felt he did not have all the facts with
which to make a decision.
RESOLUTION NO. 71-86 APPEARS ON PAGE 020.742 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION
BOOK XXV f1
The Mayor read
WHEREAS:
WHEREAS:
the following resolution:
On December 18, 1984, the Board of Directors of the
City of Fayetteville appointed an Arts Center Board
whose members are Steve Adams, Sarah Burnside, Mary
Margaret Durst, Frank Sharp, Loris Stanton, Billie
Starr, and Roger Widder; and
On May 7, 1985, the Arts. Center Board presented a report
to the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville
entitled, Fayetteville Center for the Arts, More Than
a Building asking for permission and funds to prepare
a "building program" to determine the type of facilities
required for an arts center; and
WHEREAS: On December 17,
a comprehensive
of Directors of
1985, the Arts Center Board presented
Preliminary Design Plan to the Board
the City of Fayetteville outlining
216.6
216.7
216.8
216.9
21'"
July 14, 1986
217.1 the arts needs of the community, the size and character
of the facility, the best location of the facility
and the approximate cost of the facility; and
217.2 WHEREAS: On January 14, 1986, the Arts Center Board began meeting
with the University of Arkansas Performing Arts Committee
to determine if a joint facility might best serve the
arts needs of the area; and
217.3 WHEREAS: On May 6, 1986, the Joint Committee presented a report
to the Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville
suggesting that a joint facility would "prevent unnecessary
duplication of facilities" and would "stimulate 'cross
fertilization' between two frequently separated artistic
communities, thus encouraging greater productivity
for all participants as well as enhancing the quality
of life in the entire region"; and
217.4
WHEREAS: The
one
and
and
Arts Center Board has worked diligently for over
and one-half years - without pay - to determine
plan for meeting the arts needs of the community;
•
217.5 WHEREAS: The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville
has full confidence in the quality of work and respect
for the sound judgment shown by the Arts Center Board.
217.6
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
The Board of Directors of the City of Fayetteville
hereby expresses its sincere thanks and appreciation
to the above named members of the Arts Center Board,
and pledges its continued support to the Arts Center
Board members to make the mutual goal of an arts center
for the community come true.
217.7 Director Johnson, seconded
resolution. Upon roll call,
RESOLUTION NO.72-86 APPEARS
BOOK NO. XXV I l
217.8 The meeting was adjourned at about 3:40 p.m.
by Martin, made a motion to approve the
the motion passed, 5-0.
ON PAGE 02023 OF ORDINANCE & RESOLUTION