Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-05-03 MinutesAUG MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was held at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 3, 1988 in the Directors' Room of City Hall, 113 West Mountain Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas. PRESENT: Mayor Johnson; Directors Lancaster, Martin, Marinoni and Hess; City Manager Pennington, City Attorney McCord, City Clerk McWethy, members of the press and audience. ABSENT: Directors Bumpass and Kelley CALL TO ORDER 169.1 The Mayor called the meeting to present. APPEALS order at 5:30 p.m., with five Directors 169.2 The Mayor read the order in which the appeals would be heard, noting that others listed in the agenda as having filed appeals had settled with the Board of Assessors. The list was read in the following order: 1. Andre' Miller 2. Robert C. Kelly 3. Mary Grace Blair 4. Claibourne Bass 5. Dr. John Vinzant 6. Dr. Larry Tuttle 7. Clyde C. Treece 8. Richard W. Pool 9. Susan Raymond 10. Mildred Couch 11. Paul Abes/Sarah Horne 12. Roger L. Koetter 13. Sylvia J. Stewart 14. Nancy S. Partos 15. Ross Smith 16. Bill Stiles 17. James E. Waugh PRESENTATION FROM BOARD OF ASSESSORS 18. Robert & Florence Parker 19. Robert Reus 20. Cyrus Young 21. J. Q. Lynd for Maude Coffin 22. Lillian B. McDaniel 23. Wayland T. Wilkerson 24. Cecele Robinson 25. Maxcyne Gangstad 26. Kirby Johnson 27. Alfred Dean Sams 28. Nancy Beasley 29. Jerrel D. Hart 30. Ouida Logan 31. C. D. McNeal 32. Dan Nelson 33. Curtis and Beth Presley 169.3 The Mayor introduced the Board of Assessors --Keith Schultz, Dan Hudspeth. Rick Mayes and 170 May 3, 1988 Keith Schultz showed a slide presentation and explained how the Board of 170.1 Assessors had arrived at the assessment of benefits which had been filed with the City Clerk. Schultz said the Board of Commissioners outlined the district boundaries. He said assessment cards were obtained from the Washington County Assessor's Office and photographs were taken by the Board of Assessors of all the property in the district. He said the assessed values shown were taken from the Washington County Assessor's Office.. Schultz displayed a chart showing the total number of parcels in the 170.2 district (331) - 7.3% of which were vacant -commercial, 2.0% vacant - residential, 3.5% public, 11.4% church, 4.1% multi -family, 4.7% industrial, 26.6% commercial and 40.4% residential. Schultz noted that churches are not assessed by the State but are assessed for improvement districts. Schultz explained the district was divided into four zones according to the 170.3 distance of parcels from parking lots - Zone 1 containing property located within one block from parking, Zone 2 more than one block, Zone 3 being 3-4. blocks away, and Zone 4 being four or more blocks away. He said that 3,091 parking spaces were counted on and off-site in the district. Charts were displayed which showed percentages of parcels in the district- 170.4 according to the County assessed value of the parcels - by property class, by zone and by distance from parking. Schultz said the Board of Assessors determined the estimated fair market value of the parcels as opposed to their assessed value, and a chart was displayed showing the following percentages: 19.8% residential, 48.3% commercial, 5.9% industrial, 6.2% multi -family, 17.7% church, 3.4% public, 0.3% vacant -residential and 4.4% vacant -commercial. A chart showing percentages of parcels by zone indicated Zone 1 contained 14.2% of the property in the district, Zone 2 (40.1%), Zone 3: (20.6%), and Zone 4 (25.1%). A chart was shown depicting percentages of parcels by distance from parking, which indicated 29.6% of the property was less than one block away and 70% of the property was more than one block away. Schultz explained the assessed benefit amount for each parcel was the 170.5 increase in market value because of the construction of the improvements within the district. He showed a chart depicting percentages of assessed benefits by property class for all the.parcels - 20.7% to the arts center, 4.9% to residential, 54.9% to commercial, 6.9% to industrial, 2.5% to multi- family, 5% to churches, 0.3% to vacant -residential, and 4.2% to vacant - commercial. ' • Schultz, showing achart depicting stated that parcels in Zone 1 were Zone 2 (18.4%), Zone 3 (18.3%), receiving 20.7%. percentages of assessed benefits by zone, 170.6 shown to receive 32.1% of the benefits, and Zone 4 (10.6%), with the arts center Displaying a chart showing percentages of assessed benefits by distance from 170.7 parking,. Schultz noted that those parcels less than one block from parking May 3, 1988 received 45% of the assessed benefits, while those more than one block away received 34.2%. 171.1 Schultz said the Board of Assessors compared the downtown off-street parking improvement district formed in 1980 with the Dickson Street improvement district. Showing a chart, he said that in the downtown parking improvement district, 19.5% of the property was residential, while 80.5% of it was commercial. Other charts were shown which depicted fair market value of the off-street parking improvement district by zones and by type of property, and which depicted the benefits which were assessed for that district, by zone and by type of property. 171.2 Schultz said that the Board of Assessors, in estimating the benefits to the parcels in the Dickson Street improvement district, looked at every parcel, walked the district, and knew what happened before with the off street parking district. He said a list of the parcels under appeal in the district was prepared for the City Board's use at this meeting, with photos of each parcel and copies of assessment cards. 171.3 Director Martin asked for a definition of "assessed benefits." Schultz defined those as the increase in market value that would occur to the property due to the construction of the improvements. In answer to a question from Director Martin, Schultz said that the number of 500 parking spaces came about as a result of a request from the City Board. He said that the Fayetteville Code did not require anywhere near that amount for the arts center. 171.4 Director Marinoni asked Schultz to explain the process by which individuals might figure their personal cost for the year. Schultz explained the commissioners hadn't yet signed contracts for the construction of the parking lots, and were waiting for word from the railroad company He said there were low, medium and high cost estimates, ranging from $800,000 to $1,200,000. 171.5 The City Attorney said that bond counsel for the district was present and could shed some light on Director Marinoni's question. Walter McSpadden addressed the question by stating that there was no way to determine an individual's costs until the actual cost of construction is determined, until the bond issue is sized, and until the interest rates are known. He said it could be said that, if you assume a twenty year bond issue, the maximum assessment annually would be 5% of the assessed benefit figure. He added that, if $2 million dollars in benefits were assessed, and if there were a $1 million bond issue, 5% of the assessed benefits may be double what the actual cost would be. HEARING OF APPEALS May 3, 1988 172 The Mayor stated the City Board's .authority is limited to acting on the 172.1 appeals before them. The Mayor explained that the scope of the hearing must be limited strictly to the ascertainment of the true benefits. She said the burden of proof to establish the existence of errors in the assessment of benefits rests upon the party challenging the assessment. She said it was not sufficient to prove by general statements that the assessment of benefits is excessive or unequal, and that concrete facts showing such excessiveness or inequality must be offered in evidence. Director Marinoni explained he would be abstaining from voting, as his 172.2 parents own property in the district. Director Bumpass, who was seated in the audience, said he would abstain from 172.3 voting, remarking that this was an item upon which he always abstained from voting. The Mayor asked each appellant to identify who would speak on their behalf, noting that only those persons named would be permitted to speak on behalf She said there would be a ten-minute time limit for assessors being allowed a five-minute rebuttal. She recess at about 7:30 p.m. of each individual. each appeal, with the said there would be a ANDRE' MILLER 416 WEST MEADOW 172.4 Andre' Miller said she would speak on her own behalf. She said the 172.5 assessment and final benefit made on her home was a questionable thing because she didn't understand the process. She said she and others in the area had tried to talk to people about facts but got "the runaround." She said they had been told to whom to speak but those persons were not available for comment. She said they had not been legally informed early enough to be able to question it. She said almost any amount was not okay with her, because she didn't feel the City had really considered the whole arts center project to the full degree. She said she lived only a block away from the project and had her own parking. She said she would not need parking to go to the Arts Center. She said all the project would do for her was increase the traffic and perhaps not be an okay building. She said she couldn't present concrete evidence because there was no person or committee to give real answers; She said there were people in her group who would not be able to pay that little bit extra and who feel that any traffic into the neighborhood would not be beneficial. She said there were people who feel an arts center may not look pleasing, is not big enough, and will not be used right in certain. ways. She said there were so many questions and not enough concrete good answers. She said a. lot of people feel sort of confused and that was why they objected. May 3, 1988 173.1 In answer to a question from the Mayor, Miller said she met with the assessors last week. Miller said they answered many questions but she felt she was mostly being told that "it's not their problem " She said she was referred to another group which was usually not available for comment. She said she was not given a certified letter. She said she moved into her residence in late August and maybe that was part of the problem. She said if she hadn't been told of the situation by neighbors she would be completely in the dark. She said there were many problems, not just so much the tax, but the idea and the feeling that it was not handled correctly. She said if the owners were going to pay for it, they should at least have a say or at least have their questions answered. She said if the arts center is for the entire town and to bring tourists, why not make a blanket tax on the whole city. Miller said people had a great need to be heard and have to see some solid evidence. 173.2 The Mayor said the meeting was not for the purpose of addressing the arts center which she said was a totally separate issue. She said the Board was merely acting as an administrative remedy on the assessment of benefits, and was not here to debate the creation of the improvement district. The Mayor said the administrative remedy available for the formation of the improvement district was in court. She said, by State law, the City Board could only approve the formation of the district if 66 2/3% of the owners of property had signed a petition, which she said had been done. 173.3 Miller asked if there would be any relief from the City Board. The Mayor told Miller the only thing the Board could consider was concrete facts to show why the assessment was not correct, or was too high. Miller said she couldn't question the correctness of the assessments and could never determine whether the value added on to her home was correct. The Mayor said by State law there was no other remedy available from the City Board. Miller asked if the Board had any authority in guiding the Arts Center Council and over the matter of certified letters. The Mayor told Miller that neither the City Board nor the Arts Center Council was in charge of the certified letters, that these were sent out by the Dickson Street Improvement District. 173.4 Keith Schultz, speaking for the Board of Assessors, said they met with Miller for about 45 minutes and it seemed that the majority of her questions were directed to the arts center itself. He said the Board of Assessors told Miller they had no control over what the arts center has done or will do. 173.5 Director Hess asked the Mayor what process the Directors should follow. The Mayor said a motion should be made either to uphold or to lower the final benefits as determined by the Board of Assessors. 173.6 Director Martin, seconded by Hess, moved to uphold the benefit. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0, with Directors Lancaster, Martin, Hess and Johnson voting. ROBERT C. KELLY 350 HIGHLAND May 3, 1988 Robert Kelly said a gentleman would also speak for him. Kelly said he. attended a meeting with the assessors and it appeared to him "it was his opinion against my opinion." He said he did not see how a parking lot six blocks from his house was going to increase the value of his property one iota. He said he could see how it could decrease the property value by the increase in traffic in a residential district. He said, other than that, he had nothing to base an appeal on at this time, from listening to the Board's rejection of all arguments of the previous appellant. Larry Froelich said he was an attorney in Fayetteville and spoke for Mr. Kelly. Froelich said he respectfully dissented from the Mayor's statement that fundamental issues were beside the point. He said he didn't believe the Board was under an obligation to overlook blatant legal shortcomings, and didn't have tovote a nickel assessment on anyone, and can assess every one zero and, in doing that, can make reference to any fundamental unfairness in the district. 174 174.1 174.2 Froelich said that, regarding Kelly and others he represents, any assessment 174.3 of benefit is essentially and fundamentally unjust for the reason that it taxes a small group of people for benefits that are inherently general in nature. "He said the arts center was an auditorium which would benefit everyone "in the City of Fayetteville and the University of Arkansas, which he said was another. way of saying it would benefit the State .of Arkansas: He said the connection between the parking lots and the arts center was clear. He said the City Board could say the benefits, even if they are $2 million, could be equally distributed over all the City of Fayetteville. Froelich said it was interesting to note that many churches were included in 174.4 the formation of the district, even though it is the opinion of the City Attorney that "they're not going to be taxed a nickel." The City Attorney asked Froelich not to quote him when he hadn't talked to him. The City Attorney told the Mayor the issue before the Board was the correctness of the assessment against a particular piece of property. He said he would be glad to discuss with Froelich, at his convenience, the law on assessments against churches. McCord remarked that not a single church had filed an appeal against its assessment.. Froelich asked if the churches would be required to pay any taxes. The Mayor said benefits had been levied against some of the churches. McCord said his understanding of the law is that a church is subject to an assessment of benefits by an improvement district, and would pay an assessment if levied by the district. Froelich said Kelly's assessment is too high if the district includes the church properties. Froelich said- there appeared to be no assessment of the railroad property, 474.5 in apparent violation of the Arkansas Statutes which say that railroad property is supposed to be includedin any assessment in the improvement May 3, 1988 district. He said, under this format, there was no way Kelly could attack any low assessment of anybody else in the district. 175.1 Froelich said one of the assessors was Rick Mayes who he said was listed in a notice circulated with the original petition as one of the organizers of the district. Froelich said there was an apparent situation in which you could not be listed unless you had property in the district, yet later on it was certified that Mayes didn't have property. Froelich said, in either case, whether he does or does not have property in the district, he was either originally mistaken or is mistaken now, and it calls into question his objectivity in the assessments. 175.2 Froelich said it was questionable whether or not any benefits would come to anybody who lives more than a couple of blocks away. Froelich (quoting from February 3, 1987 City Board minutes) said the City Attorney stated it appeared to him that the fair market value of churches would not be increased because of the construction of parking lots several blocks away. Froelich said, if that was the case, he would like to know how any residents he represented were going to have any benefit if they were more than several blocks away. He said many residents of the district feel like the net bottom line is that the property value is going to be decreased by the parking, not by the arts center, and that many people feel that having a half -acre parking lot is not going to do anything but create problems. 175.3 Froelich said some properties had been entirely omitted. He said "the hole" was not included and was one of the properties which would gain the greatest amount of improvement because it may become one of the parking lots. 175.4 Froelich said he believed the reason people feel the fundamental issue of whether the improvement district was properly created was important, was because the City Board had the power to zero assess everybody and make the district do it over again. He said it wasn't appropriate for the City Board to close its eyes and say it can't answer questions about fundamental fairness. He said many people have stated under oath that they never received proper notice. He said the statutes require that plans be filed as soon as practical after the formation of the district. He said on June 2, 1987 the district was formed and it wasn't until over seven months later on February 16 that what purports to be a plan was filed. He said it looked to everybody as a last minute, thrown together, afterthought that the plan was filed. He said, by the time interest was added, the $1.8 million project could tax the district in excess of $3 million. He said a project of that size should have more than a one-page plan with no drawings. 175.5 Froelich said there had been a number of things about the matter that has created the appearance of wrongdoing and is starting to "rub off" on the City Board. He said if the Board wanted to avoid being associated with the appearance of wrongdoing it would behoove them to make some inquiries about some of the fundamental issues. He said it may not be any conflict of interest that one of the Board members is the representative for the district, but it definitely looks bad and gives the appearance of undue May 3, 1988 influence. He said'the City Attorney was asked to render an opinion as to the applicability of the district on churches. He asked why a city servant was rendering an opinion on a matter which on its face would appear to be a matter for the attorney for the district to resolve. Froelich said we all know that the City wants some of the citizens to absorb the cost of building the parking lots so more money can be put into having a better arts center. Froelich said the essential injustice was putting that tax for an inherently general benefit on the backs of a small group of people. Froelich suggested, as a possible compromise, that the Board assess zero everybody who objects to any assessment, and then let those pay who want to pay. 176 176.1 Keith Schultz, speaking for the Board of Assessors, responded that four of 176.2 the five churches within the district wanted to be within the district, and did sign to be within the district, and know they will be taxed. He said the "hole" in the ground at the corner of West and Dickson Street has to be acquired by the district as part of the parking lots, as well as the railroad property. He said the district couldn't very well tax the railroad if it was going to acquire their property to build a parking lot. He added: that Robert Kelly's maximum levy would be $13 per year, for a $279 benefit. He said the levy was 5% of $279. The Mayor explained that the annual levy would be paid for a twenty year period. Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, moved that the appraisal be upheld. 176.3 Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. MARY GRACE BLAIR 102 NORTH SCHOOL Mary Grace Blair said she protested any assessment on the basis of projected 176.4 benefits and could not be convinced ahead of time that more noise and more traffic will benefit a block of property owners zoned R-0 who are not themselves allowed to operate a business. She said the parking lots would have to have upkeep, and said she didn't hear anything about the district being restricted to receiving one supplement a year. She said this meant the district could come back for maintenance supplements and tax people two times a year. She said the district would have the right of eminent domain and might decide it needed another parking lot after building the first ones. She said she couldn't find any restrictions. Blair said the district had the power to go into debt for whatever frill it would consider attractive. She said, once established, the district would exist in perpetuity unless its own constituents request its abandonment or it fails. She said the City Board will have surrendered nearly all of its power to an unelected board of commissioners with unlimited tenure and very difficult to remove. She said she based her remarks on perusal of the 1987 Arkansas Code. She said she would appreciate any information which could be supplied if there is anything limiting the district. Blair said she was trying to keep the, estate of Bessie Blair free of another layer of controls. She said May 3, 1988 she already had a zoning problem. She said the brick annex to the house held a small business for about forty years before being rezoned R-0. She said a prospective tenant was denied a permit for a small business under the "grandfather clause" because Bessie Blair had allowed the store to remain empty. She said she submitted the protest in her name only, commenting that timely information has been lacking for consultation with the other heirs, Bessie Blair's six grandchildren. 177.1 Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, moved the decision of the appraisers be upheld. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. 177.2 The Mayor told Mrs. Blair to contact the City Planning Office if she had problems with zoning. She said there would be a new Planning Director hired in the next couple of weeks. CLAIBOURNE BASS 322 WEST SPRING 177.3 Bass said he had filed an appeal for two parcels of property, #1717 and #1718. Bass said #1717's assessed value is listed at $46,772. He said it was a commercial building known as a bicycle shop, with a small house next to it on the same parcel. He said #1718 was a small house. 177.4 Bass said the county assessor has placed the value of the commercial building at about $29,700. He said the benefit shown is for approximately $11,029, 5% of which is around $600 per year for the district. He said he had a hard time believing a parking lot a block away could be that beneficial to him. He questioned whether the assessment was appropriate. He said there were parking places within a block of the building now and said in 14 years he never had a customer who parked a block away and walked to the store. 177.5 Bass said he did not object that much to the benefit for the two small houses, but wished to appeal the benefit upon the commercial building. He said he was currently paying the county about $235 per year in taxes for the commercial building. He said he would have a hard time thinking the benefit should be any more than the amount he now pays to the county, and thought $235 would be a more reasonable figure. 177.6 In answer to a question from Director Hess, Bass said the square footage of the commercial building was about 2,170 square feet in size, and the houses were about 750-800 square feet in size. 177.7 Bass requested his benefit be reduced to $5700, with the $841 benefit remaining for the house. 177.8 Director Hess said he differed with the request, remarking that at $20 per square foot, the fair market value for the building and the two houses would be $65,000. He said it was difficult for him to see that the value of the May 3, 1988 property had been overestimated. "Bass said he was debating the benefit amount, and said the taxes on that would be three times what he is already paying in county taxes. Hess said he could only go on whether the assessor had overestimated the value of the property and, if the assessor had not overestimated the value of the property, he didn't believe the Board had any recourse but to accept the assessment as given. • In answer to a question from Bass, Keith Schultz said Bass would be paying taxes on the entire corner lot. Bass said he thought Maude Coffin owned the north eighty feet of all three of his lots. Schultz said the county assessor's records showed the depth of the lots to be 100 feet. Director Martin asked why the benefit amount for Bass's property was considerably bigger than that of Ms. Coffin's, even though her lot appeared to be larger than Bass' property. Schultz said the reason for the disparity in benefits was because of the type of property. He said commercial property would receive more benefit than residential property. Martin said he thought the primary benefit was not to the commercial bicycle shop but to the land. Schultz said the benefit was to the entire property. Director Martin, seconded by Johnson, moved that the benefit to Parcel #1717 be reduced to $5,700. Upon a show of hands, the motion failed to pass by a vote of 2-2, Directors Martin and Johnson voting in favor of the motion and Directors Lancaster and Hess voting against the motion. Hess said it appeared on the surface that the benefit might be a little bit skewed but it was impossible for him to determine exactly how much it had been skewed.. Hess suggested a payment of $400 per year, or a benefit of $8,000. He said he felt placed in a position of having to second guess the whole assessment procedure and didn't want to undermine any of the assessments, but said he was willing to give Bass the benefit of the doubt. Hess, seconded by Martin, moved that the assessed value be reduced to $8,000 as a compromise. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 3-1, Director Lancaster voting against the motion. COMMENTS FROM DIRECTOR LANCASTER Director Lancaster said, regardless of his opinion, any action the Board takes will not be the end of this matter. He said he was not an appraiser or a real estate person. He said the arguments about whether the district was illegal were beside the point, as the question before the Board wae'to affirm, not affirm, reduce, or do away with the appraisals that have been given on the property. He said he was not qualified and was therefore serving notice that he would uphold the appraisals which have been given. He said he resented being put in this position. He said he had personal friends in the audience and wanted to make it known that when he says "uphold the appraisal value" he's not against individuals but against the 178.1 178.2 178.3 178.4 178.5 178.6 May 3, 1988 entire thing. He said this thing can be solved and will be solved somewhere else. DR. JOHN VINZANT 22 EAST SPRING 179.1 E. J. Ball said he was an attorney and was appearing on behalf of Dr. John Vinzant, Dr. Larry Tuttle and Dr. Craig Brown. He said the property in question fronts on College Avenue for about 145-150 feet, is about 210 feet deep, and has a building in the middle with parking on each side of the building, with approximately 45 parking spots on the property which he said served the offices of Vinzant and Tuttle. He said the assessment shows the final benefit to be about $17,589. On behalf of his clients, he asked the City Board to abate the entire proposed assessed benefit for the property because the owners believe there are no benefits derived by this property from a parking lot to be located between 1/4 to 1/2 mile away. He commented that the property located across the alley was not included in the assessments. Ball said he appeared with Dr. Vinzant before the Board of Assessors to object to the benefit amount and a solution was not reached at that time. He said he was mindful of the lack of procedural due process which had taken place up to this point. He requested the entire benefit amount be deleted. 179.2 Keith Schultz said the reason property across the alley was not included in the district was because it is included in another improvement district, the downtown off-street parking improvement district. 179.3 Director Martin asked why there was such a wide disparity in benefit amounts for the two parcels owned by Vinzant, Tuttle and Brown. Schultz said parcel #1651 has an office building and #1652 has a parking lot. 179.4 Director Martin noted that parcel #4365 (an appeal not yet heard) had a final benefit amount ($15,805) slightly smaller than the final benefit for the larger benefit shown for Dr. Vinzant. Martin said #4365 was contiguous to the parking lot to be constructed. He remarked that there seemed to be a dissidence in the particular equality of final benefits. 179.5 Dr. Craig Brown said he recently had an appraisal made of the building and it was appraised against other buildings on College Avenue, not against commercial property at the corner of Spring and West. He pointed out the buildings directly across the street on College Avenue are being assessed zero benefits because they are not part of the district. 179.6 Director Hess said it appeared to him that the increase in value on the large parcel owned by Vinzant is about 20% and the increase in value on the parcel referred to by Director Martin was about 70%. Hess said he assumed that the difference was in proximity to the arts center. 179.7 It was clarified that, although Dr. Tuttle filed his own appeal, there would not be a separate appeal for Dr. Tuttle. May 3, 1988 Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, moved the decision of the appraisers be upheld. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 3-1, Director Martin voting against the motion. RECESS 180 180.1 The meeting recessed at 7:15 and reconvened at 7:30 p.m., with Director 180.2 Marinoni leaving.to sit in the audience. The Mayor announced that the Board would hear appeals through Roger Koetter 180.3 and would recess the meeting to hear the remainder of the appeals at another time. Keith Schultz told the Board he had been informed that Roger Koetter and 180.4 Richard Pool no longer wished to appeal. Bill Stiles approached the podium and stated that he wished to withdraw his appeal. The Mayor announced that Ross Smith and Susan Raymond had withdrawn their appeals.- The Mayor read the remaining names of persons whose appeals were to be heard and, with Nancy Partos and Ouida Logan's appeals being withdrawn, and 16 others not present, it was decided to continue to hear the appeals of five persons who were present. RECONVENING OF APPEALS CLYDE C. TREECE 113 WEST LAFAYETTE Mr. Treece said the situation seemed open-ended with nothing said about the 180.5 assessments stopping or the district dissolving. The Mayor told Treece that she understood assessments would only be levied until bonds are paid off. Treecesaid that was not stated in the ordinance and that the ordinance read "...for the purpose of constructing off-street parking lots and other improvements...". The Mayor said she believed part of the improvements planned would include landscaping of the area in the district and drainage. Treece said he thought there was a serious violation of the Arkansas 180.6 Statutes which state "prior to the filing of any assessment of benefits to accomplish the plan of improvement, a copy of the plans and estimate of costs for the accomplishment of these plans shall be filed in the Office of the City Clerk." Treece said he asked to see a copy of the plans and they couldn't be found. Treece said $1.8 million is about four times too much money for 532 parking spaces. He said he called the University Business Office and they told him the cost of the parking spaces across from the Law School was $593.83 per space, not including the cost of the land which was $538,644.56. He said the district's estimate is about four times what the • 101 May 3, 1988 University paid for its parking spaces. Treece said the Plan of Improvement he saw was not a plan. 181.1 Treece asked who would own parking lots which would be bought and built by the district. The Mayor said she had seen drawings of the parking lots and thought perhaps the Commissioners had them. She said any land acquired for parking lots would become the property of the improvement district. Treece asked who would have title to the land after the district is dissolved. 181.2 Walter McSpadden responded that, once bonds are retired, the assessments would no longer be collected. He said normally when an improvement district has completed its construction and paid off its debt, it by law is dissolved and its assets are sold for cash and rebated pro rata to the property owners of the district. He said, in this case, the district would probably dedicate the parking lots to the City. 181.3 Treece asked how the number of 532 parking places had been decided upon. The Mayor said she thought Treece should address his questions to the commissioners because the City Board didn't have the answers. Director Bumpass said there were no design drawings at this time, but said he could provide Treece with a drawing showing the location of the proposed parking lots. He said this had been published in the newspaper. 181.4 Treece said he thought Schultz told him his benefit was the sixth lowest of all the assessments. He said he couldn't see where it would benefit him one cent. 181.5 Director Lancaster, seconded by Martin, moved that the assessment be upheld. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. MILDRED COUCH 360 HIGHLAND 181.6 Mildred Couch said she lived one block off Dickson and didn't understand why her property was taken into the district. She said she couldn't see how it was going to benefit her. 181.7 Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, moved that the decision be upheld. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. 181.8 Director Hess told Mrs. Couch her assessment would be $9.10 per year. The Mayor said that would be the maximum amount. ROBERT REDS 110 NORTH SCHOOL • May 3, 1988 :182 Robert Reus said he wouldn't waste much of the Board's time since they 182.1 appeared to be "rubber stamping" the assessments. He said the issue would have to be settled in Circuit= Court and in the form of the November elections, commenting that three Directors were up for re-election. Reus said he objected because Rick Mayes helped circulate the petition to 182.2 create the district and was hired.aby-the district to assess the property owners. He said there were many conflicts of interest involved such as who decided how much the assessors are going to be paid. He said the five commissioners are all businessmen in the, area who have property and he didn't think they represented the people's interests. He said he objected to Tom Pearson, Jr., a real estate speculator, being put on the Board of Commissioners and given partial' right of eminent domain. He said he objected. strenuously to having the residents of his neighborhood "under the thumb" of the commissioners, and said he was going to have trouble sleeping at night wondering if he was going to get a condemnation notice on his house. He said he thought it was grossly unfair to put people through this and to have a real estate speculator on the Board was an insult to,everyone..._ Director Martin, seconded by Hess, moved the assessors be upheld. Upon a 182.3 show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. • CYRUS YOUNG 210 N. LOCUST Cyrus Young said he failed to see where the district was formed in 182.4 compliance with the law.' He said, as far as his property was concerned, Rick Mayes was one of the organizers of the district and he failed to see how Mayes could be an impartial assessor of his or anybody else's property. Young said the newspaper didn't indicate that "the hole" would be used for a 182.5 parking lot, although Schultz has said that it would. He said from a picture he had seen it appeared that the property would not be filled up to the grade of the street before the parking lot is built. He asked if the parking lots would be open to,the public or reserved for the University of Arkansas. Young. asked if the City had purchased any landfor the arts center. The 182.6, City Attorney responded that four land acquisitions were scheduled to close on Friday, May 6. Young said he favored the arts center but questioned whether the improvement district itself was legal. He said, if the City were to purchase the land, it would be indicating that the district was legal. The Mayor said, in the Board's eyes, the district is legal because the only authority they had in the forming of the district was to have the abstractor certify that 66% of the property owners had signed a petition. Young said the Board could have waited until the legal questions were May 3, 1988 resolved. He said at the time there was a question about legal notification. The Mayor said the Board was not responsible for assurance that all property owners had been notified. Young said when the law requires that people be notified and the Board ignores that and proceeds on, it comes down to a question of public trust. Director Hess said the Board didn't ignore it and proceed on, because the district met the 66% requirement. He said at that time the Board did not know if everybody had been notified or not. 183.1 Young said he received no benefits from the parking lot. 183.2 Director Martin, seconded by Lancaster, moved the assessors be upheld. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. • WAYLAND WILKERSON 317 ROLLSTON 183.3 Wilkerson said he owned property in the district and he would pay his share. Wilkerson said he plans to have ten parking spaces on property he is remodeling and on property at 315 Rollston which he has agreed to purchase he will have thirty parking spaces. He said he will have all the parking he needs. He said he thought this was being done for business purposes rather than art purposes. He said the major parking which will be located between property owned by Hayden Mcllroy and property owned basically by Tom Pearson will be completely paved. He said he understood Mcllroy's warehouse will become a shopping mall and most of the parking will be used for commercial purposes. 183.4 Wilkerson said the arts center was underfinanced and 500 parking spaces for a 600 -seat auditorium seemed really bizarre. He said he thought the business people would get much more use from the parking than the arts community will, and thought the business people should pay for it. 183.5 Director Lancaster, seconded by Hess, moved the decision of the appraisers be upheld. Upon a show of hands, the motion passed, 4-0. • DISCUSSION/COMMENTS FROM AUDIENCE 183.6 In answer to a question from the audience, the City Attorney said a closing is tentatively scheduled for Friday, May 6, to acquire property for the arts center. 183.7 Bill Stiles asked Director Lancaster if he would try to stop the closings if he knew before Friday that a suit had been filed to stop the improvement district. Lancaster said he couldn't stop the purchase of property. Stiles asked if the City Board could stop the purchase of property. The City Attorney said the City Board could instruct the closing to be delayed, but the previous instructions as he understood them were to close Friday or 184 May 3, 1988 whenever possible. The Mayor agreed with McCord that those were his instructions. Stiles said he was putting the Board on notice that a suitwill be filed 184.1 this week. He said the arts center and improvement district were tied together in some way. He said, if the City hasn't bought property yet, it hasn't "gone too far down the path." Stiles said he didn't think the Board realized how upset the people are in the district. He said they had their rights taken away and it didn't seem to make any difference to anybody. Stiles said they were not notified and appearing before the City Board was the only forum they had. He said although the people elected the City Directors, the Board of. Assessors had been appointed. The Mayor said the: Board of Assessors were serving without compensation. • Director Hess asked Stiles if his primary concern was that he was not 184.2 notified. Stiles said the district was formed without notifying him, and he was taxed without representation. He said he was not against the arts center but was against the way the district was formed. Hess asked Stiles what he would like to see happen, if he had his way. Stiles said he was going to see the Dickson Street improvement district dissolved. Hess asked Stiles, if the district was dissolved and it meant an arts center couldn't be built, if that would accomplish Stiles' purpose. Stiles said it would not. Hess said he thought Stiles' purpose and the City Board's purpose was to have an arts center built and he thought they were both trying to head -in the same direction. He said he thought there was a better way to resolve. differences. •Stiles said, by law, the district should have been formed properly and everyone in the district should have been notified. Hess said, as far as he could tell, the district was formed lawfully and he didn't believe there was any attempt on the part of anyone in the district not to notify. everybody. Stiles said 30 or 40 people were not notified. • The' Mayor pointed out that having the district declared null would only 184.3 prolong the process because then the district would go. back and send certified letters to everyone and the district would be formed again. The Mayor said the.State legislature looked at the problem of'whether the proper formula should be every person in the district, or 66% of the people in the district and not 66% of the property owners. She said since they couldn't come up with a logical solution they left it the way it was. Stiles complained that, when he tried to find out information "from these 184.4 people", they won't return your telephone calls and they won't answer you. The Mayor said she would be happy to serve as a liaison between Stiles and the district if he can't get any information. Director Hess told Stiles he had every right to .file the lawsuit, but hoped 184.5 he would reconsider, commenting that there had been enough divisiveness and he thought the.end goal was the same. ' • Nancy Partos said the end goal was the same but asked what kind of a 184.6 district it was where she received no benefit but was only to.pay. She said May 3, 1988 there was no recourse but a lawsuit. The Mayor said the ability to appeal to the court was another avenue. Hess told Partos her assessment would amount to about $42 per year. Partos said the parking lot wouldn't help her at all. 185.1 Wilkerson said he thought there had been some confusion about the question of what was 66% of the property owners in the district. Wilkerson said probably five or six men own 66% of the property in the district. Hess said that percentage was determined by State law. 185.2 Scott Sinclair identified himself as a "press person" and said he read the Arkansas law to say that the district is not actually created until everyone has been sent certified mail. He said, after the lawsuit goes through and the district is dissolved, he saw no reason why a smaller district couldn't be created which would encompass the area actually being improved. Director Hess said it was deemed by the architect and planner that about 500 spaces would be necessary for the arts center. He said if the area was too small, there wouldn't be room for 532 spaces. Sinclair said it was difficult to find out the boundaries of the district, as one map he saw shows it to be open-ended on the east and west side, and another showed discernible boundaries. He said it sprawled well beyond any area which would ever be used for parking. He said some people think this is just a way of getting the City to condemn property on Dickson Street and buy it for "60 cents on the dollar." The Mayor told Sinclair that any property the City intends to purchase will be at 10% above the appraised value. 185.3 The Mayor announced that the meeting would be recessed until another date at which time Kirby Johnson's appeal would be heard (Mr. Johnson having left the meeting early because he had been told his appeal would not be heard due to lack of time). SUSAN RAYMOND 121 NORTH SCHOOL 185.4 The Mayor asked that a letter from Susan Raymond be entered into the record (Raymond having left before her appeal could be heard). The following is Raymond's statement: "I have no quarrel with the assessors. My objection is that I was not notified by registered mail (or other means) of my inclusion in the improvement district and therefore did•not have a chance to object to being assessed. I believe the benefit should be spread over the entire city and the university." ADJOURNMENT 185.5 At 8:35 p.m., the meeting was adjourned until the next regular meeting of May 17, 1988. 1