HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-10-06 MinutesMINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE CITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS
A regular meeting of the Fayetteville City Board of Directors was
held on Tuesday, October 6, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. in the Directors'
Room of the City Administration Building at 113 West Mountain
Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
PRESENT: Mayor Fred Vorsanger; Assistant Mayor Mike Green;
Directors Ann Henry, Dan Coody, Julie Nash, Shell
Spivey, and Bob Blackston; City Manager Scott
Linebaugh; City Attorney Jerry Rose; City Clerk
Sherry Thomas; Director of Planning, Alett Little;
Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson; Director of
Administrative Services Ben Mayes; members of
Staff, press and audience.
CALL" TO ORDER
The,meeting was called to order by the Mayor, with seven Directors
present. The Mayor'asked those present to stand and recite the
Pledge of Allegiance, and then asked that a brief moment of
respectful silence;be,observed.
;:i
The Mayor welcomed `comments on any item on the Agenda. He
explainedithat iri.order to allow equal attention to all items on
the •'Agenda; ...the k Board requests that comments be limited to 3
minutes per person per item, and a spokesperson be elected for
comments made ;on the 'same issue.
fle
INCINERATOR LAWSUIT
1
•
Mayor Vorsariger announced an appeal in the Incinerator lawsuit had
been-filed.with the Supreme Court, and it was necessary for the
Board of Directors .to review actions in order to participate in
that"appeai. ,F '- +
Walter Nibl`ock, Attorney representing the City in the incinerator
lawsuit, addressed the Board stating Ms. Barnhart, plaintiff in the
action,"had filed a -Notice of Appeal on October 2, which designated
only, a portion of the record, and relies on twelve different
points. Since the plaintiff designated a very scant record, the
City's counsel requires guidance from the City Board as to the
portion of the record that should be designated in their response
toy.the appeal. The appellants have 90 days in which to lodge the
transcript of theaappeal with the Supreme Court, followed by a
briefing schedule.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question, Walter Niblock stated it
will take approximately two days of work on the part of the City's
counsel to prepare the City's position to the appeal.
Director Henry asked whether the appellants were basing their
appeal primarily on constitutional grounds or was this a bypass of
the Court of Appeals directly to the Supreme Court. Mr. Niblock
verified this appeal would be the end of the appeal process.
Kitty Gay, attorney with the Niblock Law Firm, further explained a
Chancery Appeal is not likely to be sent back for retrial.
Director Green asked Mr. Niblock whether knowing that all facts in
this case has been presented, and all research corresponding
thereto has been done, how much more legal expense the City is
facing on the appeal.
Mr. Niblock responded there will be a substantial amount of work on
their part in condensing all of the data presented in brief form.
Kitty Gay stated the entire record of the case will need to be
condensed and abstracted to a first person narrative, to meet the
requirements of an appeal brief of 25 pages. The bulk of the
expense to the City has passed, and they simply need to hang on to
the victory they have been awarded.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger, Walter Niblock stated it is the
City's decision whether the Niblock Law Firm exclusively handles
the appeal, and they feel confident in handling the appeal.
In response to Director Nash's question, Mr. Niblock stated the
copies for the Supreme Court record are provided by the Court
Reporter at $3.50 per page as per a statutory fee schedule.
City Attorney Jerry Rose explained that Mr. Niblock was asking for
authority, by way of a resolution, to proceed with developing the
record of the transcript on appeal.
Director Green expressed they should not "stub their toes at the
finish line". A final resolution is very close in this matter, and
that they should proceed, not break up their team or put any undue
restrictions on the Niblock firm as to what type of consultation
they need to do the best possible job in this appeal.
Green, seconded by Blackston made a motion that the Niblock Law
Firm be instructed to answer the appeal as expeditiously as
possible.
In response to Director Coody's question, Kitty Gay stated
McDermott, Will and Emery were hired before the Niblock Firm.
Because a firm licensed in the state of Arkansas was required to be
involved with the case, the Niblock firm was hired. It is strictly
the decision of the City Board as to who will be hired to defend
the appeal. At the appeal level, Ms. Gay stated there would only
be the need for the City's attorneys to make one trip to Little
Rock to argue the case before the Supreme Court. Ms. Gay further
concurred with Director Green's opinion that the Niblock Firm can
work better if they have the leeway to designate who is the right
person for any tasks required by this appeal.
October 6, 1992
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION 149-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
OLD BUSINESS
Items that have been brought before the Board but were tabled or no
decision made to allow for further information to be presented.
BROPHY CONDEMNATION REOUEST
Mayor vorsanger reintroduced a request by Russell J. and Juanita R.
Brophy for the City•to condemn a 50 foot wide street and utility
easement across Reserved Tract C in Country Club Estates.
6. xi"
The petitioners havezbeen unable to purchase an easement from the
Tract C property owners. The Brophy property is landlocked, and
they'state under Arkansas law, they can condemn an access road but
nota utilityteasement. Therefore, they are requesting the City
condemn the easement on their behalf. They have agreed to pay 100%
of ail_ related expenses including constructing the street and
utility lines. -71,1,:i
This ordinance was tabled after it had been read three times at the
September 15, 1992 -Board meeting to allow time for notification to
be given.-
Notification was sent by the City Clerk's office to all concerned
parties;according.to,the list provided by Jim McCord, attorney for,
the :Brophy' s . ,✓' e.
Jim McCord, attorney; for the Brophy's, addressed the Board stating
the initial correspondence from the Brophy's set out the factual
and -legal basis for -the request; a response from Phillip Taylor,
attorney from Little Rock representing his mother, a concerned
property owner p1udaMcCord's response to factual legal arguments
made" by Mr. Taylor -have been distributed to the Board. With
respect to these arguments, Mr. McCord set out the following:
The initial'plat of Country. Club Estates clearly reflects
a 25 foot extension of East 29th Circle to the Brophy's
property was anticipated.
2. City Staff has confirmed it is now a common practice to
require a subdivider to extend a street to the property
line of the subdivision to ensure that the adjoining
property will have access.
3. A letter from Mrs. Haeberle of Tyler, Texas, expressing
her misunderstanding that she would not receive just
compensation if the condemnation isauthorized is
incorrect, as Mrs. Haeberle will receive just
October 6, 1992
compensation, either by negotiation or by jury award. In
addition, Mrs. Haeberle's statement that a 50 foot
easement is excessive is not the case because a 50 foot
width is required by the City's subdivision regulations.
4. As held by the Arkansas Supreme Court, condemnations must
be for public purpose. In this case, there would be the
construction of a public city street and water line.
5. The Brophy's request is clearly authorized as indicated
under Arkansas law and has a precedent in the City of
Fayetteville with the Orthopaedic Clinic.
6. The purchase of Tract "C" is not feasible as it would
cost a minimum of $10,000 to relocate a sewer line
running diagonally across the property.
Mr. McCord stated the Brophy's respectfully state their request is
reasonable, lawful, and has a precedent in Fayetteville, and asked
that the ordinance be passed by the Board.
Director Coody addressed the precedent Mr. McCord referred to with
the Orthopaedic Clinic stating that condemnation was for a sewer
line easement and was not for 50 feet. Mr. McCord responded he
does not remember the width of the easement, but usually sewer
easements are not 50 foot wide.
In response to Director Coody's question whether the Brophy's made
a counter-offer to the offer of $10,000 per acre for 21 acres, Mr.
McCord stated the Brophys only need a 50 foot right-of-way and are
not interested in purchasing 21 acres that they don't need at an
increased cost of up to $45,000.
Director Coody stated these 21 acres could be used for something
other than development. He further stated in the case of a
condemnation for a complete thoroughfare, the City Board should be
used as a last resort instead of a first resort.
Mr. McCord responded to Director Coody that this is the Brophy's
last resort as they have been negotiating with the property owners
for years and have been unsuccessful in their efforts to obtain
access to their property.
Director Coody expressed his concern that by extending this
precedent beyond where it currently stands, the City will be bound
to allow the same privilege to future requests for this same type
of condemnation.
Mr. McCord responded each future request would be decided
individually by the Board on the merits of the facts. The facts of
the Brophy's request are reasonable and uniquely meritorious, and
he feels the request should be granted.
.,October 6, 19924
Mayor Vorsanger asked for verification that if the Board proceeds
with this condemnation, the matter would be heard by a judge. Mr.
McCord responded if the Brophys and the eleven interested parties
in reserve Tract "C" are unable to negotiate a purchase price for
the 50 foot easement, then it would be tried to a jury. However,
this is unlikely since most condemnations are settled before going
to court.
Mayor Vorsanger stated his point that if the Board proceeds with
this condemnation, there remains an avenue of compromise or
settlement which a jury would deem fair. Mr. McCord concurred.
Director Green asked if there was presently a 25 foot easement
across the current plat or whether the same was dedicated. Mr.
McCord responded the pavement does not extend over the Brophy's
property, but rather stops 190 feet short of their property. There
is a dedicated 25 foot access easement, but due to the terrain and
a.22% grade, it ism.not practical to extend the street as reflected
on the plat which would exceed the grade permissible under the
City's subdivision -regulations. The concept plat prepared by
Northwest Engineersfor the Brophys shows the road angled off to
the -right in order to=meet subdivision grade requirements.
Director Henry stated if the property was in the county with no
subdivision or zoninc regulations, the Brophys could go to the
county court,and request a 30 foot condemnation roadway easement
under. Arkansas land lock property laws; however, Arkansas law does
notrequire a:utility easement be granted. Therefore, she stated
in order tocomplywith the City's subdivision regulations, this
property is,basically'undevelopable as it is.
Director Coody stated although the 30 feet easement would not be
sufficientforthe Brophys to carry out their plans, at least he
would -F have 30 feet and could thereafter deal with adjoining
property owners to obtain the additional 20 feet.
F y' y i i
Mr. McCord responded to Director Coody's suggestion and stated this
option is not reasonable because under the statute of procedures
for'land locked property, a land owner can only condemn a roadway
easement -and not a.utility easement, which is also required in this
case:In- addition; this would only result in a duplication of
legal:proceedings.MCCord further stated he doesn't believe the
land owners would negotiate with the Brophys, as they haven'tmade
an effort to do so in the past ten years.
George Blackwell,.resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board in
opposition to the ordinance, stating the Brophys purchased this
land well aware that they would be land locked. He stated that he
personally is not opposed to the Brophys obtaining a right-of-way,
but he is opposed to the City opening up a "can of worms" with
other developments and for taxpayers having to pay for this type of
request.
1
October 6, 1992
Mayor Vorsanger addressed Mr. Blackwell explaining all expenses for
the condemnation suit and all expenses for installation of
utilities and roadway would be the responsibility of the developer.
In response to Mr. Blackwell's question whether the responsibility
for all related expenses would include the City's cost of acquiring
the land, City Attorney Rose explained the proposed ordinance sets
out in section two that the Brophys shall pay 100% of the costs
associated with the eminent domain action, including but not
limited to survey, appraisal, court costs, compensation to the
property owners as determined by negotiation or a jury, and for
attorney fees and construction of street and utility lines.
Jeanette McClellan, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating that there has been a statute on the books for a number of
years concerning land locked property. In this case, Ms. McClellan
agrees with Director Coody that this action would set a very
volatile precedent for the Board and the incoming Council on
condemnation proceedings. She questioned why the Board of
Directors or City Council should favor one particular individual,
thereby opening the doors for future requests of the same type.
Robert Reus, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
this is an issue of basic fairness. Eminent domain is usually used
for public purposes and is rarely used for an individual's personal
profit. The State of Arkansas has provisions to provide access to
land locked property. The issue here is not only "if" there should
be a road, which has already been settled by the Legislature that
everyone has a right to access to their land, but "where" there
should be a road. Mr. Reus stated by permitting this condemnation,
the Board is short-circuiting due process by taking upon themselves
the authority of the Chancery Court in establishing access. Since
the question of compensation will ultimately end up in the Chancery
Court, Mr. Reus suggested the Brophys proceed through due process.
Mr. McCord stated the eleven interested property owners have
received notice of this condemnation proceeding two weeks ago and
had every opportunity to appear at this Board meeting. With regard
to due process, Mr. McCord stated that the procedure for a private
eminent domain action is in County Court, and not Chancery Court.
In addition, in an eminent domain case, the landowner always has a
right to challenge the necessity of the taking, which would then be
decided by a Chancery Court. Therefore, he stated there has been
and will be due process in this action.
Director Coody asked how many of the interested landowners
responded to notice of condemnation either positively or
negatively. Mr. McCord responded there were three responses
against the action.
Director Henry added two of these respondents mistakenly believed
they would not be receiving any compensation whatsoever.
October 6, 1992,.,
Mr. McCord stated none of the adjoining property owners objected to
the condemnation proceedings.
Director Green stated he would normally object to the City using
its power of eminent domain for the purpose of a real estate
transaction. The basic real estate transaction between these
parties could solve the entire question. Therefore, from that
standpoint, the City needs to be careful how they exercise their
power of eminent domain. However, a couple of issues exist which
make this matter unique and should prevent it from becoming a
precedent. First of all; there has always been a 25 foot street
platted and planned to go through that particular area of property,
and the City currently requires more than a 25 foot easement for
streets and all utilities. Therefore, their own City rules are
actually requiring the 50 foot easement, which compounds the
problem. Although he is hesitant to recommend initiating
condemnation procedures when it should be a matter of negotiations.
The appraised value of this property should be influenced by the
fact that there is a sewer line running across the property, making
development impossible, and be considered by the appraiser and the
Court.,The legal issues raised by both sides are of concern to
this „Board, and he recommended that condemnation procedures be
commenced in orderkto break the stalemate and force a "shot -gun"
real estate transaction between the parties.
.
Director Coody asked what benefit this condemnation action would
have -to the City of,.Fayetteville. Mr; McCord responded a recent
article in the Northwest Arkansas Times expressed the immediate
need•,for,all typesof new residential construction in the City.
This.property,woul&help satisfy an existing demand in that area of
town"by'permitting:the construction of 7 to 10 high quality, large
homes that`couldaccommodate new residents to Fayetteville.
.upon roll 'call, thele,motion passed by a vote of 6 to 1, with
Director Coody voting no.
tG.._.•
ORDINANCE 3645 APPEARS ON PAGE 277 OF ORDINANCE BOOR Xx V I';1
NEW BUSINESS
CONSENT'AGENDA'
Mayor Vorsanger introduced consideration of items which may be
approved by motion,,,or contracts and leases Which can be approved
bg resolution, and which may be grouped together and approved
,simultaneously under -a "Consent Agenda."
A:J Minutes of the, September 1 and 15, 1992 regular Board
meetings, the September 30, 1992 special City Board meeting,
n .and the Julyyls.,-and 29 special City Board meetings.
October 6, 1992
B. A resolution awarding Bid 92-26 to Merrick & Company in the
amount of $15,960 for Aerial Photogrametric Mapping and
Compilation of Digital Data Base, Phase I - Fully Analytical
Aerotriangulation.
This four-phase contract will be required to further develop
the City's Geographic Information System.
RESOLUTION 149A-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
C. A resolution awarding the low base bid to McClinton Anchor in
the amount of $173,743 plus a 5% contingency of $8,687 for the
removal of trees, clearing, grubbing, reseeding and installing
obstruction light poles for the Airport's north and south
aircraft approaches.
This project is to be funded by Federal Grant AIP #11. The
Airport Board will meet on this at their October 1 meeting.
RESOLUTION 150-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
D. A resolution approving the agreement with AT&T to serve as the
Airport's long distance service provider for the public use
telephones located in the Airport Terminal.
A 20% commission will be remitted to the Airport for all long
distance 0+ calls initiated from these phones. In addition,
AT&T will provide and maintain additional telephone equipment
as required, and a 14% commission will be paid to the City on
all installed equipment. This is a one year agreement with
two additional one year options.
RESOLUTION 151-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
E. A resolution approving Change Order No. 1 to the Minisystem 2
Sewer Rehab Contract, Section 1 with Fayette Tree & Trench in
the amount of $11,875 and approval of an increase of the
contingency amount of $11,220.70.
This increase is due to the possibility of unforseen field
conditions.
RESOLUTION 152-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
F. A resolution approving purchase orders in the amount of
$30,454 plus a $4,568 contingency with SWEPCO and Warner Cable
to bury utility cables on the approach to runway 16 which ars
obstructions to aircraft.
SWEPCO's estimate is $28,627.10 and Warner Cable estimates
$1,827 for the work. A 15% variance ($4,568) is requested to
,October 6, 1992,;
cover the actual costs of the work should it exceed the
estimates.
RESOLUTION 153-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
G. A resolution approving payment of $68,288.85 to McDermott,
Will 6 Emery for legal services rendered in the incinerator
disengagement and related lawsuits.
H. A resolution awarding Bid 92-42 to the low bidder meeting all
specifications, Ron Blackwell Ford, for 6 police interceptor
vehicles with 7 trade-in units at a total cost of $96,117.80.
These 6 vehicles are the last of the budgeted police units for
1992. Current units with the highest mileage will be replaced
by these new vehicles.
RESOLUTION 154-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
I. A resolution approving the purchase of a Sykes 6 inch self
priming centrifugal pump in the amount of $22,236.80, and
approval of a budget adjustment in the amount of $7,466.80.
The budget adjustment is required because this is the only
pump that meetsnall required specifications and costs more
).than what was '.budgeted. However, this pump will be used for
-emergency repairs of large water and sewer main breaks and
=will be available for use by the Pollution Control Plant when
-:.cleaning clarifiers.
RESOLUTION 155-92 AS;RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
J. - A resolution, -authorizing the City Manager/Mayor or his
designated representative to act as the City's agent for Phase
I.of the Federai Grant #11 Easement and Property Acquisition
.Project to ,purchase easements, properties, and related
expenses for a total amount of $106,398.59 plus a 10% variance
of;$10,639.10.
. *
* -The Airport Board will meet on this at their October 1, .1992
''meeting. , By approving this group of purchases, delays in
- .closing and relocations will be avoided due to the scheduling
,process for. individual Board Agenda items.
•
RESOLUTION 156-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.
R.` A resolution .approving a Lease Agreement with the Humane
Society and repealing Resolution 123-92 that was approved by
the Board on August 18, 1992.
A lease agreement was approved by the Board on August 18,
1992; however, upon final review, the Humane Society had a
Js
0 fi
J4
October 6, 1992
problem with paragraph 3 of the old lease. Paragraph 4 has
been added for clarification, and approval of the new lease
agreement is being requested.
RESOLUTION 157-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
L. A resolution authorising Fayetteville's share of the
reimbursement from the State of Arkansas to the Northwest
Arkansas Economic Development District to be transferred to
the Four County Regional Solid Waste Management District.
The total reimbursement from the state is $47,880.25 of which
Fayetteville's share is $8,513.38. Several mayors and other
county judges have expressed their desire that these funds
stay within our Four County District and be used to address
solid waste problems.
RESOLUTION 158-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Director Nash requested that she be allowed to register a "No" vote
on Item "G" of the Consent Agenda, and therefore wished that the
item be pulled.
In addition, Director Nash noted a typographical error on page two
of the September 1 regular City Board meeting, whereby the page is
titled "September 15, 1992".
Director Henry pointed out that she is identified in the September
1, 1992 minutes as being in attendance when she was not present and
suggested Director Nash's name should probably be substituted.
Green, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the Consent
Agenda as corrected. Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote
of 7 to O.
ITEM "G"
As per Director Nash's request, a
approving payment of $68,288.85
legal services rendered in the
related lawsuits.
vote was taken on the resolution
to McDermott, Will & Emery for
incinerator disengagement and
Henry, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the resolution.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote of 6 to
Director Nash voting no.
RESOLUTION 159-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
1, with
October 6, 1992 ;
WALKER PARK CONCEPT PLAN
Mayor vorsanger introduced a resolution approving the Concept Plan
for Walker Park.
The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board will present this concept
plan to the Board.
A public meeting was held on September 28, 1992 at Jefferson
School, and a special PRAB meeting was held on September 29 at City
Hall to discuss the public input. The landscape firm, Callans &
Associates, will implement the recommendations into the plan. The
PRAB voted to recommend the concept plan to the Board of Directors
for approval.
Blackston, seconded by Green, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
Director Henry stated she has read the proposed concept plan;
however, she believes the public as well would be interested in the
progress that has been made on this project.
Bill Waite,representative of the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board (PRAB), addressed the Board stating unfortunately the
proposed concept plan is not perfect and will not satisfy the
desires of everyone who sees a need for the park; however, the PRAB
recommends the. plan as an excellent compromise which best satisfies
the:;needs of the greatest number of Fayetteville citizens. He
explained this parcel.of land is a very limited resource for which
many'demands and requests have been placed. When first purchased,
the -three primary.-ineeds for the Walker Park property were the need
forincreased recreational facilities, historical preservation, and
natural preservation --for passive recreation and enjoyment. Mr.
Waite assured the ;Board that with the public meetings, the open
regular -meetings,,, and the special meetings they have held, all
requests for uses of this property have been heard and considered.
Mr:-waite further explained the proposed compromise concept plan
developed by Callans••& Associates has been conducted in terms of
addressing. the needs of proponents for both active and passive
recreational areas,and with sensitivity in trying to conserve some
of the historical nature and natural areas as has been accomplished
at Gulley and Finger -Parks.
Karen Rollet,',planner4from Lallans & Associates., addressed the
Board with,a„brief description of theproposed concept plan. She
explained the park.itself has two existing parcels which haveball
diamonds, soccer '.fields., picnic areas, and tennis courts. The
entire sight is bounded by 15th Street, College Avenue, 7th Street
and•Highway 71 beyond the stream,, with Block & 13th Street going
through the three parcels of the park at present.
4
October 6, 1992
Ms. Rollet gave some history behind the unusual Walker Park
historic sight upon which the second Governor for the State of
Arkansas, Archibald Yell, built his homestead in the 1830's, which
has subsequently been removed. In addition, the park contains a
number of large quality trees which have been 16 to 36 inch
diameters, and larger trees in the upland areas consisting mainly
of post oaks. The lowland woods, originally open fields, are
second growth containing mainly locust trees. A stream passes
across one corner of the sight. The park contains steep slopes
from 12% to 16% and creates a problem for the construction of ball
diamonds.
Ms. Rollet addressed the concern for the ecology of the sight,
reporting that several biologists have advised this sight is
characterized by "the island effect" or a large gap between it and
other natural sights. Therefore, wildlife does not differ from
this sight and the surrounding neighborhood. Ms. Rollet explained
the important difference between preserving the wooded character of
the sight and its potential use as an ecological sight.
Ms. Rollet stated a number of options were developed for the sight,
based on the requested baseball fields, soccer fields, nature
areas, and senior citizens center; with a final option which looked
at the park as a whole. In order to accomplish this, the road
running through the middle of the park needed to be eliminated
which allows for more flat area.
Judy Brittenum, planner from Callans & Associates, addressed the
Board to describe the proposed concept plan for Walker Park. She
reiterated that a tremendous amount of public input has been
received with regard to the park design. Everyone involved has put
a lot of time into this project; and a consensus of data and
information has been gathered and used to assist in the design
decision making process. Ms. Brittenum reported that the planners
from Callans & Associates working on this project spent two weeks
on the sight morning, noon, and night, allowing them to produce a
concept plan through sensitivity of knowing the exact location of
various trees and plants, and the exact manner in which the stream
flows through the park. In addition, Ms. Brittenum reported the
Walker family has been interviewed, and important historical data
collected which will allow for future visual documentation through
an interpretative trail.
Ms. Brittenum described the proposed concept design as being alive
for nature lovers and sports enthusiasts alike. The proposed
design includes a senior citizens facility at the top of the
property. In addition, the design includes a conceptual
handicapped trail system, a large family picnicking area in the
area of the large oaks. An historical trail system runs through
the park which will document the history of the Archibald Yell
property, as well as the Walker family property. By taking out the
roadway, only 8 acres of the total 36 have been cleared, at a low
October 6, 1992..x,.
Cost. Ms. Brittenum explained that many of the design decisions
were adopted to keep the cost down for the City. She outlined
'three major concerns of safety, impact on the neighborhood, and the
need for multi-purpose uses. Another consideration for the park
was woodland management, and undergrowth brush clearing for
internal views into the sight. Concerns regarding neighborhood
impact from extra lighting were addressed by laying out the terrain
with ball fields to the interior corner. By removing the roadway,
traffic will be accessing the park from 15th Street eliminating the
amount of internal traffic through the park. Ms. Brittenum
outlined the planned multi-purpose uses to serve all Fayetteville
citizens including nature activity, fitness activity, picnicking,
baseball, soccer, historic preservation interpretation, and the
senior citizen's facility. Parking zones were created to the
extremities which are located closer to the ball fields. The
center core was left open for children to play in safety.
The plan calls for preservation of all oaks in the upper portion
and plans to group activities according to the demands of the
terrain. Ms. Brittenum pointed out a terrain change where the
upland is separated from the lowland for which the majority of the
developed sight will be located. The uplands, due to the nature of
soil itself, will buffer noise and separate designs of usage in the
park. Although plans did not include discussionof the phased
concept plan, .Ms. Brittenum stated they would be glad to discuss
budget plans or any additional questions.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's question regarding the number of
existing ball fields and proposed additional fields, Ms. Brittenum
stated the proposed concept plan added three tournament -sized ball
fields in the center and one small tee -ball field, which should
satisfy the needs af:Fayetteville through the year 2005. Soil will
be'added to the existing practice field, and one baseball field and
three soccer fields -were requested and added to the park. She
stated her belief that the .proposed concept plan accommodates all
requests made of Callans & Associates for the design of Walker
Park.'
Director Green reported receiving nothing but praise for the work
accomplished by Callans & Associates on the concept plan project,
and:.he further commended them for the ability to compromise with
all-interests-and4requests for thedevelopment of Walker Park.
Director Spivey echoed Director Green's statements, and further
stated he expects growth projections for ball fields needed in the
future to be- greater; than anticipated. With this in mind, he
suggested the City needs to begin looking elsewhere for additional
soccer and baseball fields, and commit to proceed with this
endeavor. He stated his support for the tournament -sized fields at
Walker Parkin order, -to create a more complete facility.
October 6, 1992
Director Nash expressed her support for the Walker Park concept
plan. She further clarified the senior citizens center will serve
as a multi -use community center and not exclusively for senior
citizens. Ms. Nash quoted from a memo written by Jan Simco which
sets out that rooms would be available at the senior citizens
center for seminars, job training, planned parenthood, youth
related activities, public use, etc.
Director Henry further stated the Walkers requested their home be
used for a senior center. In addition, she verified that a law
office has been moved to the old Headquarters House.
Judy Brittenum added the Walkers reported that youth athletics was
very important to Mr. Walker. In addition, she explained remnants
remain at the sight following the removal of Archibald Yell's
homestead, such as the stone walk, walls, etc.
Director Coody stated on the eastern most soccer field, it appears
there is only 30 feet between the edge of the field and the tree
line. He asked what type of excavation would be required for the
field. Judy Brittenum responded there would be a ten to fifteen
feet cut at this location. Coody questioned whether they were
trying to fit too much into this park, and questioned whether the
City had researched other areas for athletic field development,
such as 28 acres offered by the University. In addition, Coody
stated the City could possibly spend their money buying real estate
and purchase land across 15th Street from the Park, which would
have good potential for ball fields, while eliminating the need to
spend money on excavating. While the proposed concept plan for
Walker Park is attractive, it will only satisfy an immediate need.
Coody suggested the City needed to look at the big picture for all
the City parks for future needs.
In response to Director Coody's inquiry about tying plans for
Walker Park into plans for the other City parks, Bill Waite stated
there is a plan being followed. However, the City is currently
unable to make additional acquisitions of land for use as ball
parks.
In further response to Director Coody, Ms. Brittenum verified the
approximate budget for the Walker Park improvements is $1.3
million, which doesn't include the community center or the
maintenance building. She explained that until someone decides on
an exact use for the Community Center, needed renovations for these
two facilities cannot be addressed. A location has been found for
the maintenance building which is more sight sensitive. Ms.
Brittenum further reported there are 2,500 acres in parks in the
City of Fayetteville, out of which only 300 acres have been
developed into activity areas. The remaining 1,700 acres or 68% of
the total park acreage are considered nature areas in the
Fayetteville park system.
October 6, 1992,:,„
Director Coody pointed out the vast majority of these 1700 acres
are under water as they are located under Lake Fayetteville and
Lake Sequoyah.
Ms. Brittenum added that Gregory Park is totally a nature park
which contains some picnic areas.
Director Coody reported input from public hearings on the Walker
Park concept plan seemed to indicate one-third support for the
plan, one-third who felt the plan would result in too much
encroachment, and the remaining one-third felt there is too little
encroachment in the concept plan. He therefore questioned whether
it was possible to please at least two-thirds of the people
involved, instead of one-third of those involved.
Mayor Vorsanger reminded Director Coody that if the City could get
one-third of the citizens of Fayetteville to agree on anything,
with the remaining two-thirds either disagreeing or consenting, the
landscape firm of Callans & Associates has made great progress.
Director Spivey stated plans to limit through traffic at Wilson
Park will probably translate into saving a child's life.
Director Green suggested in order to avoid repetition, the three
groups present each select a representative to speak to their
position on the Walker Park concept plan, to which Mayor Vorsanger
concurred that one representative from each group present should be
permitted to speak.
Ila Campbell, representing "Friends of Youth Recreation", addressed
the Board explaining this is a group of citizens concerned about
the needs of the youth in the community and the lack of sports
facilities available. This organization further represents at
least 2,000 young people in the community that are actively
involved in the youth sports programs. Ms. Campbell stated
"Friends of YouthrRecreation" is asking the Board to accept and
approve the Walker,Park concept plan as presented by PRAB. This
groupis appreciative of the proposed sports facilities; however,
they,,;are determined in their continued efforts to meet the present
and --future needs that are not addressed by the proposal. Ms.
Campbell pointed out the concept plan only addresses Bambino
baseball for six to .twelve year olds, and does not address the
needs of the ,Babe Ruth, Senior Babe Ruth, and American Legion
teams'. She stated that at least 25% of the City's children between
the:ages of'six and twelve will benefit from the sports facilities
proposed for.>Walker; Park. Although the "Friends of Youth
Recreation"jconsider this to be a significant number of the City's
youth, of the 36 acres purchased for the Walker Park expansion,
only 8 acres are being'utilized for sports facilities. Considering
the fact the move to purchase this land was initiated primarily by
persons interested in=meeting the sports needs of the City's
children, Ms.` Campbell stated her organization's approval and
.i
•
F
of
October 6, 1992
acceptance of the proposed plan is truly a compromise on their
part. The City Board should act by approving the proposal.
Larry Tabor, President of the Fayetteville Soccer Association,
addressed the Board stating there are few exceptions where anyone
disagrees that the City has a need for additional sports
facilities. He addressed one of the points addressed at the public
hearing: leave the land as it currently is to be used as an
arboretum. Tabor reported the Fayetteville Soccer Association, in
conjunction with the Soccer Associations of Springdale and Rogers,
are hosting their Tenth Annual Fall Classic Tournament. There will
be 88 teams with 1,300 children ranging from age 9 to 18, plus
referees, parents, and coaches from 7 states as far away as
Nebraska and Texas attending the tournament, and every available
motel room from Fayetteville to Bella Vista to Beaver Lake are
being arranged for accommodations. Even so, the Association has
had to turn away 50 teams, which represents a lot of tourist
dollars. Based on the compromise presented, 24 of the 32 acres of
the park land remain as natural area.
Mr. Tabor further stated the proposed cost for the Walker Park
improvements of $1.3 million is too high, and could be reduced with
the use of terraced fields as with the Tyson Complex in Springdale,
instead of building retaining walls. Mr. Tabor suggested the final
design for Walker Park could be adjusted to add an additional ball
field and questioned whether there was a need for two concession
stands.
Mr. Tabor reported the City of Rogers has floated a bond issue and
is preparing to commence construction of a new sports complex the
City of Rogers is paying for. This sports complex will include
four lighted dual purpose fields to accommodate both baseball and
soccer. Plans include the use of temporary fences for baseball
which could be removed during soccer season. The issue of cost is
certainly important; however, in his opinion, those people who
bring up the issue of cost think nothing of leaving a $200,000
investment standing, and purchasing land elsewhere.
He further stated the suggestion to utilize the industrial park
area would require additional cost to run sewer and water lines,
but he believes that this will be an option for the not -too -
distant -future. With respect to concerns about the ecosystem which
seem to be centered on the 8 acres at Walker Park, Mr. Tabor
suggested that while this ecosystem is not bothered, there is no
problem with upsetting the Industrial Park ecosystem. He stated
anywhere development of ball parks is proposed, they will meet with
some form of opposition. Mr. Tabor further addressed the social
cost of not providing organized activities for their children.
Mr. Tabor suggested if Walker Park is not to be used for the
purpose it was purchased, and in order to get seed money to develop
youth fields at another location, he proposed this land be sold and
;October 6, 1992,,.,;;
the money invested at a more adequate location. With respect to
concerns for the trees and neighbors, Mr. Tabor reported the
original plan proposed by the youth groups, considering economics,
the environment, and needs of the various youth groups, only
requested halfof this land and has since been adjusted to where
only a fourth of the land is being utilized. In the process, three
baseball fields will be cut out. The final analysis and plan
should be adjusted for additional baseball fields.
During the public hearings, social issues have been tied to
building ball parks, such as the plight of the homeless, the gender
gap, depletion of the world's oxygen supply, the animals and birds,
and conspiracy of special interest groups and insiders to build
baseball and soccer fields. Everyone involved in this debate has
a stake in the community; however, those with children have a
larger stake in the future of the community because of the hope
that these children will remain in Fayetteville and enjoy the
community.
George Blackwell, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board in
opposition to additional ball fields being located at Walker Park,
for any type of organized sports, but concurred with the
construction of a community building in the park. The three
baseball fields currently located in the park produce traffic,
lights, and noise, and these fields would be built and maintained
by the City, at a cost to taxpayers. He stated Walker Park should
serve all ordinary people of the City., Mr. Blackwell stated Walker
Park was dedicated as.a park, and not a ball field, which would
require the loss of trees and turf, as well as expense to the City.
Mr. Blackwell suggested the City needed to receive additional
citizen input with regard to the proposed concept plan, as there
are a number of ball fields currently available in Fayetteville, as
well as those provided by the schools. He further requested
possible consideration in the future for a heated swimming pool.
Stephen Miller, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating the PRAB is attempting to accommodate too many people with
the limited area offered at Walker Park. The land is suitable for
a;nature area because the slope makes it difficult for the
construction of softball and soccer fields. He concurred that
removing Block Street. -from Walker Park and closing off the entire
park,area to traffic is a very good idea.
Mr. Miller asked whether an environmental impact statement had been
prepared on the proposed concept plan for Walker Park and for
verification of the vague estimated cost for the proposed plan and
exactly what it would:include. He further stated no matter how
much .and: what type of development is requested and provided, the
special interest groups always seem to want more. He expressed his
concern Ithat •once .Walker Park has been developed as per the
proposed. plain;`, what assurance do they have that sometime in the
future, pressure from the various interest groups will cause more
• f Y •
k• 6 43Z.)
October 6, 1992
and more woods to be cut down and ball fields added to the park.
Mr. Miller stated the parks in Fayetteville consist of evenly
spaced oaks with very neatly cropped lawns which in his opinion,
are not nature areas and suitable only for robins, starlings, and
grackles. Walker Park presently contains many different species of
birds, and he questioned that an environmental impact statement
would use a winter count, would not account for many of the
endangered species of birds in the park, such as vereals, warblers,
and woodpeckers, and conveniently get around the Federal Nesting
Bird Act. Mr. Miller stated he continues to hear about "concern
for the children" in development of playing fields; however, the
same people seem to agree with the use of herbicides on ball fields
to make them perfect. He suggested the proposed plan for addition
of ball diamonds does not seem to consider space for bleachers. In
conclusion, Mr. Miller concurred that Fayetteville has a need for
various playing fields, courts, and a swimming pool; however, he
doesn't agree with discussion that if this land in Walker Park
cannot be utilized for these reasons, it be sold to a developer.
If this property is not used entirely for baseball diamonds and
soccer fields, it is not wasted. Fayetteville does not have a lot
of wooded areas, and he would like to see as much of the wooded
areas in Walker Park maintained as possible.
Mayor Vorsanger responded to Mr. Miller's inquiry about the
proposed budget for the Walker Park concept plan and stated the
purpose of this public hearing was not to propose a budget for the
project. He suggested the PRAB address the budget for their
proposed plan, as well as discussion on the need for an
environmental impact study at Walker Park.
Karen Rollet stated environmental impact statements are usually
done on more expensive sights, as they tend to be quite costly;
however, the same could be done if so desired. She indicated that
they would explore the conditions under which an environmental
impact statement should be done.
With respect to a proposed budget for the concept plan to Walker
Park, Mr. Callans stated at this point, a preliminary budget is
prepared from the concepts. Estimated dirt quantities for
excavation total $1.3 million, which he believes to be a very
conservative estimate. Until exact quantities can be calculated
from engineer's drawings, such an estimate cannot be accurately
produced. In addition, the suggestion of placing ball parks at
several other locations would require building new complexes, and
those estimates are as high as to develop the 3-4 fields at Walker
Park. Mr. Callans stated the proposed 10-15 feet of slope above
the playing fields with shade trees is an ideal situation and more
beautiful than many of the fields in surrounding cities.
Director Coody questioned a price scenario considering the
possibility for future expansion by moving baseball fields across
15th Street to level and cleared land. The estimate for such
1
j y Ap
October 6, 1992,
improvements at $550,000 does not include land acquisition costs
which could probably be obtained for $90,000 to $100,000, or a
total of $650,000.. This figure would be approximately half of the
estimated budget for the proposed Walker Park concept plan, as well
as providing an additional 38 acres of land for development of
playing fields. Coody further stated this particular parcel of
land contains a railroad easement which could be utilized to
connect the City's park system.
Mr. Waite stated Director Coody is taking less than half of a
program and using it to compare to the other projects. Mr. Waite
estimated that it would take $1,700,000 to relocate the full park
program.
Mr. Waite offered an additional option to those presented to move
the entire program and existing soccer fields at Walker Park to
another location that already has three soccer fields would cost
approximately $965,000. This option assumes that the relocation
sight has regulation soccer fields and parking already provided.
Mr. Callans addressed Director Coody's question about acquiring the
property across the street, stating that it probably is not
realistic that the City could obtain this property. The
explanation for the low sale price on the property is that it was
sold to a member of the. Walker family, and probably is not
currently for sale. In addition, Mr. Callans refuted Director
Coody's implication that other sights are not being considered by
stating the PRAB has consistently searched for and analyzed the
feasibility of various sights to build playing fields.
Carol Conger, resident in the Walker Park neighborhood, addressed
the Board stating it was inappropriate for the current Board of
Directors to vote on the proposed concept plan for Walker Park, as
the new Council which will be seated in less than one month should
be deciding this issue. In addition, the contract with Callans &
Associates called for a "maximum of one general public meeting,
plus three PRAB meetings in conjunction with two additional general
public meetings", plus the Board meeting currently taking place
when only two public meetings have occurred. One of the general
public meetings planned and paid for has been omitted from -the
process. Therefore, Ms. Conger requested the Board table their
decision until the general public meeting occurs. She outlined the
reasons for which this general public meeting is vital: a)
neglecting this meeting undermines the democratic process; b).the
overall parks plan,has not been finalized, and the plan for Walker
Park should be reviewed in conjunction with the overall master
plan; c) the PRAB-has not offered an adequate response to the
broad -suggestion of using the vacant land at the South Industrial
Park,for a fully occupied people park. Alternate sights for soccer
are much easier to locate than to find plots with trees of this
size to serve asan alternative for a nature park; d) no survey
has been done concerning decisions made for Walker Park, like the
t )i,.3..
1 s
j >
October 6, 1992
one conducted for Gulley Park; e) financial issues/options are far
from decided with several alternate plans proposed; f) the
original basic resolution mandating the purchase of the property
contains no language that specifically designates this property be
used for ball parks; and g) the question of gender equality and
monies spent by the City for youth recreation has not been
addressed, and the ratio is currently 3 boys to 2 girls in terms of
monies spent on recreation. The proposed use of Walker Park for
ball fields means putting that much more money into recreation
utilized primarily by boys.
Barbara Moorman, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board
stating that with respect to the cost of the project and in light
of the fact that several options have been presented, all of which
cost over $1 million, she questioned where this money would come
from.
Mayor Vorsanger responded to Ms. Moorman that expansion of Walker
Park, as well as all City parks, is included in the CIP for the
next five years.
Ben Mayes, Director of Administrative Services, further explained
that the majority of this funding would come from excess sales tax.
In further response to Ms. Moorman's inquiry whether CDBG funds
would also be used to fund the Walker Park project, Ben Mayes
stated that community development monies would be available to
assist with the proposed Community Development Center at Walker
Park.
Ms. Moorman continued that if plans were to use CDBG funds in the
future, her understanding of the National Environmental Policy Act
requires that an environmental assessment be done. The purpose of
an environmental assessment would be to address the social costs
and problem of human environment, and she believes this assessment
would be advisable even if it were not required. The environmental
problems she sees with the plan itself include no real tree
inventory has been completed to show the size, age, and number of
trees noted. She further addressed the bird inventory conducted
which does not count the many species of birds which live in Walker
Park. Further, the inventory does not include flowers, reptiles,
amphibians, mushrooms, insects, etc. Species of plants that could
grow in Walker Park have not been mentioned, and the proposal to
keep only trees of one size and family will reduce the number of
birds and other creatures and provides no plan for replacement
trees in the event of a natural disaster. Ms. Moorman stated the
issue should not be whether there are rare species living in Walker
Park, but rather what effect the erasing of many different species
from a residential neighborhood will have on the livability of the
neighborhood and character of the City.
1
October 6, 1992:•;
Director Coody concurred with Ms. Moorman that they need to be
replacing a lot of the trees that are being lost. He asked for
verification from/Ben Mayes whether the $1.3 million would come
from the excess sales tax pay-as-you-go money over a period of time
which has yet to be worked out into phases, in addition to how the
court rules on the CIP sales tax.
Ruby Johnson, resident of Fayetteville, addressed
her support for the proposed compromise plan.
besides the need for ball fields, one of the
currently existing at Walker Park is the need
underbrush and disperse the homeless people from
the Board stating
She stated that
biggest problems
for cleaning out
the park.
Don Blakeman, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board in
favor of the compromise concept plan for Walker Park as presented
by PRAB. He commended those involved for the work they had done,
and stated his desire that the City get on with it and complete the
proposed plan for Walker Park.
Charles Moorman, resident of Fayetteville, addressed the Board and
newspaper articles from the Northwest Arkansas Times dated
September 20, 1992, an article abridged from the "Congressional
Quarterly" with a headline reading, "Urban Trees as Important as
Rain Forests". The text from the article stated that nurturing our
own forests and parks, urban wetlands, backyard woods, and street
side trees could turn out to be just as crucial as saving the rain
forest that all of us ultimately depend on. Prior to publication
of the aforementioned article, he was advised by one of the
consultants at the public hearing of September 15, that the 32
acres being added to Walker Park had no ecological significance,
and that a University of Arkansas Agronomy professor stated there
were no important birds located in Walker Park. Moorman stated
that the consultant must have been confusing two issues. The
question of interest of something to a specialist studying rare
species and the general effect on the City and the neighborhood are
quite different issues. The article stressed that our environment
(air, water, trees, creatures) are infinitely more important to our
everyday comfort and happiness than is normally assumed.
Mr. Moorman further addressed the answers given in a survey that
the City distributed a questionnaire to the neighborhood through
school children and in the press for plans for Gulley Park. The
Northwest Arkansas Times published an article on September 29,
1992, quoting the City's Director of Public Works that the
respondents to a questionnaire favored Gulley Park as the sight for
walking, jogging, as'a natural space, for bird watching, as a
children's play area/ and as a picnicking sight. Mr. Moorman
suggested southeastFayetteville may have said the same thing had
they been granted the2.anonymity of completing such a questionnaire.
In order to have livable neighborhoods in the City, he suggested
that they take time_for planning. He stated the City currently has
no overall park plan• or tree ordinance or overall plan for the
near
October 6, 1992
City. He suggested the Board simply table this matter until the
above referenced plans are presented.
Dennis Kelley, President of the Fayetteville Youth Baseball
Program, addressed the Board in favor of the proposed concept plan
for Walker Park. He expressed an urgency that the City get on with
this program as the City's current programs and park facilities are
under par and inadequate considering the lack of playing fields,
staffing, and bathroom facilities which do not meet state codes for
the number of people visiting the park. The sooner that the City
can get their programs implemented, the sooner they will reach the
prescribed standards.
Bill Waite verified that the third public meeting will be held
subsequent to this Board meeting over the plan that is being
proposed, as well as continuing public meetings in the future to
discuss developments as the funds become available. He gave the
example of Gulley Park which was established seven years ago, the
procedure including three public meetings and development of a
master plan which has continued to evolve. The questionnaire
concerning Gulley Park came about six to seven years following
development of the master plan. In terms of timing, the procedure
for Walker Park is following the same plan followed for Gulley
Park.
In response to Director Coody's question, Mr. Waite explained the
time table for Walker Park would include another public meeting to
present the concept plan to the public and solicit additional
comments. The next step is to present a tentative budget and
requests for budget allocations from CIP and directly from the
General Fund. Mr. Waite further stated that the initial master
plan estimate for Gulley Park ran at $2.5 million, and obviously
that amount will not be spent until proceeding with the Youth
Center swimming pool. Allocations made on a yearly basis will
determine ultimately what funds are available for these projects,
and in what sequence the funds become available.
In response to Director Coody's question, Bill Waite stated if this
plan is approved, the PRAB would expect to return to the Board on
many occasions throughout the process, and once engineering plans
are developed, prior to commencing the project.
Mayor Vorsanger pointed out before the project could commence,
money would have to be available.
Director Henry stated many projects scheduled to begin a couple of
years ago in Fayetteville have been put on hold and are farther
down the list than Walker Park as far as availability of CIP funds.
Mr. Waite stated the PRAB will look to baseball and soccer for
financial assistance, development of an engineering plan, and then
1
October 6, 1992;
present itself to;the Board for funding once more before making any
budget requests for preliminary plans.
Robert Reus, residentof Fayetteville, addressed the Board stating
the overriding question surrounding the City of Fayetteville is
when1the City proposed using Gulley Park as a Youth Center and
solicited input from residents, the majority responded negatively,
expressing they wanted a' park. Reus suggested a majority of the
residents of the southeast side of Fayetteville should be asked
their personal opinion on the proposed concept plan for Walker
Park. Mr. Reus stated that when this project surfaced this summer,
he was led to believe that nothing would be determined until after
three meetings had been held. in this case, they are four weeks
from a major election, and this issue is put on a fast track, which
is unfair to those involved in the project. He pointed out any
decision made by the current Board of Directors could be reversed
by the new Council; however, Reus expressed his concern that an
engineering or construction contract might be signed within the
next thirty days. Reus requested assurance from the City Manager's
Office or Mayor and Directors that they will not let any contract,
either engineering or construction, until the new Council has an
opportunity to review the .same.
Public Works Director Kevin Crosson assured the Board they would
not see an engineering contract from City Staff with regard to the
concept plan for Walker Park.
Mayor Vorsanger stated even though the current Board had one more
meeting left, he would not be reviewing any contracts with regard
to the Walker Park project.
Director Green stated his opinion that it is the duty of this Board
to at least give their approval for the concept plan presented to
them by PRAB, and finish something they started sometime ago. It
would be an injustice to the next City Council to dump this project
in their lap without at least making a recommendation. In
addition, Callans & Associates need Board approval on their concept
in order to close out their contract. Callans & Associates has
done an excellent job and deserve some kind of approval for their
accomplishments. Director Green stated if the Board waits around
until the new City Council comes on board, there will be additional
waiting involved before a concept can be approved. In addition, an
engineering firm will need to be selected; negotiation of a
contract with said engineering firm, preparation of surveys and
working drawings of the project; preparation of budget estimates;
approval by the City Council of the engineering contract and the
project will be let for bids on the construction contract which
will. also require Council approval. Green stated his hope that the
concept plan does_tnot change significantly from the direction
presented by the PRAB at this meeting. He further estimated that
if the plan changes very drastically, this will force them back to,
•
O0
Juv
October 6, 1992
square one and will not accomplish anyone's goals but try to please
all of the people and end up pleasing no one.
Director Green suggested the Board give their approval for the
proposed concept plan for Walker Park, and stated his hope that
project construction could be completed in time to use the
facilities next summer.
Director Blackston stated his support for the proposed concept plan
and recommended pursuing the compromise plan which appears to be
fair to all concerned. With regard to suggested options for
purchase of certain properties that would serve well as ball
fields, the fact of the matter is that there is currently no such
property available. Director Blackston further concurred with
Director Green that the Board needs to at least give some direction
to the people working on the Walker Park project, and to move
forward with the concept plan.
Director Henry stated as a parent who has run her children all over
town to different playing fields for various sports activities, she
supports an area concept. She concurred with the previous
suggestion that the PRAB needs to look more carefully at supplying
fields for girls' sports. Since nobody is completely happy, the
plan appears to be a compromise wherein everyone gives up something
in order to achieve a greater good for the whole of Fayetteville.
Henry expressed her concern about hearing the "not in my backyard"
syndrome being associated with our children. As a community, we
need to think about how to maximize these children which are our
future resources to permit both organized and unorganized
activities. Henry stated her belief that there are fields at every
park with different types of sports made available, with the
exception of Gregory, which is primarily picnicking and bird
watching areas. As the City of Fayetteville grows, they need to
address the addition of another Youth Center type facility.
Director Coody commended the work done by Callans & Associates on
the Walker Park concept plan.
Director Nash stated the concept plan reflects sensitivity on the
part of Callans & Associates. She stated her only objection has
been with the location of the facilities. The Walker Park project
is not a long term fix, and she is not convinced that it is a wise
investment for the City at this time to sink much money into this
location; however, she sees the proposed concept plan for Walker
Park as a compromise, and therefore, would vote for it.
Mayor Vorsanger stated time and time again he hears all the things
that the Board of Directors should have done or still need to do,
why don't they wait, and why don't they do this or that. During
this term on the current Board, he felt there has been too much of
this type of controversy. Vorsanger stated the City of
Fayetteville is the best City he has ever lived in, and he
encouraged everyone to support the City in its endeavors.
so
.
Upon roll call, the resolution passed by a vote
F
RESOLUTION 160-924AS`RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'
October 6, 1992 •.
of 7 to O.
8 OFFICE
WALKER PARK LEASE PROPOSAL
Mayor Vorsanger i troduced a resolution approving a lease with Mrs.
Ruby Johnson for `a 59' it 150 ' parcel of park property for the
purpose of access4to$and from her property.
r ,
Mrs. Johnson's driveway she has used for years now belongs to the
City as a result of the recent purchase of Walker Park Property.
The proposed lease will allow Mrs. Johnson to continue to use the
property for her driveway. In return, she will offer to the City
her property at its appraisal value at the time of disposal.
Director of Public Works Kevin Crosson explained this particular
piece of property is located adjacent to Mrs. Johnson's property,
and she has been maintaining it for quite sometime. This property
not only includes her driveway, but also an area landscaped and
utilized for her personal use. Crosson stated that Staff
recommends approval of the resolution.
Henry, seconded by Blackston, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
Dale Clark, Parks Director, explained that Mrs. Ruby Johnson
recently purchased the subject property from the Walker family.. A
street was platted to go through her property, and has always been
her driveway. The area which Mrs. Johnson has landscaped and
maintained for all of these years consists. of 59 feet.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION 161-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
STREET RIGHT OF WAY USE REQUEST
Mayor Vorsanger introduced a resolution authorizing the use of a
portion of the Highland Street right of way by Total Holding
Company (Roadrunner) for the purpose of installing a treated
groundwater discharge line.
This line will be used to carry treated groundwater from the
treatment point along the east side of Highland Street to the
discharge point on Dickson. Cura, Inc., was hired by Total Holding
Company to treat and dispose of the contaminated groundwater in
the vicinity of their station on the corner of North College and
Lafayette Street, and they will be the engineering company
utilizing this line and right of way.
October 6, 1992
City Manager Linebaugh stated this agreement was worked out with
the City to handle the existing problems on Highland Street. The
Staff has reviewed and recommends approval of the resolution.
Mr. Crosson stated this particular project is covered under the
Arkansas Department of Pollution and Ecology, and Cure, Inc. is a
contractor for Total Petroleum, has obtained the necessary permit
from DPC&E.
Blackston, seconded by Nash, made a motion to approve the
resolution.
Upon roll call, the motion passed by a vote of 7 to 0.
RESOLUTION 162-92 AS RECORDED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
STREET CLOSING
Mayor Vorsanger introduced an ordinance closing a portion of
Vandeventer Street from Maple to Lafayette and abandoning a portion
of the right of way as requested by University Baptist Church.
UBC is requesting this so they can build their new sanctuary in a
more favorable location without concern of street setbacks and to
allow for more efficient parking and drop-off arrangements.
UBC has pledged to convey whatever right of way might be needed for
any future project the City may have involving land owned by UBC;
they are willing to grant the City permission to route traffic
through the parking lot in emergency situations; and they pledge to
continue to allow students and patrons of the Walton Arts Center to
pass through and park on their proposed parking areas.
Reverend H. D. McCarty, Pastor of the University Baptist Church,
addressed the Board explaining the basis of their appeal as
follows:
1. Reverend McCarty extended his apologies to the neighbors
in the area where the University Baptist Church is
located. Original plans were to contact all neighbors
with a briefing on what the Church is attempting to
accomplish; however, time did not allow for this
communication.
2. Reverend McCarty stated his belief that the subject
action will be best for the church, as well as best for
the City.
3. In 1980, on their initiative, the University Baptist
Church gave land to the City to correct a bottleneck at
Vandeventer and Maple Streets. At this time, it was
suggested that the City might consider closing the street
•
October'6, 1992-
in"order to tie in the entire area; however, this idea
was-ost in the shuffle.
The primary purpose for their request is for senior adult
access to,the church. The hills in the area are quite
difficult to walk, and in the proposed expansion of their
worship,.center, the Church needs a good level area to
handle the4numerous needs of their senior adults. It is
believed that a portion of Vandeventer Street from Maple
to Lafayette is the best choice for these needs.
Although no:master plan exists, it is known that both the
City and'Uriiversity have discussed an artery from the
bypass through to the Walton Arts Center. This artery
has already been extended through Gregg Street and will
pass through the University Baptist Church's property,
which will be good for all concerned. The Church would
consider giving more land to the City, in order to
expedite their request.
6. By the City's own estimates, 70% of the usage of the
portion of the Vandeventer Street from Maple to Lafayette
is by members of the University Baptist Church. It is
further estimated that only 30% of the usage of this
section of street is used by citizens.
7 The University Baptist Church has owned both sides of
this street for the past 15 years, the only requirement
to make such a request, but they have not pursued the
abandoning of this portion until now.
8. This portion of Vandeventer Street from Maple to
Lafayette is believed to be the most dangerous and
shortest street in all of Fayetteville. Reverend McCarty
explained that travelling south on this street under
inclement conditions can be treacherous and travelling
north on this street is exceedingly dangerous due to a
blind spot coming from the right.
9. Every time the University Baptist Church has sought to
gain additional property, they have sought to make it
more beautiful. The church would plan to do the same
with the abandoned portion of Vandeventer.
10. The surrounding neighbors to the Church are concerned
this street has been used as an access for years to come
from Maple over to Lafayette. In the proposed plans,
this access route would be altered by simply taking the
portion of Vandeventer Street which abuts the church's
property where they plan to build the worship center,
allowing senior adults to exit their cars on a flat
surface. Adjacent to this section toward the west, as
k' Jt
October 6, 1992
the parking lot is developed, plans are to create a
through parking drive from Maple to Lafayette Street that
the church will offer for use by their neighbors and will
not impede or slow down their traffic pattern.
Reverend McCarty further stated that for at least 12 years, this
was a one-way street that could only be used from Maple to
Lafayette. This has just recently been changed, and anyone can
still use this street to travel from Lafayette to Maple or Maple to
Lafayette.
Mayor Vorsanger expressed his concern and reported receiving
numerous calls asking why the University Baptist Church's appeal
has not proceeded through the Planning Commission, and further
objected to the Board acting on this ordinance at this meeting.
Director of Planning Alett Little explained that the City is not in
the habit of taking street closings to the Planning Commission. In
1980, the particular request to close this section of Vandeventer
Street was taken to the Planning Commission and turned down by them
at that time. Ms. Little explained the City has an option to
handle this matter either way; however, she would recommend the
matter be addressed by the Planning Commission.
In response to Mayor Vorsanger's questions, Ms. Little reported the
Planning Commission's next meeting was scheduled for the upcoming
Monday.
Director Spivey asked how many street closing requests have been
taken to the Planning Commission; to which Ms. Little responded
that within the past year, no street closings have gone before the
Planning Commission. In addition, she reported that during the
twenty year period in which Don Bunn has been employed by the City,
no street closing requests have been presented to the Planning
Commission.
Fred Hanna, former member of the Planning Commission, explained the
reason this request was brought before the Planning Commission in
1980 was that it was presented as part of a concept plat, and not
simply as a street closing.
Reverend McCarty stated the request made in 1980 was withdrawn, and
he was unaware that it had been voted on. He further stated when
they started several months ago with their planning, they were
advised that they only needed to appear before the City Board.
Mayor Vorsanger questioned the need for help on Gregg Street, if
and when Gregg Street is opened up. He asked whether there were
plans which addressed this situation, and whether the Board can
accept this without it proceeding through the Planning Commission.
•
z
h S �
October 6, 1992
Alett Little responded the Planning Commission looks at all
transportation plans as as.part of the comprehensive plan, and the
Board is allowed to accept such a plan on its own.
2
Director Coody reported receiving several calls from people who use
the.streettregularly; opposed to this request, and concerned with
it'not proceedingthrough the Planning Commission. He further
stated he ha"s received no calls in favor of the street closing.
Reverend McCarty responded there were approximately 40 individuals
in.favor of the street"closing present at the Board meeting, and he
could'guarantee ainumber of phone calls to each Director in favor
ofythe request. Themain objection seems to be the convenience of
a thoroughfare througli this area; and although this presents a very
dangerous situation for those unfamiliar with the street, the
thoroughfare throughI this area will in no way be impeded. He
further stated it seems to him that to take this request to the
Planning Commission would be almost prejudicial if everyone else is
not required to do so.
Director Henry stated although this request is generally a matter
of public policy, it is not a good idea to give up a street to
someone else. She stated her understanding that the church has
committed in writing an irrevocable commitment to provide rerouting
through their parking lot which would simply create a different
access route.
Reverend McCarty responded the plans would be for a driveway
through the church's parking lot, which could be used by anyone.
John Allen, staff member of the University Baptist Church,
addressed the Board stating they wrote a letter to the City, signed
by their Elder Board which irrevocably gave the City a right to the
Institute property located on the corner. In addition, the church
has agreed to continue to allow students to park at this location
and citizens to cross the parking lot. In addition, the scenario
was addressed for the event of a fire or broken street main causing
a portion of West Street to be closed. Mr. Allen stated that
basically they were continuing to offer a public use parking lot.
Mr. Allen further mentioned letters collected from telephone
companies and other utility companies approving of the church's
request which were provided to the Board of Directors.
Alett Little stated within the street or passageway through the
parking lot, the actual street has been located further to the
west, which gives a better sight alignment for anyone dropping off
their children at the church's day care or exiting from the parking
lot.
Director Blackston asked about the steep entrance from and exit
onto Lafayette and whether the new plans include alterations to
this section making it more level. Mr. Allen responded the
•r5b
October 6, 1992
architects have not begun the hard line drawings on this project as
yet; however, if such alterations a e necessary, the church would
be willing to make any changes that would be in everyone's best
interest.
Robert Brandon, neighbor of the University Baptist Church,
addressed the Board and the previous question of bringing the Gregg
Street thoroughfare through the park area to accommodate the Walton
Arts Center. He questioned what has been discussed along this line
and with whom. Mr. Brandon stated the tremendous traffic which
comes across the west end of the park makes a jog around the corner
of the park on Louise Street, cuts back south on Vandeventer, and
then down through the Baptist Church parking lot. By closing off
a portion of Vandeventer, he believes this would eliminate a
portion of the thoroughfare traffic. He suggested they give the
street to the Church with the understanding that it would be closed
to eliminate the leg on over to Lafayette and encourages traffic
through the park, or come off of North Street and then on over to
Lafayette.
Mayor Vorsanger addressed Mr. Brandon explaining these discussions
he refers to have all been informal and began when the RN Plan
Group was reviewed for the area. He reported some of the
suggestions have been to take Gregg over to North Street.
Vorsanger further reiterated that Reverend McCarty has agreed to
cooperate if and when help was needed on Gregg Street.
Alett Little concurred with Mayor Vorsanger's assessment of the
informal discussions regarding the Gregg Street thoroughfare. The
Planning Commission does not currently have an alignment in mind;
however, such a concept plan would provide for better circulation
in a north/south direction. She further stated this alignment has
not been included in the CIP plan for the next five years, and
therefore, is not included in the City's plans for the next ten
years.
Director Henry stated Mr. Brandon's major concern is that the Gregg
Street thoroughfare would be brought through the park area.
Mr. Brandon stated his concern that there has been continued
discussion on a plan to bring Gregg Street through the park while
not addressing the safety of the neighborhood.
Kevin Crosson, Director of Public Works, responded this is a very
difficult project to accomplish and one that needs to be addressed.
The problem is the highly developed neighborhood and doing public
works projects in such neighborhoods are very difficult and
expensive projects. This problem will need to be addressed in the
future, and the proposed CIP is a long -ranged project for 1998 and
beyond.
-1
f
October 6, 1992t,
Director Henry stated Mr. Brandon's question is not being
addressed „which ,is -what is currently being done to address the
problem at hand with people speeding around Walker Park, and the
hazard created to thetpublic. This problem cannot wait ten years
for a. resolution.
r
Kevin Crosson responded speed bumps are planned for inside the
park; however,,there are no plans for speed bumps on the streets
surrounding the park.
Gordon McNeil;`resident on the west end of Vandeventer, addressed
the Boardestating)his.usual route downtown is on Vandeventer, and
it serves as a useful.street. Mr. McNeil stated his confusion with
the concept of closing a street in Fayetteville when there is such
a.need for additional routes. The University Baptist Church has a
problem with street set -back regulations, and Mr. McNeil suggested
they.:communicate with' the First Baptist Church and discover ways
around street set -backs on College Avenue. He doesn't believe the
city should tear-.up.their streets in order to, help University
Baptist .Church solve their problem. He further pointed out the
Engineering Staff made no recommendation on this request, and the
Planning Commission denied the request years ago. The ideaof an
alternative route through a parking lot seems ridiculous, and he
questioned how one is invited to do so. Mr. McNeil agreed that
long, range. planning calls for changes in this intersection;
however, to close Vandeventer at this point is putting the cart
before the horse. He recommended that this requestfor closing a
portion of Vandeventer be referred to the Planning Commission.
Fred Hanna, resident for over 25 years three houses north of the
intersection on Vandeventer, addressed the Board stating when he
first moved to this area, the neighborhood was in a deteriorating
mode. However, before long these properties were sold and
restored. When University Baptist Church began growing and started
their expansion program, he experienced trouble with cars coming
down Maple Street from the east and sliding into the old Sigma Chi
front yard and hitting the trees. UBC subsequently provided the
land so that this dogleg could be straightened out. The stretch of
Vandeventer proposed to be closed is not used often, and the impact
on Wilson Street traffic through the park is nil. For many years,
Mr. Hanna stated he used UBC's private driveway between the
original sanctuary and the first Sunday school building without any
problems. Mr. Hanna urged the Board to grant UBC the right to
build their building and continue to improve the neighborhood.
Director Green •expressed his concern
existing street currently in use. Since
of Directors, he does not recall closing
only a platted street that was yet to be
that Vandeventer is an
he has been on the Board
an existing City street,
constructed.
Alett Little stated she is unaware of the City closing any existing
City street. She explained in this particular case,the advantage
JC
565
October 6, 1992
to the City would be giving up the maintenance of Vandeventer,
while still maintaining the right of ingress and egress through UBC
property. Ms. Little explained the alternative for UBC is to move
Vandeventer and construct the area to street standards. This
option does not accomplish the goals and objectives of the
residents around Wilson Park who are interested in slowing the
traffic.
•
Director Green stated he personally uses Vandeventer Street on a
regular basis and although he could take alternative routes, he has
never encountered a problem on Vandeventer. Green reported
receiving several calls from people living in the area of
Vandeventer and use the route as a public street, expressing their
concerns and requesting to be informed of plans for this street.
If the UBC driveway is set-up for the purpose of a thoroughfare, he
believes this driveway will create a hazard of its own. Green
suggested this ordinance be tabled until the next meeting to allow
time to communicate to the neighbors exactly what is planned for
this area.
Director Spivey pointed out that when public opposition is received
through phone calls, normally there is a heavy attendance at the
Board meeting. In this case, only one individual has spoken
opposing the plans to close Vandeventer. As a member of UBC, they
recently built a student activity center that the street almost
dead ends into, creating a blind intersection from both directions.
By upgrading the UBC parking lot and allowing public access, this
will lessen the need for future parking lots.
Director Nash concurred with Director Green that there remain
questions to be answered with regard to UBC's plans. Since the
Board has the option, she suggested the request be sent to the
Planning Commission for their recommendation.
Mayor Vorsanger stated he would support the request by UBC as
outlined, and since it is not necessary to proceed through the
Planning Commission, he suggested they pass the ordinance on its
first reading and take it up at their next meeting. This would
give the public a chance to see the proposed plan, and if the
Planning Commission wished to question it, they would also have the
opportunity.
The ordinance was read for the first time. Henry, seconded by
Blackston, made a motion to suspend the rules and place the
ordinance on its second reading. Upon roll call, the motion failed
by a vote of 3 to 4, with Directors Vorsanger, Green, Coody, and
Nash voting no. The ordinance remained on its first reading.
OTHER BUSINESS
X' f
x'- .# i 4`. -
•
•
r
October 6, 1992
CITY HALL HERITAGE
Mayor' Vorsangerstated nothing exists within City Hall which
reflects uponthe present heritage. He suggested a picture be
taken following the Board meeting of the City Board of Directors.
In an attempt to begin working harder on their traditions, Mayor
Vorsanger presented the City with a picture of President Bush taken
with`the Mayor. on March -17, 1992.
q f.
i`. (,,,,,„:,, ,° TOW -AWAY SIGNS
Director Coodyreiterated his previous request that larger tow -away
sign§'be used that would bemoreeffective in the no parking areas.
ADJOURNMENT +... 4
The meeting adjourned at 11:17 p.m.