HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980-10-06 - Minutes•
•
•
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
P. 0. DRAWER F
72701
PARKS & RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD
October 6, 1980 at 1:30 p.m.
r s011 321-7700
Present: Widder, Knight, Reagan, Thomason, Lashley, Brinner, Waite, Clark,
and Delvin Nation from CD Parks Committee. The minutes of the September 8th
meeting were corrected and approved. -
David gave background on 1981 CD askings to date; requesting priority from
the Board for our items. Delvin said that total CD funds are about $550,000.
Some items on CD subcommittee may not be under parks. Toin strongly questions
overhead walk at the Courthouse.
The Board set as priorities: (1) improvements at Asbell $75,000. Much dis-
cussion about Washington Mountain - how many acres to ask for (10 acres at
$750/acre) - more if ballfields are to be included, (2) acquire land for
Washington Mountain $75,000, (3) acquire land Red Arrow area $32,500.and
south-southwest Fayetteville, (4) improvements at Greathouse $35,000,
(5) further development of park at Washington Mountain $125,000 -
TOTAL $342,500.
CD projects 1982 - our priorities: (1) two tennis courts at Bates $40,000,
(2)•improvements to playing fields at Asbell $20,000, (3) land acquisition
$75,000, (4) Walker Park lighted softball fields $100,000, (5) carry-overs
from 1981 - TOTAL $235,000.
Next CD general meeting is October 16th at 7:30 p.ni.
David explained the figures in his G.O. Bond project update. All money is
committed but $12,000 for contingencies.
David commented on the softball field at Lake Fayetteville. The problem of
moving the sewer line is far more complicated than anticipated. Perhaps we
can begin construction in March, 1981.
David will write Mr. Grimes about Asbell parking lot and Walker Park entire
project under CD. We feel these projects need higher priority.
Dale will expedite the bond project for Asbell softball field, get dirt work
done, fence up, plant winter grass.
Semi-annual tour of Parks is set for Tuesday, October 28th. Meet at the
•
Environmental Sculpture Garden at Wilson Park at 12:00 noon.
Dale will put up newly purchased fence at the north pavilion at Lake Fay.
•
•
•
Parks Board
Oct. 6, 1980
Page 2
..o10•1..+.•••rsw—........ Y.1111M,.
c
The Greenspace Ordinance is currently tabled, pending passage of new con•.ti-
tution which would open up funds for land acquisition for parks. If it passes,
the City Attorney will rewrite the Greenspace Ordinance.
The Board perused the East Oaks Subdivision plat (361/2 acres). We need some
park land set aside - about five acres. David will contact the Planning
Commission to apprise them.
Dale presented the request from the beaver trapper at Lake Wilson. A motion
was made by Bill to disallow; seconded by Reagan. Passed unanimously.
Dale lodged a complaint with the City Attorney against soccer coach Samir Naj
who refused to leave a practice field.
David talked about the soccer fields at Butterfield. We need a request from
the PTA and would be willing to help them with G.O. Bond contingency funds.
E. Reagan
ofergeimr
4
•
11 111 CA 'ION ,u,:_,_,t•,lir r..
11: 1 !qr^u,i;v
Anne .::-!+sition for future ?arks
'. :.i•_,; rr:..sl F,!;c Ctt.Nxi11e
,�_.:.•_ .qui si:ion and Park Development near
tha;;n .and . :tom 31 '%%ndlineton :k'ntain
o2 %%est o' Bypass)
. i_mnds_.:oe So.i:h 71 when five lane is complete
(., land;ca,C st•udt will be implemented Chi s. tall
.exe.“-er as a U of A landscape class project.)
edestrieni-.':tion Study and Overhead Cross Walk
across Hipb .:ni 71 near Courthouse
S"�
/ of Possible site:: Linear near. t
/ u.,dcvelop-d land ;u_h as uta lity easements,
\. railroad tracks, etc.
>;;-•?d �f D'issiblc uses of the land at Cha southwest
corner of ,Jf ckt,on and '.<est Avenue
I1. PP -k .-.,. �'n •nt5 ..-.
3-2r, So o
/v /c✓& 5 75 o C G
7��;I `i-- /2 o O O G
r..
�rv/i%10
It
A. -.x11 Per::
.:.a rena:ation including insul.ntion, rest roans.
en:losed cntran_c, floc finishing, and spectator
Grecthojs: Park
. .tel cricke
.Fill Dir: _
CP: tb311 Field
I.Fence a. .:est property line
•
1932 Cor7".11i:
I. f::.n r:
. Land A.:,isition foe Fature P::rk
I1. Park t-nrn:f.....,:t s A
A. :Liber P..rk
.i.
1101ed 5oftbn11 Fields an the recently purchased
t
n •
P:rk
. 0 of t;:o tennis
1.1 frrl.on Pirk
ti enol PI;. ..,•1.
.51 tc':,orn to cJrr;_:
.Con rete wnik; La
Caur is
drnin.:n^ Problem
Pavilion
J. 45DCI1 Pnrk
. l-Dro•,e:ncnts of Pla71 nn Field-
%
.. 00O
34 v, Co c
%j DO0 (3.7)
/OOOoO (fr/
INCOME
Beginning Balance
Sponsor Fees
,ogram Ads
gistration Fees
t Field Fence Ads
Concession Stands
Candy Sales
Raffle Sales
Donations
Tournament
Dugouts
Total Income
Expenses
Uniforms & Equipment
Field Maintenance
Utilities
Insurance
Programs
Salaries
Concession Stands
Candy & Prizes
Raffle Pri:.es
Miscellaneous
B.R. Tournament
pugouts
Total Expenses
/income Over Expenses
mounts Due
Net Gain (Loss)
INCO'T
EXPENSES
NET INC011v
AMOUNTS DUE
Purvis
Purvis -Sign
Pet Place
Exxon
t icIlroy
.ci_lroy
Levi Strauss
Evelyn }fills
--, oho
•,' .Tourna.
5100.00
75.00
75.00
225.00
225.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
400.00
1475.00
:,TALKER PARK
3,200.00
2,190.00
6,975.20
10,534.30
22,899.50
$
4,670.55
890.0,
1,037.39
1,620.00
5,931.48
5,478.67
251.86
$ 19ro.31
$ 3,013.19
100.00
3,413.19
193o SEASC::
BBE RUTH UNASSIGNED
$ 396.20
1,300.00
1,420.00
975.00
1,514.63
2,692.00
35.00
1,380.00'
1)011.h9
v 10,828.12
•
1:,314.23
2 ,rr 01
300.77-
194.00
2,155.00
4,313.01
326.81,
268.61
eon nn
1,011.1,°
$
$ (5,011.76)
1,075.00
$ (31936.7n
CONCESSIONS STANDS
.P.
4 07: '71-1
c
0b3.??
!:60.00
175.00
$ 1,031.80
1,550.00
399.49
1.0.311
0
025»10
000.00
450.00
3,610.00
975.00
n 53
10,531.1.30
2,692.00
210.00
1,380.00
1,011.49
> 34,759.1.12
C1985.08
3,051.99
1,338.16
1,744.00
3,775.00
10,244.49
5,478.67
326.814
560.81
800.00
11011,10
37,7ice2
(958.03) $ (2,956.60)
1,475,00
8.03) $ (1,481.60)
/;, -: a..
0,53)4030
r' L22 67
5,055.63
PIFFLE
$ 2,692.00
326.8b
2,365.16
1
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
at
72701
1/00
f�!%
/1 (5011 521.8 o
4
Committee Meeting
3:30 September 25, 1980-.in_Aoard
Room, City Administration Building.
Ittteci
•
Cv,r 1 6,/Z/E V
.Lr /el 1rgil
��2vJ7 T t'.
1.Li.,r.' i `" t...c___ln_G'a+. .!-!!_C� I �2a�C t 1 -U r
:,:
01 e '..A'/.-4-4--- -!.I ,--n t -L• --v/ -76714-`411
ji /.7,17,. • iv 1;_�_f_t.e e�! .(A 1 t G(
CT -Le- f.LG7G: Cet ✓ .Ct-�%�
77
1
t
7
C
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED ABOUT
FEE FOR PARK LAND FROM DEVELOPMENT
Larry Wood
1. Will subdivisions outside the city but inside the planning area
be assessed? ^ IA/
2. Will PUD's be assessed? .f
3. Will multi -family LS1?) Plans be assessed? ^';'�
4. Will resubdivisions be assessed? yes, no or only if it involves
more people.
5. Will areas which are developed and have all park needs satisfied
_continue to be assessed when redevelopment occurs?
6. I_have heard.that_this fee can only .go_for....the.purchase of land not
maintenance. The statute 19-2829, c. says facilities-and-Webs-ter—
d'inesfacilities as something that is built, installed, established
to serve or facilitates the ease of an action. If a park is not
maintained it sure would be hard to use. 19-2831 also says the act
should be construed liberally.
7.. Where there is more than one park in a park district does there
have to be an account for each park? 4/ jJ.1,.(7 "L -'%,`,._
8. Can money be spent on a community facilitieswhen it is not physically
in the district but serves that district? The same questions goes
for large area parks.
9. The fee schedule should somehow be related to people. According to
the adopted standard of 5 acres.for 1000 people a fee of $75 dollars
per dwelling unit would be needed.
5 acres
$ 6,000/acre
$30,000
1000 people
2.5 people/dwelling unit
4U0 dwelling units
$30,000
400 dwelling unit
75
In different parts of town land will cost more or less than $6,000
and the population per dwelling will vary above and below 2.5. Should
an average price per acre be calculated for Fayetteville?
A possible incentive to achieve maximum utilization of land would
be to base the fee on the density potentional of the zoning district.
R-1 District 7 units. to_the acre,_RR=2 District 24_uni.ts_to the acre,. __
etc A—possible problem here would be any requirements in -the —
zoning ordinance which would not allow a developer to actually
achieve 24 units to the acre.
! ECEhiED
X960
Ar:_L Vr cII( L:•;ivu
isTiCY1LL a Ai4FANLAS
•
•
CODL`IENTS RE MANDATORY PARK LAND ORDINANCE
Ernie Jacks
1. Tie exactions to density, not acreage, since density is the generator of
recreational activity. Adjust for lot splits or additions as necessary.
2. Require all exactions to be cash -in -lieu instead of land. This would
obviate the problem noted in Question 5 and allow better control over the
actual sites selected.
3. Base cash exaction rates on average appraised evaluations in each park
district (any obvious inequities?). This should tend to mitigate invest-
ment inequities as well as keep pace with inflation.
4. Check enabling legislation:
a. can cash -in -lieu be used for maintenance?'
b. can cash -in -lieu be used for community and regional park
acquisition on a basis proportionate to master -planned
use by each district?
5. Write an alternate land -contribution incentive paragraph for large develop-
ments utilizing the tax write-off provision suggested by Jim Lindsey.
6. Allow credit in PUDs and for private green belts only for developed
recreational areas (developed according to specific criteria, equal to
public parks).
RECEIVED
1980
i ql ETTE wjuLE, ARKANSAS
•
•
•
1.
2.
QL..STIONS RE MANDATORY PARK LAND ORDINANCE
Ernie Jacks
In partially -developed neighborhoods (by far, the majority), will there not
be a basic inequity in that new dwelling units will contribute, whereas
existing ones did not, although both will havep"equal use of recreatiopal
facilities? vl t,v - �bf0� th,» u.) G •\•ay.! AAA,, F� vrr��s cL u jl
i
In areas where sufficient park facilities exist, will developers not be
required to contribute? Can cash -in -lieu be used for maintenance of those
facilities? 19-2829(c) speaks of "acquisition of facilities".
3. If funds collected are to be used only within the park districts in which
collected, how do we get community or regional parks which are intended
for multiple district use? ( � , r71 Qt.vrkw. / co C/ f-Cn1)
4. Should the amount of lard or cash-in-?.ieu ba a ccnsta t thr:ughcut tha
City? Land values and real estate values will vary within neighborhoods.
5. Owners of land earmarked as park sites (or, if not pin -pointed, owners of
sites "likely" to be selected) will be in limbo regarding sale, development
and such but will pay taxes until such time as the City desires to purchase.
Can we (or should we) require that this condition exist for more than one
year?
• j ,
6. How do cash exactions keep pace with inflation? /%�9,coQ.at+�1 L'(N1C
7. Would actual park sites be pin -pointed:
a.
b.
c.
by public hearing?
at first acquisition?
by all cash exactions with sites selected by the
Parks Board?
Cd
8. How do we get participation from persons not classified as "developers";
i.e., individual single family home owners? 127' �_,� p4,\ -�,.�.f.
✓ e..c;t. LUQ v /;; :.,
9. Are PUDs required to participate? Recreational facilities, per se, are
not required in PUDs; in some PUDs, residents would use their own private
facilities but, in others, residents would use the public facilities of
the district.
10. Should any credit be given for0 non -developable, or partially developable,
green belts in developments?0- It would seem appropriate if PUDs are allowed
credit; however, any such recreational areas would be used only by those
specific residents, would not be public, and would thus tend to destroy
the "viability of the master plan".
EEJ/th
xc:
All Committee Members
Mayor
City Manager
City Attorney
nECEiVED
-." ' 1980
_I Ut CI 1Y 1 -A HNu
I AY''7-EvlLLi. M/Af1S4S
•
•
•
RESOLUTION NO. {D(1 I " Lt7
WHEREAS, the Fayetteville Planning Commission has given
careful study to the question of amending the City's Sub-
division Regulations to require mandatory dedication of
land for park sites or payment of a cash contribution in
lieu thereof as a condition precedent to subdivision plat
approval; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has decided not to
recommend adoption of such an amendment at this time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
That the Planning Commission hereby recommends to the
Fayetteville Board of Directors that funds for park develop-
ment be obtained from an increase in ad valorem taxes at
such time as such an increase is legally possible, from a
voluntary tax, and from payments in lieu of ad valorem taxes
under industrial development revenue bor}d projects.
PASSED AND APPROVED this /� �� day of aI.r�L�.Z
0
1980.
ATTEST:
m 727./'
SECRE RY
•
RECEIVED
JAN 9 1980
�i rM1c Ur LI11 1 LANNINU
FAXWLViU& A$K M. a
