08-07-01q)-
MINUTES
Board of Directors Room
City Hall - 500 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
August 7, 2001
6:00 P.M.
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session
with Mayor Dailey presiding. The roll was called by City Clerk Nancy Wood, with the
following Directors present: Directors Hinton, Pugh, Stewart, Graves, Kumpuris, Keck,
and Wyrick, Lichty, Adcock. Vice Mayor Cazort absent. Director Hinton gave the
invocation which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Director Wyrick asked for Item 8 to be held separate, and wanted Ms. Nayles,
Community Housing, to give a presentation on how the selection was made.
Items M -1 and M -2 were to be added to the consent agenda; M -4 to be listed as a
resolution and add to the grouped list, Items M -3 and M -5. City Attorney Tom Carpenter
advised that action was not necessary on M -2, this was only an informational resolution
from the A &P Commission. He also stated there is a redraft of Item M -3, which is a
redraft only as to certain format types of changes that would actually be the ordinance if
approved tonight. Director Keck stated he had requested Item 15 be held separate, but
had had his questions answered and would like to group this item, there was no objection.
Mr. Carpenter stated that if M -3 was going to be grouped, that the last substantive section
in M -3 that deals with the penalties for violation of the matter sets forth the penalties
under state law but they are felonies and the city cannot impose felony penalties, so that
language with the boards permission would be amended to read, that the penalties would
be in accordance with state statute and cite that actual statute. Director Adcock asked for
Item 4 to be held separate. Director Pugh stated she would like Item 9 to be held
separate. A motion was made by Director Keck to modify the agenda as outlined,
Director Adcock seconded the motion and by unanimous voice vote of the board
members present, the agenda was modified.
Mayor Dailey recognized, Winston Motley with Scout Troop 55
The modifications were as follows:
PRESENTATION: City Beautiful Commission Award Presentation by Dottie Funk.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 11,093 Appointing Mr. Robert Biles to the Central
Arkansas Transit Authority.
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. Approving the form of a tax collection and enforcement
ordinance, recommending adoption of such ordinance by the Board of Directors of the
City of Little Rock, and prescribing other matters thereto. Resolution was informational,
not to be voted on by the Board of Directors.
M -3. ORDINANCE NO. 18,529 - Amending the Little Rock Municipal Code, Chapter
17, Article IV, Sections 17.97 and 17.98 to provide for the enforcement and collection of
the two (2 %) percent tax upon the gross receipts derived from renting, leasing or
otherwise furnishing of Hotel or Motel accommodations for profit in the City and upon
the gross receipts received by restaurants, cafes and cafeterias, and all other
establishments engaged in the selling of prepared food for consumption on the premises,
prescribing other matters pertaining thereto and declaring an emergency. Director
Kumpuris explained that this is a provision that allows the A & P Commission to do what
they are supposed to be able to do now. He said right now there is no mechanism for
tracking this tax. It goes uncollected for some people, and what this will do is that it will
pass tonight, hopefully, and it will not go into effect until January 1, 2002, at which point
in time over the next three or four months the A &P Commission would get the word out
to people about what is going on, why its important, how it will be tracked, and the
penalties that go along with it. He said what this ordinance would do is give them the
power to go ahead and do what they are supposed to be able to do. He said it is not a new
tax, its nothing new, it just an enabling act. Director Lichty asked how the A &P had been
q&
able to function without this in the past. Director Kumpuris stated, it's like a lot of
things, most people do the right thing, because they are supposed to most of the time, but
what has happened is that there are a number of people who have not, and there is no
mechanism to check on them or if there is a problem to take care of them. Director
Lichty felt it was important that everyone understands it is not about what the A &P
Commission has been doing or not doing, it's how people who are supposed to be, are
paying it. Director Kumpuris stated that was exactly correct, it was only give the
commission a mechanism of tracking and taking care of the people who have not been
doing what they are supposed to do.
M -4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,094 - To extend the term of the interlocal
agreement with the Central Arkansas Transit Authority authorized in Little Rock, Ark.
Res. No. 10,928 (November 8, 2000) which appropriated funds from the City's Federal
Welfare -To -Work ( "WTW ") grant for van transportation services for the City's WtW
clients' requiring performance within 30 days of the agreed upon date of beginning; and
for other purposes.
M -5. ORDINANCE NO. 18,530 - Appropriating funds and authorizing the City
Manager to enter into an engineering services contract with the Mehlburger Firm, for
Geyer Springs Railroad grade separation.
DEFERRALS
12. ORDINANCE - Z-7004 — Reclassifying property located at 10902 Kanis Road from
C -2 (Shopping Center District) to C -3 (General Office District) amending the Official
Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. (Planning
Commission: 10 yes, 1 absent.) (Deferred from July 3, 2001. (Deferred indefinitely.)
13. ORDINANCE - Z -7020 - Reclassifying property located in the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas; located at 10923 West Markham, from R -2 (Single Family District) to C -3
(General Commercial District) amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 7 yes, 0 no, 3 absent.)
Staff recommends approval. (Deferred to August 21, 2001.)
REVISION
8. RESOLUTION - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract negotiations
with six organizations to provide Citywide Youth Prevention Programs in Little Rock.
PRESENTATIONS:
Bill Asti- Youth Home Thank You. — There was no one present to make the presentation.
Summer Youth Highlights — LR Boys and Girls Clubs — Jerry Lane — Mr. Lane gave an
overview of the program. He said they want to keep kids coming to the club, even when
they reach the ages of 16, 17, and 18. He said they were able to hire 32 youth to work in
the club this summer with the grant. He said on top of that another 12 to 15 youths were
hired at the clubs to work with these kids. He introduced two of the youth who work at
the club, and said they had teen jobs as lifeguards, working and running areas, running
groups and group leaders. He said they are kids and they sometimes make mistakes, but
they are learning an awful lot in the process. He said they went through training, they are
members of their leadership clubs, and maybe they will hire in the fall, winter and spring
to work after school, so it will be a great thing for them. He said one highlight was the
swimming pool at the Thrasher Boys and Girls Club, and were finishing up swimming
lessons for the six and seven year olds; they had fifty kids in that pool going through the
lessons. He said there were five instructors, two were with the Summer Youth Program
and the others were the adults with them.
Dottie Funk, City Beautiful Commission, asked the City Beautiful Commissioners to
come to the podium: Nash Abrams, Ann Ivey, Sharon Vogelpohl, Billy Callaway, Troy
Lahay, Tim Heiple, and the staff support person, Bob Brown. She stated they wanted to
recognize someone who has been with the City of Little Rock for over 25 years, and
actually worked as a support person for City Beautiful Commission for nineteen and a
half years, felt like this person, Ms. Gail Owens, since they are not a part of the Parks
2
and Recreation Department anymore, stated that they have some wonderful employees,
and Gail was only one that they have singled out. The City Beautiful Commission
presented Gail Owens with an award for appreciation of service, for the work she has
done with and for the Commission for over nineteen and a half years.
Director Lichty, in reference to the minutes to be approved at tonight's meeting, stated he
noticed the minutes from the June 29th meeting, and the special meeting did not come up
on the paperless system. He asked if those minutes were being worked on, or would
there be recorded minutes of those meetings. Nancy Wood, the City Clerk, answered that
they were recorded, and that her computer had crashed earlier this week, and the minutes
would have to be redone, she was unable to insert them into this particular agenda, and
the minutes would have to be reconstructed and transcribed for insertion at a later date.
Director Lichty also asked about Item 3. He said in that resolution is the following
phrase: " All future and overhead utility lines within the property boundary must be
routed away or placed underground." He directed this question to staff. "At whose cost
or responsibility ?" Mr. Bruce Moore, Assistant City Manager, asked Mr. Bryan Day,
Parks and Recreation Director, to address that question. Mr. Day answered that those
were requirements from the Land Water Conservation Fund. He stated that up until this
point the utilities had always done that for the city. In most of the cases, particularly in
this particular project, there is a playground, and there are no utilities in that area, but if
somebody wanted to run one through, if this money was awarded, then they would be
required to put those utilities underground. Director Lichty stated that he knew they had
always been expected to do that, but knew the city had encountered a couple of situations
where that has been a problem. He asked Mr. Day if he foresaw any problem in this
application. Mr. Day said he did not, he said they had been getting these funds for over
twenty years and to date, had never run into any obstacles from any of the utilities. He
said if they do the project they are putting all the utilities underground, but any right of
ways or major lines would have to be required to do that. Director Lichty stated his other
question was on Item 6, the resolution concerning Fourche Creek Watershed. He said
embedded in that particular resolution was something to the effect to meet the goals of
the Vision Little Rock process. He said he was curious, as this Board had not approved
those goals. He asked if it was premature to approve the resolution tonight? Mr. Bruce
Moore, Assistant City Manager, stated he would concur with that assessment and that
language should be amended. Director Lichty asked, how it was to be amended. Mr.
Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, answered that "the reason the language is in there, is that
it had been made fairly clear that part of what Vision Little Rock has been proposing has
been the very Parks Plan that the Board had approved just a week or two ago as a part of
the Master Parks Plan, and that particular aspect had gone through Vision Little Rock and
had been approved by the Board, so the language was chosen to comply with that and he
was not sure an amendment under those circumstances, is necessary. He said the Board
has taken that step which has been reviewed by the Parks Task Force of Vision Little
Rock and formally approved it when the overall Master Park Plan was approved.
Director Lichty then referred to Item 7, dealing with the waste composting operation. He
stated as he understood it, this was something that was contracted out at some point and
time, and the City has determined that it's in its best interest to take this operation back
over, and asked Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, is it truly beneficial to the City
to take this operation back over given the fact that the City was reluctant to take the
Waste Disposal Operation back over? Mr. Turner answered that it was beneficial to take
over the composting operation. He stated that when the current contract was getting
close to expiring, he said they advertised for bids, and put in all the factors that citizens
should benefit by, in addition to periodically receiving some of the compost back at no
cost, the fee at the gate would pay the compost amount. The City staff felt the City could
do a better job, and in effect bid against the contractors, and were low bid. He said they
put together a program that they think is economical and efficient and in the long term,
and thought it would be much better for the citizens than bidding it out. Director Lichty
asked Mr. Turner, as the City moves in to budget 2002 process, if there were other
operations, that Little Rock Public Work's could perhaps assume and be as beneficial to
the city as this one.
CONSENT AGENDA
3
q?
Q1Z
1. MOTION - To approve minutes from regular meetings: June 5, 2001, June 19, 2001,
July 3, 2001 and Special meeting: June 26, 2001.
2. MOTION - To set the date of Public Hearing for August 21, 2001, on an appeal of the
Planning Commissions decision to deny the request for abandonment of alley right -of-
way between Arch Street and Gaines Street in Block 125, Original City of Little Rock,
Arkansas. (Planning Commission: 0 yes, 7 no, 3 absent.) Staff recommends approval.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 11,096 - Of support for the City of Little Rock Parks and
Recreation's LWCF Grant for Boyle Park.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,097 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
for rehabilitation services to the Neighborhood Resource Center Auditorium located at
3805 W. 12th Street in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 11,098 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
construction contract with L.E. G. Enterprises, Inc. for downtown signal system
improvements, a 1998 Revenue Bond Project.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 11,099 - Of intent to offer a portion of one or more City Park
areas, including properties within the Fourche Creek Watershed, for lease to a private
person or organization willing and able to create a Nature Center; and for other
purposes.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 11,100 - To authorize the purchase of various pieces of
equipment from Scott Construction Equipment Company for the Little Rock yard
waste composting site; and for other purposes.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 11,095 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract
negotiations with six organizations to provide Citywide Youth Prevention Programs in
Little Rock. The resolution was read as revised. Director Adcock thanked staff for
assisting in funding the Say it Loud Program that Dr. Pat McGraw had spoken to the
Board about at the last Board of Directors Meeting. Dorothy Nayles, Director of
Neighborhood Programs, stated that she would answer any questions regarding the
funding. Director Wyrick stated she had received an e -mail from representatives from
Big Brothers Big Sisters, and had been denied funding in this application and this was the
second time they had been denied, and stated this would really put a short fall in their
organization. Director Wyrick stated they had received funding from the City for several
years. She stated that it appears since the City went to the process of looking at site
based funding, they have a hard time competing for those dollars, and was hopeful when
these dollars were opened, that they might be able to compete. Director Wyrick asked
Ms. Nayles if the City is trying to block any programs out that are number one, not site
based, and number two is the City trying to block existing programs that are in process
now, looking for new start up type programs to serve the children. She said these were
questions asked of her by Big Brothers Big Sisters, and she did not have the answers and
asked Ms. Nayles to explain this process. Ms. Nayles stated they had prepared a couple
of hand outs for the Board that explained the review process, including the way in which
the different aspects of a proposal are examined, analyzed by areview committee and the
weights that they carry. She said it is true that a few years ago, based on demographic
and census data, there was a move to a neighborhood focus, feeling that for the programs
to really be effective, they needed to be accessible within neighborhoods so young people
did not have transportation issues, and were able to access services within their own
communities. She stated that later, additional programming has been added, that is what
is called City Wide, which is part of what is presented tonight for approval. These are
programs that are available to young people across the City and not just neighborhood
based. She said in the handout it is described the way in which that process works.
There are five reviewers, looking at proposals, as they did with City Wide programs, and
they first rate them on the quality of the proposal, whether they are considered responsive
to the bid, and then secondly they are rated on the bid itself, the cost submitted. The
lowest cost is then selected. This keeps it in the competitive bid mode. She said there
was $100,000 initial for funding, and had four programs that were awarded funding based
on the $100,000. Later based on Board requests, they went back to look and see if
additional funding could be identified. She said they were able to do that for two more
programs that were considered responsive, and as a result were asking for approval of the
six programs tonight. Ms. Nayles stated that the rest of the proposals received were
considered non - responsive, or the bids were too high. She said in neither of those cases
is the City seeking to block anyone, they are completely open processes, and supervised
by a member of the City's legal staff, who signs off the review process and its integrity.
She said that probably what is needed is to probably offer technical assistance to assist
applicants in the preparation of proposals to assist them in making sure they understand
each of the components and how they are weighted. She said their staff was prepared to
offer that assistance to folks who are not successful with this bidding process. Director
Wyrick asked what they were looking for in the history of the program. Ms. Nayles
answered that this was a narrative description of the history of the organization and their
El
qj
description of what their mission purpose is, and how they operate their programs.
Director Graves asked if geographic diversity was sought for these programs. Ms.
Nayles answered that in City Wide programs the expectation is that the proponents would
be willing to serve children from all over the city. In neighborhood -based programs, they
were looking for geographics. Ms. Nayles said the bids are opened separately, come
under separate cover, after the evaluation of the quality of the proposal. The programs
are recommended according to amount, so it is the lowest bid, but the proponent has to
submit a budget that accompanies the bid. Director Stewart asked how these funds were
located for the two additional programs. Ms. Nayles responded that they had worked
with the Finance Department. She said they had asked them to help with projections, and
looked at what people had spent already, and if programs had not spent all of their
monies, it is now August and if a project had ended and they knew there would not be
any more invoices, then they were able to identify that there were some dollars
remaining, so they were able to do that by looking at several projects where they had a
few thousand dollars left, and looked at the expenditures until enough could be identified.
Director Lichty asked if there were any policy within the funding process that controls
the multiple application of a single agency for awarding the funds under different
programs. Ms. Nayles answered that there was no departmental policy. She said it had
been discussed by several commissions and for the most part; there is only staff
responsibility for monitoring that area. She said sometimes it is encouraged that
programs might look at different funding sources within the City, and at other times they
are pretty cautious that they are not having a sort of "shop around" kind of thing going
on. Director Lichty stated that the reason the question was raised is that under two
separate actions, funds were requested for the same agency. He said maybe this gets to
the heart of Director Wreck's question about some agencies being blocked out, he said he
was not saying intentionally, but not being awarded contracts, then you see another
agency on the other side of the fence that gets multiple contracts. Ms. Nayles stated that
some agencies put a lot of emphasis on grant writing skills and even hiring grant writers
to do a good job of writing for them, and other agencies that is not so much of a priority,
and if she could identify any one thing, it would be the difference in the quality of that
product that the reviewers are looking at. Director Hinton said the problem he had was
that he was puzzled when the city starts looking into the pot and trying to find additional
funds instead of putting back out through RFQ's or RFP's whatever the process is, and
would like when the bids to come in those are the ones that stand, and allow those who
weren't awarded to come back in and reapply. He said this process just didn't sound
right to him, but he was only one board member, but wanted to see when bids are done,
and are finalized, that if additional money is found, the programs are put back out and let
people reapply. Ms. Nayles said that board direction on policy was appreciated and
thought it would be helpful to the program. Director Kumpuris stated that he agreed with
Director Hinton. He thought that there is not a nicer person in the world than Dr.
McGraw, and what she is doing is exemplary, and what has been done is fine, but his
inclination is that the board needs to sit with staff and determine how we want you to
proceed. He said he thought there was a little to much dealing from the hip right now.
He said it does not sound as if this is being done in a fair and equitable way and one of
the ways if this approach is taken, the concern that Director Wyrick has for organizations
such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, could be specifically addressed as a policy issue rather
than an issue of one organization and come to some way for this to be done next year,
and would encourage the board to do that. Mr. Moore, Assistant City Manager, stated he
wanted to clarify the process the city has used over the past few years, with PIT has been
very consistent. The direction from this Board was to examine all available PIT funds,
but to note in the Boards final packet, after review, it was stated there were not any
additional funds. It was not until yesterday afternoon when staff met with the Finance
Department and Community Programs, and received the latest projections, as far as
expenditures, and were basically at about 30% as of August 6, so if the programs had
been at the rate of expenditures where they should be at this point of the year, we would
very possible be at the stage of saying there is not an additional funding mechanism to
fund these additional two programs. He said the other point is that these were two
programs that did receive passing scores. He said in the past when all the programs are
funded that receive passing scores, and found there were additional dollars, and then an
additional RFP would be put out. He said he did think elevating this to a Board
discussion at a policy level is important as Vision Little Rock moves forward in finishing
out this year. Director Wyrick stated she was not trying to indicate that anyone had done
anything wrong, it just appeared to her that there is an organization, and maybe more
organizations that did not get the funding and was trying to understand how that happens,
when you fund an organization year after year, and the history has been good, and gotten
value for the money, how all of a sudden they are denied. Mayor Dailey stated that one
of the policy issues that probably should be revisited has to do with contracts. One of the
Goals early on, with this Board of Directors was that these not be life, or forever
contracts, and that we have the opportunity to build and strengthen capacity of various
organizations in the community and hoped that there would be great numbers of
organizations that are capable and at a level that could have the capacity of a Big
Brothers Big Sisters to where the competitiveness is that much stronger all time, and felt
MOP
the policy level is the pace to try to resolve this. Director Adcock made a motion for the
adoption of the resolution, Director Kumpuris seconded the motion, and by unanimous
voice vote of the Board Members present, the resolution was adopted.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 11,101 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract
with Waste Management, Inc. to provide commercial trash collection service to all city
operated facilities. Director Pugh said when she looked at the Board Communication,
and it indicated no citizen participation, and felt there were a lot of citizens having
problems with Waste Management, and felt there needed to be some citizen participation.
Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director, said he appreciated, and understood the concern
Director Pugh had indicated. He said that is an issue that is slightly different than the
item before the Board tonight. He said essentially that is the problem encountered by city
residents in the portion of the city that is contracted out to Waste Management. He said
they had been working with them for sometime and receives a number of complaints, and
tries to work with Waste Management to address those as expeditiously and efficiently as
possible. He said he thought this was another issue that might need to come back to the
Board, as that particular contract has another year to go. This particular contract is for the
commercial hauling of the waste from forty -two locations of city sites. These are
commercial haulers. The city does not have the equipment for commercial trash.
Mr. Turner told the Board that Public Works is looking into the options the City might
have in taking over this operation, but did not have anything available to present to the
Board at this time. He said they would come back to the Board with recommendations
regarding Director Pugh's concern. Director Lichty stated he agreed this should be
approved tonight, but makes it a part of an overall analysis of the City providing all those
services, prior to next September. The resolution was read. Director Adcock made the
motion for the adoption of the resolution; Director Kumpuris seconded the motion, and
by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution was adopted.
10. RESOLUTION NO. 11,102 - Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute
deeds for the transfer of East % of Lot 24, Block 7, Chesterfield Square Addition to
adjacent landowner, Barbara James.
The consent agenda was read, as modified; Item S held separate, Item 4 held separate,
Items M -1 and M -2 added to the consent agenda, and Item 9 held separate. Mr.
Rob Fisher, representing the Audubon Society, and Mr. Don Darnell, spoke in favor of
the Nature Center. Director Keck moved to adopt the consent agenda; Vice Mayor
Cazort seconded the motion. Director Hinton asked if Item 4 was read as part of the
consent agenda. City Clerk, Nancy Wood, answered no, she had not read it, that she
understood it was to be held separate; that she had marked Items 4 and M -4, as
separate items. Mayor Dailey read Item 4 as part of the consent agenda and by
unanimous voice vote of the Board Members present, the consent agenda was adopted.
CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Don Darnell spoke on National Night Out Against Crime, asking the Board if they
might consider rescheduling the Board meeting the first Tuesdays in August so that
Board members might have the opportunity to participate with the neighborhoods and
community in the National Night Out Against Crime Program. Mayor Dailey asked
Assistant City Manager Bruce Moore to put that as an item of discussion at a future
meeting. Ms. Shirley Dyer, representing 233 residents who objected to a gymnasium
being built on Taylor Loop Road. Ms. Dyer stated that in correspondence from Mr. Cy
Carney, City Manager, that he found no credible evidence to support their allegation.
Ms. Dyer stated that Mr. Carney also stated that Mr. Lawson (Planning and Development
Director) did not act illegally nor unethically. She said that is wrong. She said Mr.
Carney surely has not read the transcript of the Planning Commission Hearing followed
by the Board of Directors Hearing a year ago. She stated that in those documents it is
clear that Mr. Lawson acted unethically and illegally. She said "when we think of ethical
conduct, we usually think of lawyers, doctors, business people; surely there is no place
more fitting for ethical conduct than this governing body." "As to Mr. Carney's charge,
that we are acting only on perception, it appears that we wasted a lot of paper over the
last eight months in supplying black and white documentation. Our complaint is based
on fact, not on perception. We agree with Mr. Carney that the Montessori School
Conditional Use Permit is mute. This is not about an application. This is about 233
residents being threatened by a Little Rock executive; and that executive following
through on that threat. Mr. Jim Nettles, speaking on the same subject as Ms. Dyer,
stated this was not pleasant but it was time for some group, someone to stand up. He said
this was their third appearance before this Board. He said they were here because of "the
egregious, premeditated untruths told to you by Jim Lawson. Why are we certain those
lies were premeditated? Because August 15th, last year, Mr. Lawson told me, standing on
this floor, right behind you, of the harm he intended to inflict on the 233 citizens in our
group by saying and I quote Tell the Board anything you want to, I will take care of you.
lob
He then came immediately into this room, requested to speak, and standing here, used
you to carry out that threat. We now have Mr. Carney's final word on the matter. The
issue is dropped, forgotten, it is passed over, and it's moot. As Ms. Dyer said a moment
ago, neither your legal staff nor Mr. Carney found the evidence we presented to be
believable. Accordingly, I renew my plea to Mr. Lawson, to meet me at the Department
of Arkansas State Police to let this Board, Mr. Carney and your legal staff know finally
who is telling the truth about these threats. And while we are there, why don't we clear
the air, regarding Mr. Lawson's non - response to our two certified letters that we went to
him asking for extremely important but simple clarification of what he told you standing
here last August. Mr. Lawson never even responded to those certified letters. We finally
got him on the phone, and his explanation was that what he had told this Board, in public
over LRNN was and I quote, none of your business, that's private.... Pts none of your
business. Through all of this, we have been harmed; we have incurred additional expense
as a result of this executive using you, this Board, to inflict harm on our resident group.
When we stand here before you, we consider ourselves to be under oath. We ask if we
tax paying peons respect our government that much, why is an executive of this City not
held to an even higher standard. We refuse to believe Mr. Lawson controls this Board to
the degree of tell the Board anything you want to, Ill take care of you. However, if your
decision is that this is normal, acceptable, professional practice, then we accept that. At
the very least you are due from this podium, a public apology, and our 233 petitioning
citizens who chose to accept your challenge to be a part of our government are due a
written apology." Mr. Nettles then stated he hoped there were some questions. Mayor
Dailey explained that there would be no questions at this time, as the issue had been
through the normal process of going to the City Manager and City Attorney, and this
would be the final point on the matter.
Mayor Dailey announced that he had two cards for Citizen Communication, dealing with
the issue of petitions and referendum signatures, and asked Mr. Carpenter, City Attorney,
even on Citizen Communications, if he needed to turn the meeting over to a temporary
chair and step out of the room while these individuals would make their comments. Mr.
Carpenter advised that since no action was being taken, he did not have to step out of the
room. Nell O'Neal was the first speaker on this topic. She asked the Board to count the
signatures on the Summit Mall referendum. She said so many of them spent hours
getting the signatures, and those 20,000 people meant what they said by signing that
document. She told the Board that there were many people that would be affected by the
relocation of Dillard's, and other stores from the present malls, it would create a hardship
on some of the elderly citizens such as her. Jim Lynch, Co -Chair of the Little Rock New
Party. He said he was speaking tonight to encourage the Board to survey the petitions
and count the signatures. He said he knew the majority of the Board did not agree with
the petition campaign, it was clear from the discussions that have gone on for months.
He said it is very clear that 20,000 people disagree with the majority of the Board. He
said he and scores of others collected these signatures, in about three weeks and there is
quite a bit on energy and sentiment to have this decision reviewed by the public. He said
they thought they were entitled to that review, not withstanding, the City Attorney's
opinion on the matter, under Amendment 7. He said their lawyer thinks the situation can
be clearly distinguished from what Mr. Carpenter's legal research shows him. He said he
wanted to give the Board the issue of fairness and equity to count these petitions. He said
we live in a pretty mobile society these days, he said they turned the petitions in on May
1 or May 2. He said on June 1, July 1, August 1, that's ninety days. He said they knew
people move, and there are a certain percent of these petitions that were valid on May 1
that are not valid today, and not withstanding the opinion of the majority of this Board
apparently that you like the Summit Mall, they think it will be devastating to the
community, that these petitions should be counted in order to assure the citizens that if
they win in court, and he said he thought they would, that the petitions are ready to go
and can have this election. He said he would hate, and thought the board would agree
that it would be the bottom of justice, no justice at all, if they were to win this case, and
the petitions were to be counted and uh oh, its two years later and there weren't sufficient
signatures. He said there were sufficient signatures on May 1, 2001. He said they
wanted the signatures counted, and it has nothing to do with whether you, I or anyone
agree or disagree with what Mr. Carpenter says, a judge may say, or on the substance of
the Summit Mall itself. He said they needed to know they have met the threshold and are
ready to go if and when the judge orders a referendum. He asked the board to give them
a count of the petitions.
Mayor Dailey thanked representatives from the Little Rock Fire Department for being
at tonight's meeting. He said the Fire Department is loved, and he loved them being
here tonight.
Mr. Tom Carpenter, City Attorney, asked to give the Board an update on what Mr.
Lynch has just spoken of, regarding the petitions. Mr. Carpenter stated the City filed the
declaratory judgment action in court asking that Judge Pierce make the decision as to
whether this is a referable issue. He stated that in that litigation, as that issue is being
7
10,)L-
resolved, the City would be looking at the petitions to make sure there is sufficient
numbers there, so that the legal issue before Judge Pierce is clear. He said it is either
something that can be referred or not, and would not turn on some sort of technical
procedural issue. He said he thought the basic fairness that was so passionately pled a
few moments ago, the City decided to do several weeks ago, has filed the lawsuit to
accomplish and is in the process of trying to bring about. Mr. Carpenter said since it is in
litigation, with a date set in November for the hearing, there should be an answer
relatively quickly, and if the answer were one that one of the parties did or did not like,
then there would be an appellate procedure, and as an election issue, it would get an
expedited appeal. Basically the Board has done what it has been asked to do to comply
with the law. Director Pugh asked what that had to do with counting the signatures. Mr.
Carpenter answered that that was one of the procedural requirements. He said it is not
only that you file a petition, but that you have sufficient names and what the City
Attorney's office suggested to Judge Pierce is in the declaratory judgment action, they
want the issue of whether it is referable, and were going to try and present the record in
such a way, if the answer is yes or no, not yes if or no if. It is going to be simply, is it
referable? He said in he and his staffs minds, whether the Supreme Court meant what it
said is not clear, but what it said in a case out of Camden (Arkansas) where the Board
voted and the people did not like the vote, then they did a petition effort to try to
accomplish something, which is the exact situation as here, the court said it just doesn't
apply. Mayor Dailey stated, in laymen's terms, the City and in concurrence with the
attorney, Nate Coulter on the other side, has asked the judge to determine if the City's
opinion is right or wrong. Mr. Carpenter stated, that essentially the City has asked it,
regardless of what Mr. Coulter thinks, he stated the City has asked the Judge to make the
decision. Mr. Carpenter said conceivably this could be answered before the November
trial date, November 19 and 20 are the two days set for the trail date in this matter. He
said they would be counted, the computerized data from the County Election
Commission that lets us know who is a qualified elector of the City, and would look at
the petitions to see if the names we were given meet that. The issue is that the petitions
were filed, they were timely filed, they set forth an issue, they have the names, legally
can they have the election, and that is what the City is trying to do, narrow the focus of
the election to, and the City is the one that brought this action. Director Pugh said every
month we wait we lose signatures because people move. Mr. Carpenter said that is not
true, the items were tendered on a date certain, and marked as tendered, and it will be the
residence of that individual on that date certain, number one, number two, with twenty
thousand something names, raw, he said he had a hard time believing that we would lose
over fourteen thousand of them in that time frame and that there would be over fourteen
thousand of them move from the City of Little Rock in that time frame. He stated that
even if that occurred, and the petition signatures were a few names short, the fact would
be brought out, and the courts are extremely liberal in determining that a name on a
petition is valid for purposes of voting in an election. Mayor Dailey said he was going to
cut off the comments on this particular item at this point, and if further discussion were
necessary at the end of the meeting, he would step out of the room, that the more this was
discussed the more uncomfortable he became on the position that he had been advised
previously to recuse on the item.
Grouped Items 11, 15, M -3 and M -5.
11. ORDINANCE NO. 18,532 - Awarding a construction contract to Kraus
Construction and appropriate funds for 6th Street Railroad Underpass Drainage
Improvements.
15.ORDINANCE NO. 18,532 - Z-7044 - Reclassifying property located in the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas; located at 15800 Kanis Road, from R -2 (Single Family District)
to 0-2 (Office and Institutional District); amending the Official Zoning Map of the City
of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 7 yes, 0 no, 3
absent.) Staff recommends approval.
M -3. ORDINANCE NO. 18,529 - Amending the Little Rock Municipal Code, Chapter
17, Article IV, Sections 17.97 and 17.98 to provide for the enforcement and collection of
the two (2 %) percent tax upon the gross receipts derived from renting, leasing or
otherwise furnishing of Hotel or Motel accommodations for profit in the City and upon
the gross receipts received by restaurants, cafes and cafeterias, and all other
establishments engaged in the selling of prepared food for consumption on the premises,
prescribing other matters pertaining thereto and declaring an emergency, as amended.
M -5. ORDINANCE NO. 18,530 - Appropriating funds and authorizing the City
Manager to enter into an engineering services contract with the Mehlburger Firm, for
Geyer Springs Railroad grade separation.
The ordinances were read the first time. Rules were suspended to provide for the second
and third readings of the ordinances by unanimous voice vote of the Board Members
log
present. A motion was made by Director Adcock to adopt the ordinances and the
emergency clause; Director Wyrick seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote
of the Board Members present, the ordinances and emergency clause was adopted.
12. ORDINANCE NO. Z -7004 — Reclassifying property located at 10902 Kanis Road
from C -2 (Shopping Center District) to C -3 (General Office District) amending the
Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes.
(Planning Commission: 10 yes, 1 absent.) (Deferred from July 3, 2001.) (Deferred
Indefinitely).
13.ORDINANCE NO. - Z-7020 - Reclassifying property located in the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas; located at 10923 West Markham, from R -2 (Single Family District) to
C -3 (General Commercial District) amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 7 yes, 0 no, 3
absent.) Staff recommends approval. (Deferred to August 21, 2001.)
14. RESOLUTION NO. 11,106 - Authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract
negotiations with organizations to provide education and occupational skills instructions
to Welfare to Work eligible clients; and for other purposes. The resolution was read.
Director Adcock had questions on Catherine's House and Pulaski Technical College,
saying that the services they were providing were already being provided. Ms. Dorothy
Nayles, stated on the five million dollar Welfare to Work Grant, reminded the Board that
the purpose for this is to make sure that the people who have been on welfare the longest
and have the most barriers to employment, become successfully employed in
unsubsidized employment so they can become self supportive. There are a number of
these that perhaps there is a little more leeway from the federal government in light of
that, in dealing with the hardest to serve population. It takes a few more sort of wrapa-
round services to make sure these folks are prepared, they are supported, and are nurtured
along the road to self - sufficiency. She said it is in that light that they are looking at
entering, getting the Boards permission, to enter into contract negotiations with
Catherine's House which is a program with which the City has worked with before with
this population with great success. She said she also thought it might be helpful to hear
from Sister Ann and Wilma Tatum who could tell the Board a little more specifically
about what they are proposing, and how the cost factors are broken out. Sister Ann,
Administrator at Catherine's House, and Wilma Tatum, Program Director, outlined and
explained their proposal. Mr. Bruce Moore, Assistant City Manager, stated it was his
understanding that Welfare to Work dollars, the five million dollar grant, cannot pay for
any services that are otherwise provided. Sister Ann said they were invited to submit a
proposal, someone thought that Welfare to Work money could be used for these
programs. Mr. Moore asked if the one proposal dealing with Catherine's House could be
pulled, to allow more work along the federal guidelines. Mr. Tom Carpenter, City
Attorney, said there have been some internal discussions, and what he wanted to suggest
is to go ahead and approve the resolution, that the contract would not actually be entered
into with Catherine's House until the question is answered. He said if the answer is in the
negative, then this would come back to the Board to be amended out. but at least that way
the Board would not have to take a separate action in the future to approve it, and staff
would make sure administratively that there is no contract entered if there is a legal
problem that way. Mayor Dailey asked the Assistant City Manager if this was agreeable
to him. Mr. Moore stated if the Board wishes to proceed that was fine, he said he thought
staff could spend the next few days working with Catherine's House to ensure that the
guidelines are met as far as duplications of services, and if they are not, would not enter
into the contract without an update provided to the Board. Director Lichty said he was
not sure he was okay with this, he said he did not understand why this could not be taken
out to make sure it meets muster and bring it back. He sated it was a separate action in
his view. He asked, were these services, as Director Adcock pointed out, are already
being provided, and is the program just being expanded or if this was a way to subsidize
the cost of providing existing services. Sister Ann answered that they lived by grants,
and have a grant by a private source that is expiring at the end of this year, that they are
pursuing other grants. When they receive RFP's they look to see if their programs meet
the criteria that are published, and do go after these grants. She stated they do not get
professionals to write them, they write them. She said she did not know how to answer
the question of are these services that are being provided? She said yes, they are
providing those services and intend to continue, but believe there is a pool of women who
could profit from being in their program, and if they can get some money to take care of
them, they would like to. She said they were not referred, even under the contract they
had before. Director Lichty stated, if he is hearing, is what the Assistant City Manager
and the Director of Community Programs, and Director Adcock are saying, this does not
meet the guidelines under the Federal Welfare to Work. He said when the program first
came to the Boards attention; he had made the comment that it looked like a pile of
money looking for a way to be spent. He said he was hopeful this was not an example of
that. He said he would be curious if there were others, that either in the past fall under
this same situation, or if we are considering funding others that fall under the same
situation. He said he thought the Board needed to really make sure this is not just an
W
Icy
isolated example; if in fact it is determined it does not meet the federal guidelines.
Mayor Dailey suggested that the Board either try to move this forward, or if the Board is
not comfortable, to amend this one portion out of it tonight. Director Lichty moved for
the amendment to remove Items one and two, until a decision is made. Director Cazort
seconded the motion. Director Hinton said he thought it was unfair to Catherine's House
to just pull them out, because if they followed the process the city put out there, and they
are here stating that happened, he said the city attorney had givn a suggestion on how to
do that, and felt that is the way to handle this. Mr. Carpenter stated that if you really get
down to it, you will find that all services that you deal with in Welfare to Work are all
somehow or another available within the city. He said he did not think that was what the
federal regulation prohibits, and thought the final contracts we would enter with any of
these groups would have to make sure they are in compliance, and that was why he was
making the suggestion that he did. He said none of the contracts would be singed with
anybody on this list, if the contract does not comply with the federal regulation. He said
we do not want to go thorough an audit later on and explain why, and that was what the
rationale behind his suggestion. Mr. Moore said they could move forward if the Board
wishes, but said staff works very closely with the regional representatives out of Dallas,
and has been helpful, and he would visit with them to get some clarification on how to
move forward. Director Stewart asked if this could be deferred. Mayor Dailey said this
could be done, but it would impact some of the others where there is no question. He
said either Director Lichty's motion to pull the two out would be appropriate, or if the
motion is defeated, then as the City Attorney, with concurrence with the Manager's
Office, a willingness to check this out to be sure a valid and good contract would be
entered into that would be acceptable and if not there would be no contract. Director
Lichty said they either do or do not qualify and said he did not see how the Board in good
conscience could approve something that has this cloud cast on it. Mayor Dailey stated
the resolution reads that the City manager is authorized to enter into contact negotiations
with the following organizations. Mayor Dailey said it does not say to enter into a
contract. Director Lichty said, no, but we know what that means. A roll call vote was
taken on the motion and recorded as follows: Director Pugh, no, Hinton, no, Lichty, yes,
Keck, no, Stewart, no, Wyrick, no, Kumpuris, yes, Graves, no, Adcock, yes, Mayor
Dailey, no. Three yes, 7 no. The motion was not approved. Director Keck made the
motion to adopt the resolution. Director Wyrick seconded the motion. A voice vote was
taken. Director Lichty and Director Adcock were opposed. The resolution was
adopted. Director Kumpuris made the request that Director Adcock help with the
deliberations on these contracts. Mr. Bruce Moore, Assistance City Manager concurred.
M -4. RESOLUTION NO. 11,094 - To extend the term of the interlocal
agreement with the Central Arkansas Transit Authority authorized in Little Rock, Ark.
Res. No. 10,928 (November 8, 2000) which appropriated funds from the City's Federal
Welfare -To -Work ( "WTW ") grant for van transportation services for the city's WtW
clients' requiring performance within 30 days of the agreed upon date of beginning; and
for other purposes. Director Adcock said the Board had a lengthy letter from Mr.
Carpenter, and in the letter it stated that Central Arkansas Transit had not performed the
van transportation agreement. The City of Little Rock has expended $142,400 of WtW
funds for taxicabs for this year, partly due to the lack of CATA's performance of this
agreement. She said that in the next paragraph it states that Ms. Dorothy Nayles, Director
of Community Programs, has expressed concern for several months about CATA's lack
of performance. She said she was concerned that the City Attorney tells the Board what
good reasons there are for giving them this contract, transporting individuals from
welfare to jobs, to take them to their jobs each day. She stated these were the reasons
listed as to why the board should agree with this. CATA has knowledge of transportation
regulations, and of WtW regulations, CATA keeps good records, CATA has good
drivers, CATA will have an ADA assessable van, and because the city desires to support
regional transportation solutions in the metropolitan area. She stated that at no time does
the letter state because they have taken individuals to jobs. Director Adcock said if we
do extend this contract what are they going to do to offset the things we have already said
are wrong, how are they going to start transporting these individuals to jobs, so that the
next time the City Attorney gives the Board a list of all the good points, it contains
something about transporting individuals to jobs. Ms. Shannon Tolbert, addressed those
concerns saying that Central Arkansas Transit and Community programs entered into
discussions last August about alleviating what they saw as a serious expenditure on the
side of fee for service transportation. She said they saw that they were going to be
recommending through their WtW coordination contact, they were recommending quite a
few of the WtW participants riding in cabs because there were no alternative
transportation resources for these folks. She said they realize they do not meet the needs
at the time, 2200 low- income persons in the county, that were identified by DHS. She
10
i G.;
said they knew they could not serve them all through regular fixed route transportation.
She said they worked with Community Programs, with local cab companies and formed
an interesting partnership that has provided transportation, an average of 35 to 75 WtW
participants during any given month in the past year. She stated that the City came to
them and said they would like CATA to provide some sort of van transportation to
alleviate the high cost that was evolving with the cabs. She said they spent several
months negotiating, and signed the agreement, not a contract, separate from their
transportation coordination contract and their problem with performance is that they have
not been able to hire drivers. She said they are ready to go, but do not have the
manpower. She said they were going to operate this through the Links Paratransit
Service, but cannot compromise the integrity of that service for the additional service,
and keep Community Programs apprised of this for the last several months, and is just
now at a point where they can begin providing the service. She said they have also over
the last several weeks seen a drop in the cab expenditures because the 30% clients are
dropping off the rolls, and the expenditures are coming down a little bit. The service
would provide transportation to WtW clients to employment and other related WtW
eligible related services from approximately 5:45 in the morning to 10 PM at night, and
would try to connect some of those people with less complicated trips through the fixed
route system. Director Adcock said she would like to challenge one thing that was just
said. Director Adcock stated that Ms. Tolbert had just said the 30% were dropping off.
Director Adcock said the City of Little Rock is dropping them off the rolls. Director
Adcock said we are no longer providing the services to the 30% but only the 70% and
what is happening is a lot of individuals who have had jobs, now their services are cut
because they qualify only as 30% and not 70 %, so they are being dropped from their jobs
and from their services, and this is a problem because now they are on the unemployed
again. She said the reason is because too much money was being spent on the 30% and
not enough on the 70% people. Mayor Dailey said there had to be this balanced ratio and
fortunately or unfortunately that is part of the formula guidelines. Director Adcock said
there is one individual who leaves Southwest Little Rock and rides a cab all the way out
to North Little Rock, the cab costs the City $41 a day. The woman makes $44 a day,
cleaning motel rooms and there are a lot of motels in Southwest Little Rock that she
could work at, and that could be saved, and that was a real problem as far as she was
concerned; that the city has spent so much on these taxis and there are a lot of individual
van services in Little Rock operated by independent people, who have been waiting for
two years to have the opportunity to bid on van service, and if that is what the city is
doing with CATA, her question would be, would this not be better if it were put out to
bid and let CATA be one of the bidders on this, and let the other independent transfer
services in Little Rock have an opportunity for some of this money. Mayor Dailey asked
Mr. Moore, Assistant City Manager, if upon hearing this, if there was anything that
changes his mind, or recommendation or if there was anything he would like to visit
before the board acted upon the item. Mr. Moore said he had visited with Director
Nayles and the City Attorney's office today's date, and the way this particular contract is
structured and resolution is structured, due to the unique nature and relationship the city
has with CATA, it is worth extra effort in this regard, but with a very stringent
requirement of a thirty day window to meet performance guidelines or the contract would
automatically terminate. The resolution was read. A motion was made by Director
Kumpuris, seconded by Director Adcock to adopt the resolution. By voice vote the
resolution was adopted; Director Keck voted no. The vote was recorded as 9 yes, 1 no,
1 absent.
Director Keck made a motion to go into executive session to make appointments to the
various boards and commissions. Vice Mayor Cazort seconded the motion. The
meeting recessed at 8:40 PM.
The meeting reconvened at 9:10 PM.
16. ORDINANCE NO. 18,533 - Amending Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the
City of Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a waiver of right -of -way and street
improvements for Lot 16 Riverside Commercial Park located at the northeast corner of
Cantrell Road and Old Cantrell Road. Staff recommends denial. The ordinance was
read the first time. Mr. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works stated that in this location,
the property owner is expanding the restaurant, and as a result the Boundary Street
Ordinance makes certain requirements. There is a requirement since Cantrell Road is a
principal arterial, that the right of way be one hundred and ten feet total width or fifty -
five feet on each side and that the road be widened to half of a sixty -six foot pavement,
11
r,
including the sidewalk. The developer has requested a waiver of these requirements. He
said staff is not in support of a complete waiver, but would be in support of a reduced
standard consistent with Dillards. He said they would like to see five -foot additional
right of way with a ten -foot easement, which then could be franchised back to the owner,
and then it would be available at a later date if and when the city widened Cantrell. He
said also there is a sidewalk required, and staff is in favor of not widening the pavement
but would like to see the sidewalk required. There is no sidewalk on either side of the
property along Cantrell, but to the east, a sidewalk does run along the north side of
Cantrell, but it's still several hundred feet east of this location. Mr. Mark Abernathy,
the applicant, said they were proposing to put an Italian Restaurant in this location. He
said this was a real unique piece of property, in that if the right of way is granted, it
actually cuts into the corner of the building and makes the property pretty much useless.
He said what triggered this, was that the restaurant that was previously in this location,
The Brave New Restaurant, was pretty cramped, and what they wanted to do was create
an area in the back where folks could wait. There are no handicapped restroom facilities
and they wanted to create those, and in addition they wanted to move the entrance to the
backside. He said they were not just asking the Board to waive the ordinance
requirements, they wanted to bring some things to the table as well to offset the benefits
the right of way would have given. They are buying the building next to Loco Luna so
they could acquire the parking lot behind it, what this would do is create over fifty
parking spaces, doubling the parking for that whole area. He said they would be solving
so many problems by doing this, and felt it a benefit to the area, to the neighbors, to the
city, as they would be creating approximately fifty jobs and a half million dollars worth
of payroll and three hundred thousand dollars worth of taxes. He stated that unless a
viable restaurant like his could come in and do what they propose to do, then that
property is somewhat doomed by the way it sits, and how small it is. The fall back
position for the owner for this property was a drive laundry, but that does not provide the
fifty jobs or payroll, and doesn't do for the area what they propose with this project. He
said they were going to be brining in beautiful landscaping, and lighting and extra
security and feel like even though they are asking for the waiver, on the other hand they
would be delivering a lot of benefit. Mr. Abernathy stated that even though they were
asking for a complete waiver, they were going to redo the sidewalk along the Old
Cantrell Street, and by moving the entrance of the restaurant to what is now the back,
they will reorient patrons away from Cantrell toward the parking lots, and this would
move the pedestrian traffic away from Cantrell. Director Kumpuris stated that what
concerned him about this issue was that if Mr. Abernathy decided later on that if this was
not something he wanted to continue and then the owner puts in a drive -in laundry.
Director Lichty asked if the addition Mr. Abernathy was proposing an enclosed addition
or a deck? Mr. Abernathy answered that it was enclosed and would have a little deck
around the side of it. Director Lichty asked if the existing parking would be preserved?
Mr. Abernathy answered yes, and had City staff's blessing on this. Director stated that
the third thing is that when you talk about waivers, this is forever given up, and in fact
may be something that the city may later on need, and Cantrell is one of the key arteries
to do that, so it does from a Public policy standpoint, when you start by giving it up, and
the only way to get it back is to buy it back, if its ever needed, so it presents a problem
from a policy point of view. He said when you mention waivers that is always tried be to
morphed into a deferral or some other kind of arrangement that would not put any burden
on the landowner. Director Kumpuris indicated that if this were widened, the building
would have to be taken. He said this was a problem that the board is usually not talking
about, and did not see how this could ever be widened to another lane and not take the
building. He said one of his thoughts is that he agreed with Director Lichty, and the
Board usually does try to change that, but this is a little unusual. Mr. Turner said if a
principal arterial were ultimately built on Cantrell through this area, the building would
have to go. There is just enough property remaining and thought that was something the
board could look at and evaluate. Director Adcock made the motion to suspend the rules
and place the ordinance on the second reading, the motion was seconded by Director
Kumpuris, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the rules were
suspended and the ordinance was read the second time. A motion was made by Director
Keck and seconded by Director Adcock to place the ordinance on third and final reading.
The ordinance was read the third time. The ordinance was adopted by unanimous voice
vote of the board members present.
17. ORDINANCE NO. - Amending Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of
Little Rock, Arkansas, providing for a deferral of Boundary Street Improvements for Bale
Elementary School located at 6501 West 32nd Street. (Planning Commission: 7 yes, 0 no, 3
absent.) Staff recommends approval. (Deferred from July 17, 2001) (Deferred to August
21, 2001.) Mr. Turner presented a brief overview of the project. Director Adcock stated that
the City has repaired sidewalks at Watson Elementary, Chicot Elementary, Scott Hamilton,
etc., this is the next sidewalk that the neighborhood people are the most concerned with and
what her thought was, if the City gives all these waivers for street improvements, perhaps the
School District would go do this sidewalk. She said there is a big ditch there, and the
children get lost in the ditches. She said in talking to Mr. Eaton, he says it is mater that
12
it) ?
would have to be taken up with the School Board, and since she had made the
recommendation, a month ago. She had not talked to any school board directors that were
willing to put out the money to do the sidewalk. She stated she thought it would be a nice
jester if the city were going to do all the street deferrals on the street improvements, that they
build the sidewalks. Mayor Dailey stated that the City Manager's Office and he would be
meeting the following week with the School Board President and the new Superintendent and
stated the Board might hold this one for two weeks until that meeting took place. Director
Keck, with a second from Director Adcock made the motion to defer the item for two weeks.
By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the item was deferred.
18. RESOLUTION NO. 11,103 - To set the procedure for approval of recommendations
for Vision - Little Rock to be submitted to the Board of Directors; and for other purposes.
The resolution was read. A motion by Director Adcock, and seconded by Director
Kumpuris to adopt the resolution. By unanimous voice vote of the Board Members
present, the resolution was adopted.
Mayor Dailey asked the Board to make a motion to adopt a resolution that would allow
Vice Mayor Cazort to lead a delegation to our sister city in Sicily. The cost being
approximately $2000 and under the new policy would have to come before the board.
Director Pugh made the motion; Director Hinton seconded the motion. Director
Kumpuris asked if there were money in the Boards Travel Budget right now to pay for
this. Assistant City Manager, Bruce Moore stated there was, the approximate cost right
now is $1200 for Director Cazort's trip, for travel, plus per diem, which would put it in
the range of about $1800 to $2000. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members
present, the resolution was approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
19. REPORT: City Manager's Activity Report - Mr. Moore announced there was a
correction in the announcement of the Oakland Fraternal Cemetery Board that had been
announced earlier. He said the appointments were Alvin White and Charles Shelton, he
stated the wrong name had been read initially. Mr. Moore stated that the City Attorney
recommended that they be re -read. Mr. Moore did so. Director Adcock; with a second
from Director Stewart, motioned to approve the appointments. By unanimous voice vote
of Board Members present, the appointments were made. Mr. Moore had a follow -up
from last weeks meeting, regarding Finances. He stated there were three documents to
hand out; one was the city's audit response plan of action. He said the audit had been
received and this was the response and plan of action for the seven findings that the
auditors BKD, have noted. He said also being passed to the Board was a letter of
response to management and the City Board from the auditors, that outlines some
recommendations, not findings, but just outlining some recommendations regarding the
city's financial systems and procedures. He said there are noted responses to those areas,
and thirdly, he passed around copies of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The
final item in partnership with NCCJ and the Little Rock Police Department on an annual
basis conducts a police youth live in camp, began yesterday afternoon, and invited the
board to come to the culminating event this coming Thursday afternoon. Mr. Moore
announced that this was an outstanding program, and wanted the Board to be aware of it
and possible attend the event, as some members had done so in the past.
Mayor Dailey reminded the board and viewing citizens, that Augusts 14, 2001 was
another voting day for a millage increase for the Library.
There being no other business to discuss, Vice Mayor Cazort made a motion to adjourn,
Director Keck seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members
present, the meeting adjourned at 9:20 P.M.
20. RESOLUTION NO. 11,104 - To appoint Ms. Susan Fleming to the City of Little
Rock, Arkansas Residential Housing and Public Facilities Board, to replace Mr. A. Jack
Reynolds. Mr. Bruce Moore announced the nomination of Ms. Susan Fleming to the City
of Little Rock Arkansas Residential Housing and Public Entities Board.
21. RESOLUTION NO. 11,105 - To make appointments and reappointments to various
Boards and Commissions. Mr. Bruce Moore, Assistant City Manager, announced the
appointment recommendations: Sanitary Sewer Committee, James Pender and Dale
13
105
Wintrof, Oakland Fraternal Cemetery Board, Beverly Thrasher, Arkansas Museum of
Science and History Board of Trustees, Robert Chandler, Bruce Wesson, Melody Piazza,
Natalie Gardner and Stacy Hurst. Director Adcock motioned to approve the
appointments and adopt the resolution, Director Lichty seconded the motion and by
unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolutions making the
appointments were adopted.
ATTEST: APPROVED: �-
CI CL 2K NANCY WOOD t1MDAILEY MAYO
14