Loading...
12-03-02MINUTES Board of Directors Room City Hall — 500 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas December 3, 2002 6:00 PM The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas met in regular session with Vice Mayor Cazort presiding. The roll was called by City Clerk, Nancy Wood, with the following Directors present: Hinton, Stewart, Graves, Lichty, Keck, Adcock, Wyrick. Director Pugh and Mayor Dailey were absent. Director Hinton gave the invocation, which was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Director Kumpuris was absent at roll call but enrolled at 7:00 PM. Vice Mayor Cazort asked the Board to consider the following modifications: A motion was made by Director Lichty to make the modifications to the agenda; Director Hinton seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the modifications were made. ADDITION M -1. PRESENTATION Little Rock Advertising and Promotions: Holiday Parade DEFERRALS 11. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION To rescind the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Montessori School on the R -2 zoned property located on the south side of the 16,600 Block of Forest Lane. (Planning Commission: 5 yes, 5 no, 1 absent). Staff recommends approval of the Resolution and Conditional Use Permit. (Deferred to 1 -7 -03 at applicants request). synopsis: The applicant is requesting that the Board rescind the Planning Commission's action in denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Montessori School on the R -2 zoned property located on the south side of the 16,600 Block of Forest Lane. 13. RESOLUTION - To authorize the creation of an Infrastructure Advice and Reporting Committee; and for other purposes. (Deferred from 11- 19 -02) Staff Deferred to January 21, 2003. 14. ORDINANCE - To authorize removal of illegal objects in City rights -of -way. (Deferred from October 15, 2002) Staff Deferred to January 21, 2003. Vice Mayor Cazort stated he had a resolution to add to the consent agenda that commends the Arkansas Razorbacks for another undefeated season in Little Rock. Director Keck made the motion to place the resolution on the Consent Agenda; Director Lichty seconded the motion. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the resolution was added to the Consent Agenda. PRESENTATIONS: Little Rock School District (Deferred to a later date). Racial Cultural Diversity Commission — Summit Strategic Planning — Thomas Brannon, Leta Anthony, Claude Willard, and Mark Johnson. Little Rock Advertising and Promotions: Holiday Parade — Mr. Barry Travis Vice Mayor Cazort recognized Boy Scouts from Troop 7 at St. Marks Episcopal Church, Troop 27, and Cub Scouts 131 from Christ Lutheran School. CONSENT AGENDA (1 -3) 1. MOTION - To approve minutes from regular Board of Directors Meetings: September 3, 2002, September 17, 2002 and October 1, 2002. Reconvened meetings: September 10, 2002 2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,409 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with The Southern Company of North Little Rock, Inc. for the installation of an automated fuel site at the new Downtown Police Precinct located at 300 E. Roosevelt. Resolution forthcoming. 3. RESOLUTION NO.11, 410 -Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute deeds for the transfer of a portion of Tract A, Eastwood Heights Addition to be used for right -of -way on Mabelvale Pike. Synopsis: Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute deeds transferring a portion of Tract A, Eastwood Heights Addition to the City of Little Rock right -of -way to be used for expansion and realignment of Mabelvale Pike. M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 11,408 -X — To commend Coach Houston Nutt and the 2002 Arkansas Razorback football team for it's Southeastern Conference Western Division Championship and an undefeated record in games in Little Rock, to request a third Little Rock game of quality for future Razorback Football seasons and for other purposes. The Consent agenda was read. A motion was made by Director Adcock; seconded by Director Keck for the adoption of the Consent Agenda. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the Consent Agenda was adopted. Director Hinton asked for Item 15 to be moved up on the agenda to be heard after the Grouped Items. Director Adcock seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the motion carried. CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS Speaker: Don Darnell Topic: Additional Revenue for the City of Little Rock Speaker: Bob Hupp Topic: Funding for the City of Little Rock Speaker: Ed Jaros Topic: Public Safety Budget Speaker: Janet Berry Topic: West Baseline Neighborhood traffic problems Speaker: Mike Kumpuris Topic: NUSA Speaker: Robert Hooks Topic: Objects in city street rights -of -way Speaker: Janelle Romandia Topic: Objects in city street rights -of -way Grouped Items: 4 -9 4. ORDINANCE NO. 18,783 - Z -7297 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and establishing a Planned Commercial District titled — Family Dollar Store — Short Form PCD located at 8510 Asher Avenue in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone the site from C -3 and R -2 to PCD to allow for the construction of an 8800 square foot Family Dollar Store. The applicant is requesting C -3 uses as alternative uses for the site. 5. ORDINANCE NO. 18,784 - 5 -1365 - Granting a variance from Various Lot Development Standards of Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; providing for a variance to allow a lot without public street frontage for Family Dollar Addition — Preliminary Plat, located at 8510 Asher Avenue. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to create a two -lot plat. The proposed plat will require a variance from the Subdivision ordinance; to allow a lot without public street frontage. 6. ORDINANCE NO. 18,785 - Z- 5770 -C Approving a modification to a Planned Zoning District and providing for the establishment of a Planned Office District titled Maxmart Revised Short Form PDO located on the north side of Cantrell Road just east of Rummell Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending Ordinance No. 16,586, Ordinance No. 17,622 and Ordinance No. 18,179 and the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, Ono, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: 2 The applicant proposes to revise a previously approvedplanned development to create a third lot on the site. The lot will require a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance to allow a lot without public street frontage (S- 1350-B) 7. ORDINANCE NO. 18,786 - S- 1350 -B – Granting a variance from Various Lot Development Standards of Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; providing for a variance to allow lots without public street frontage for Maxmart Addition – Preliminary Plat, located north of Cantrell Road and approximately 8700 feet east of Rummell Road. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, Ono, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes a revision to a previously approved preliminary plat (Maxmart Addition Preliminary Plat — S -1350) as a component of the PDO application Maxmart Short Form POD (Z- 5770 -C). The preliminary plat requires a variance from the Subdivision Ordinance to allow the creation of lots without public street frontage. 8. ORDINANCE NO. 18,787 - S- 1042 -T – Granting a variance from Various Lot Development Standards of Chapter 31 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; providing for a variance to allow a reduced platted front building line for Villages of Wellington – Phase 9 – Preliminary Plat, located on the northeast corner of Wellington Village Drive and Loyola Drive. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, Ono, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to revise a previously approved preliminary plat and to subdivide 47.49 -acre site into 124 single-family residential lots. Asa part of the preliminary plat a variance to the Subdivision Ordinance is being requested; a reduced platted building line adjacent to a collector street. 9. ORDINANCE NO. 18,788 - Z -7300 - Approving a Planned Zoning Development and establishing a Planned Office District titled Ormsbee Short Form PDO, located at 16925 Cantrell Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone a non - conforming use to PDO to be used as a veterinarian clinic by Town and County Animal Hospital. The grouped ordinances (Items 4 -9) were read the first time. The rules were suspended by two - thirds vote of the Board members present to provide for the second and third readings of the ordinances. The rules were suspended and the ordinances were read the second and third times. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present the ordinances were adopted. The next consideration on the agenda was Item 15. 15. ORDINANCE NO. 18,791 - To amend Little Rock Ark., Revised Code 17 -212 (9) (1988) as to the definition of sexually oriented business; to amend Little Rock, Ark., Rev. Code 17 -215 (1988) to clarify the amortization period for a sexually oriented business to relocate, or to change the nature of its operation after an annexation or an amendment to Little Rock, Ark. Revised Code 17 -214 (10988); to declare an emergency; and for other purposes. (Deferred from 11- 6-02) Citizens speaking in favor of the ordinance were: Pat Gee, Janet Berry, Tonia Griffin, Tondra Love, Tiffany Harris, Reginald Hall, Sr. Michael Deerman, Tiffany Moore Amanda White, Tonya Jordon, Phyllis Day, Carol Haskins. Mr. Tom Carpenter City Attorney, stated the amendment to the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance began a few weeks ago when the question was raised by the Board whether included within the definition of the types of facilities that need to meet a 750 foot set back requirement from a sexually oriented business could include daycare centers. Currently the items listed in the Code of Ordinances include schools and churches but do not include daycare centers. There were discussions regarding the aspects of the sexually oriented business ordinance in general and while staff is still working to put together some of the spacing requirement information, the Board expressed interest in moving forward with two particular matters; one is to clarify to some extent what a sexually oriented business is from what was initially adopted in the 1988 ordinance and also to clarify an aspect of the current amortization provision in the ordinance. Mr. Carpenter stated that the ordinance before the Board tonight addresses these issues. The city looked at a number of studies from across the country including Austin, Texas, which met a lot of the profiles here in --- Little Rock, and other cities around the county. As a result it was concluded that the 1000 foot set back requirement would be too restrictive, as it would effectively zone all the cases out of existence. A 500 -foot set back was looked at and it left a substantial percentage available for these businesses to locate. The City then looked at a 750 foot set back requirement that left approximately 6 1/4 of the commercial area of the City still available for the location of sexually oriented businesses. It left more than enough sites available for the businesses that were in existence at the time. The city, after numerous public hearings, decided on the 750 foot set back requirement and put into place two amortization provisions. One was a general three -year amortization provision that allowed for the date of passage of the ordinance any sexually oriented business would be allowed to continue to exit as a non - conforming use for a period to 3 three years. There was a second provision in the ordinance that stated if something occurred that caused the business to become non - conforming, there was a more limited time frame that they would be allowed to exist as a sexually oriented business and that time frame could be extended by the planning commission if it was felt appropriate because of the investment or lease agreements in place at the time. Mr. Carpenter stated what this ordinance does is try to clarify one aspect of the definition, the initial aspect of the ordinance talks about an adult business being one that says it is an adult business but then defined a sexually oriented business in a way that the preponderance of the inventory or the nature of the business met the definition of a sexually oriented business being an adult arcade, an adult bookstore, adult cabaret, a motion picture theater, etc. The Eighth Circuit has upheld this definition and the US Supreme Court refused to review the decision when it was appealed. This is an evolving area of the law and looking around the county have found that it really isn't important how much of your stock qualifies as adult entertainment, it is more important to figure out what is it that a business holds itself out to be. What this ordinance has tried to do is redefine in the first section the sexually oriented business as an arcade, bookstore, cabaret, and motion picture, devoting a significant or substantial portion of its stock in trade or interior floor space, or receive a significant portion of its revenues or devote a significant or substantial portion of its advertising expenditures to the promotion of the sell, rental, viewing, merchandise or performances that are characterized by specific sexual activities or specified anatomical areas. Those are two terms of art that are included in the ordinance already. It goes on to say that it may have other business purposes that don't involve these activities, but it can still be characterized as an adult business if it other wise meets this definition. The businesses will have to be looked at case by case. The second section of the ordinance adds a Subsection C to Section 17 -215 of the existing code to deal with what happens for business that were not around at the time the first ordinances were passed that are now within the city because of annexation or that are now affected by the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance because the Board has somehow modified or amended the list of businesses or list of set back requirements that need to be there. The board has also expressed concern about adding day care centers, to the list, and if it can be done without otherwise making the ordinance constitutionally suspect. The concept is that a business can come in the city as a non conforming business if licensed day cares are added as one of the listed objections, and a business is located within 150 feet of a licensed day care, it would be allowed to remain as a non- conforming business for ninety days. At that time, it would have to cease the nature of its business. He said there is a provision in the ordinance under the current code that could allow an extension of that up to two years under certain reasons. The Planning Commission would look at these situations to see if an extension is warranted. Mr. Carpenter stated the Severability clause is a little uncommon in that these types of ordinances are often the source of litigation, and stated he put in a special provision that says if this Section 2 should fall, and then City Board of Directors wants the current three -year amortization period to be in the ordinance, it would revert back to the three year provision. Vice Mayor Cazort stated for clarity that this ordinance does not add day cares as a setback requirement, and would be added only after Planning and Public Works has a chance to study the maps, and an accurate list of licensed day cares. Director Adcock asked how long this might take. Mr. Carpenter stated he could not say at this point, that the list of day cares from the state is not accurate. There are some questions to be answered on where measurements would originate to determine the set back. There was lengthy discussion regarding the ordinance. The citizens in favor of the ordinance cited reasons such as the close proximity of a day care, the endangerment to the children attending the day care, the possible attraction of undesirable persons to the business such as pedophiles, sex offenders, prostitution, and drug addicts, and that there were vocational schools in close proximity of one of the sexually oriented businesses, and whether these schools would qualify for a set back provision. The consensus of the speakers was that this ordinance was a good start toward getting day care centers added. The speakers opposed to the ordinance were Don Darnell and Lacy Kennedy. Mr. Don Darnell stated he was here as a citizen and proponent of civil and constitutional rights, and stated many of the magazines being sold at the business located close to the day care being discussed are sold at some convenience stores and gas stations, and questioned the definitions in parts of the ordinance and had concerns regarding the ninety day period that non - conforming business were given, to come into compliance, and why some non - conforming businesses are required to shut down in ninety days or two years, and why some are allowed to grandfather in and stay until it changes its nature, changes hands, or goes out of business, and if it had to do with the content of the retail merchandise being sold, then he felt it in violation of rights. He stated that police records should be checked to see if these types of businesses attract sex offenders or that there are more crimes occurring around these businesses. He stated that whenever a system starts chipping away at one group at some point the rights of all groups are diminished. Mr. Lacy Kennedy, attorney, representing the applicant, and as a citizen of the United States, was a very strong proponent of the Constitution. He stated the First Amendment protects this type of business. He stated he had not seen this ordinance until just a few minutes 0 ago, and did not have the years of experience Mr. Carpenter has in terms of being a municipal related attorney, but stated he could see issues that would be litigated. He said he has not been authorized to state whether his client would litigate this issue, however, it is exceptionally foreseeable, and in his opinion, strict scrutiny would be the measure of standard based on much of the discussion that has taken place. He stated this ordinance did not address much of the operation of the business. Vice Mayor Cazort asked the clerk to read the ordinance the first time. The ordinance was read the first time. The rules were suspended by two- thirds vote of the Board members present, and the ordinance was read the second and third time. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the ordinance and emergency clause passed. Mr. Carpenter stated for the record that he thought it was important for the Board to perhaps let the staff commend it, for the consistent and sometimes difficult appreciation for the first amendment rights of it's citizens. He stated this Board opens it's podium at every meeting to any citizen on virtually any topic, the only limitation being, that there has to be a degree of civility so that the meeting does not get out of hand. He stated the city is not required to do that, but has been one of the mainstays. The Board has been faced with situations in the past where groups have wanted to rent city space and a message of those groups in Parks and other facilities and the message hasn't been something that the Board favored, and in fact, on occasions has been promoting the types of things the Boards has been opposing in some of it's Prevention — Intervention and Treatment Programs. While the message had not been particularly palatable, the rights of the messenger were, and the Board chose not to interfere. The Board received a complaint relatively recently for the ACLU over concern over an ordinance drafted in the sixties that no one paid a lot of attention to, but instead of taking the chance that during a political season that there may be any infringement of a candidates rights to place signs, and where they would place them, and knowing the delay in dealing with the situation might lead to signs in places they should not be, the Board chose to let that inconvenience occur so the ordinance could be drafted in the proper way. When this ordinance was originally drafted in the eighty's the Board rejected the plea of the then City Attorney of "we are going to shut them down someway," but instead took the approach that they would get something done. The concept that anything is about to be done tonight is without a full appreciation for and protection of all citizens First Amendment rights and is something that does not need to be left hanging. He stated in the eleven years he had been in the City Attorney position, and the eighteen years in the City Attorney's office, he has been impressed whether it is was a union matter or a particular citizen's matter or whatever, with the lengths the city has gone to listen to it's opposition. Director Lichty stated he felt it equally important the same succinct statement relative to the defensibility of this ordinance, vis -a -vis the first Amendment. Mr. Carpenter stated he felt this ordinance was imminently defensible. Director Lichty made the motion to go into executive session to make appointments to the various Board and Commissions. Director Keck seconded the motion. By unanimous voice vote the meeting was recessed at 8:10 PM. The meeting reconvened at 8:30 PM. Vice Mayor Cazort called the meeting back to order. Vice Mayor Cazort asked Mr. Bruce Moore, Interim City Manager to read the recommendations. The recommendations were as follows: The Museum of Discovery: Appointments: Betty Meyer, Kelli Miller, Bob Altoff, Scoff McDaniel, Elizabeth Miller; Re- appointments were: Marge Schueck, Melanie Fox, Tracey Steele, Bob Childress. The Central Arkansas Library System: Appointment: Nate Coulter; reappointment, David Rickard. A motion was made by Director Lichty to accept those nominations and make the appointments; the motion was seconded by Director Adcock, and by unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the appointments were made. Separate Items: 10 -19 10. ORDINANCE NO. 18,789 - Z -7299 — Approving a Planned Zoning Development and establishing a Planned Industrial District titled — U- PULL -IT Long Form PID located at 10312 West Baseline Road in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absent) Staff recommends approval. Synopsis: The applicant proposes to rezone a non - conforming use to PID to be allowed to expand the existing auto salvage business by five (5) acres to a total of 26.14 acres. Director Lichty moved to group items 10 and 12; there were no objections. Director Adcock stated she had questions on Item 10. She asked Mr. Guy Lowe, Acting Public Works Director, if the drainage problem had been looked at on this property. Mr. Lowes stated it had been looked at, and the applicant has agreed to comply with the floodplain rules and requirements for their property. The ordinance was read the first time. The rules were suspended by two thirds of the Board members present, to provide for the second and third reading of the ordinances. Item 10 was read the second and third times. Item 12 was read the third and final time. (The two previous readings having taken place on November 19, 2002). By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present; the ordinances passed. 12. ORDINANCE NO. 18,790 - Z- 4452 -C — Approving a modification to a Planned Zoning District and providing for the establishment of a Planned Commercial district titled Rush Engines Revised Short Form PCD located on the northwest corner of Asher Avenue and Elm Street in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending Ordinance No. 18,925 and Ordinance No. 18,179 and the Official Zoning Map of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 7 yes, 3 no, 1 absent — voted to allow motorcycle sales) Staff recommends approval. (Planning Commission: 0 yes, 10 no, I absent, voted to deny the request for outdoor storage of engine blocks on the site). Staff recommends denial. (Deferred from I I - 19-02) (I S` and 2nd readings were held on 11- 19 -02). Synopsis: The applicant proposes to revise a previously approved PCD. Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development, overviewed the progress made in finding a solution to the storage problem since the last meeting (11- 19 -02). He stated they had a meeting with Reverend James and Mr. Bill Rush. Mr. Rush has cleaned up the site. Many of the engines that were stored outside and were objected to by the neighbors and staff, have been removed and Mr. Rush has agreed to keep the site as it is now, and pictures were taken to indicate what the site looks like now. The PCD would be approved as it is now, and nothing would be added to it. There was a question of whether automobiles were being stored at the site. Mr. Lawson stated there is a limit to what is occurring outside, so Mr. Rush would not be allowed to be doing work on automobiles outside. 11. PUBLIC HEARING & RESOLUTION NO. To rescind the Little Rock Planning Commission's action in denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Montessori School on the R -2 zoned property located on the south side of the 16,600 Block of Forest Lane. (Planning Commission: S yes, 5 no, 1 absent). Staff recommends approval of the Resolution and Conditional Use Permit. Synopsis: The applicant is requesting that the Board rescind the Planning Commission's action in denying a Conditional Use Permit to allow a Montessori School on the R -2 zoned property located on the south side of the 16,600 Block of Forest Lane. Deferred by applicant until 1 -7 -02. 13. RESOLUTION NO. To authorize the creation of an Infrastructure Advice and Reporting Committee; and for other purposes. (Deferred from I1- 19 -02) Resolution forthcoming. 14. ORDINANCE NO. To authorize removal of illegal objects in City rights -of -way. (Deferred from October 15, 2002) Deferred to 1 -7 -02. 16. DISCUSSION - Mabelvale Pike (Zoning). Mr. Bob Turner, Interim Assistant City Manager, brief the Board on the staff review of the situation. He stated currently staff is reviewing the current ordinances both on mobile home and on storage areas, and working with the City Attorney's office to look at this situation and would report back shortly on what is concluded, and hoped to have that information to the Board by the end of next week. 17. REPORT - City of Little Rock Board of Director's Report — No report. 18. REPORT - City Manager's Activity Report — Mr. Bruce Moore, Interim City Manager, handed out a packet of information regarding CATA proposed service cuts. He stated the information includes the CATA staff s recommendations for service cuts for 2003 based on preliminary recommendations to the Board regarding the twenty percent reduction from the City of Little Rock. Some of the recommended cuts included elimination of all night and Saturday service in Little Rock, elimination of the trolley route, and some weekday routes, Rodney Parham, Mabelvale downtown, Mabelvale UALR, Pulaski Heights, and possible consideration of eliminating College Station and Granite Mountain. Mr. Moore stated CATA has agreed to hold a public hearing week after next regarding the proposed cuts, and stated there would be another CATA Board meeting to further discuss the case. Director Wyrick asked for information on the proposed service cuts. She asked for the readership of the Mabelvale to downtown and Mabelvale to UALR. Director Lichty requested the same information for Pulaski Heights. Vice Mayor Cazort stated he thought it would be easier if they provided information for all the routes. Director Adcock requested the ridership for Saturday and Sunday also. Mr. Moore stated he did encourage the CATA Staff in reducing routes instead of eliminating routes totally, and they will be providing additional information. Director Keck asked for information on the frequency the routes run. He encouraged Mr. Moore and Mr. Biles to work in partnership through their positions on the CATA Board and to collaborate with Mr.Carpenter and review the CATA 0 Agreement and the funding formula. He stated he felt the Board had not really addressed the formula, and felt it was something that needed reviewing. Director Adcock asked if any money was being put into the River Rail in 2003. Mr. Moore answered no. Director Kumpuris had questions regarding the interlocal agreement, asking if this proposal was a presentation at the last meeting and was it presented as a veiled threat, and overt threat? Mr. Moore stated part of the reason this was presented was that he had asked the question, as these cuts were made, was there any consideration given to new positions that are in the current budget, supplies and maintenance that are in the currently proposed budget for CATA and this proposal was basically the answer. The interlocal agreement states if a municipality or governmental entity does not pay it's proposed or requested share, then the routes or the bus services are reduced, and staff's reference was to this interlocal agreement. Director Kumpuris stated that what it says is it will result in loss of bus service or in proportional cancellation. He stated he thought what it says, is if you violate what they ask for, the City could lose all bus service and still is required to pay. Mr. Moore stated he thought the way it was interpreted to the CATA members is that if you don't meet the requested amount from the CATA Board, you won't lose all bus service but bus service would be reduced. Director Kumpuris asked the City Attorney to check and look at the contract, and determine if this is a viable interlocal agreement in which the city needs to continue. Director Graves questioned why there was a twenty percent cut in budget, but a forty percent cut in services. Director Kumpuris stated looking at this proposal it appeared punitive. Mr. Moore stated that CATA Staff addressed the cuts and stated there is a percent of lost revenue in ridership that they also calculate. Vice Mayor Cazort asked if CATA was proposing any fee increases to cover any of the shortfalls. Mr. Moore stated there were no fare increases included in this proposal. Director Hinton stated in the history of his being on this Board, he had never seen a proposed cut as rash as this one. He said this seems to be one of those axe - grinding things where they are trying to get back at the Board for something. He asked if the CATA Baord has voted on this document. Mr. Moore stated no, at this point, the Board has authorized the staff to move forward with the public hearing, which is required by the Federal Transit. The CATA Board would adopt a route reduction plan once the final number is presented from the City of Little Rock. Director Hinton stated he had problems with this, and was frustrated with this proposal. Director Keck stated if you look at the level the city funds CATA, from December 1993, when the FUTURE Little Rock tax passed, compared to how much the city funds it now, he would say, even with the proposed cut, the City has tripled the amount since December 1993. Director Adcock asked if the City owned any of CATA's assets, and if the city could take it over or run it. Mr. Carpenter stated it is not quite that simple. Vice Mayor Cazort stated that would be a part of Mr. Carpenter's opinion once the contract is reviewed. Mr. Moore stated he would speak with the Executive Director tomorrow, and would ask him to be present at the next Budget Workshop on December 10, 2002. Director Lichty motioned to recess the meeting to December 11, 2002; Director Keck seconded the motion. By unanimous voice vote of the Board members present, the meeting was recessed to December 11, 2002 for the purpose of interviewing a candidate for the City Manager Position. The meeting was recessed until December 11, 2002. ATTEST: W y Cler 7 APPROVED: Mayor