04-18-00699
Minutes
Board of Directors Room
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
April 18, 2000
6:00 P.M.
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, met in regular session with Vice
Mayor Wyrick presiding in the, absence of Mayor Jim Dailey. City Clerk Nancy Wood
called the roll with the following Directors present: Directors Hinton, Lichty, Keck, Stewart,
Kumpuris, and Kelly — total 8; absent: Director Stewart — Total 1. (Director Stewart enrolled
at 6:10 P.M). With a quorum present, Vice Mayor Wyrick declared the Board of Directors in
session and the proceedings of the meeting are recorded as follows. The Invocation was
given by Director Cazort, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
Director Keck moved to add items M -1 and M -2, as additions to the April 18, 2000 agenda.
Director Cazort seconded the motion, and all were in favor.
Mr. Brad Walker spoke in opposition of the sale of the library property (Item M -2) Mr.
Walker stated he represented a party that had made an offer on the library and had concerns
about not being able to complete their review and selection of the property. Mr. Walker
stated they had only found out about the substance of the presentation at tonight's meeting at
approximately 4:30 P.M.
Mr. Carney stated that Mr. Dickson Flake was present and was representing the city in the
sale. Mr. Carney stated that Mr. Flake was contracted by the city through a competitive
process to offer this property for sale. For the past several weeks, Mr. Carney stated that he
had been in touch with Mr. Flake as he has made the property known and had it listed for
sale, that several competitive proposals have been on the table and as they have made the
final determination within the last few days, this proposal was the most competitive, in terms
of the highest price to be offered for the city property and is of such a nature to generate
additional commerce for downtown, and be a very suitable use for this building. Mr. Flake
commented on the process and how they got to the point of determination. Mr. Flake stated
in their efforts to market the property for the city they had a number of interested parties and
ended up with five offers for the property, and because there was intense competition for it,
we then asked the five to make any modifications they wanted to make to their offers and
have those offers in to them by 2:00 P.M..on Friday, approximately two weeks previous. Mr.
Flake stated his firm met with Mr. Carney and at that time, selected the two for further
negotiation to attempt to bring one recommendation to the Board. He stated they went back
to those two offerors and told them the revision that they requested in order for their offers to
be recommended. He stated they gave approximately four to five working days for that to
take place. The offeror represented by Mr. Brad Walker was one of those two. The reply
that they received by fax, when he did reply, did not meet the terms they had asked them to
meet. In the interim period one of the three who were told they were not selected, came back
on an unsolicited basis without the firm giving them any information on what terms to meet
and slightly exceed the terms that they had been asking for. Mr. Flake stated they were the
negotiation party that Mr. Carney was recommending at tonight's meeting. Director Lichty
made a motion to remove the item from the consent agenda, and held as a separate item.
Director Cazort seconded the motion, by voice vote 9 were in favor — Directors Pugh,
Hinton, Lichty, Cazort, Stewart, Kumpuris, Kelly, Adcock, Vice Mayor Wyrick, - one
opposed — Director Keck.
Mr. Carney gave a brief summary regarding the library property. Mr. Carney stated through
a competitive process the city selected Mr. Flake and his firm to proceed with the marketing
of certain public buildings, buildings the city owned, and were a surplus to the city, and it
was determined the city should sell them. Mr. Carney said the city had unsuccessfully tried
to sell them, without an agent. Through the process, the firm was selected, and they began to
market (advertise) for proposals. The door became open to anyone who wanted to
participate. Competitive proposals were received and those that he had worked through with
the firm. The bid before the Board in this meeting is the best of the proposals, related to the
dollar figure, through a competitive process. Mr. Carney stated the recommendation is that
the property should be disposed of, the proposed use is suitable for the location, and
desirable, and especially from the city budget standpoint, in disposing of these properties, as
have been talked about in the budget sessions. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Flake if he had any
further comments he would like to make. Mr. Flake stated he did not have anything to add
to his earlier explanation, but would be glad to answer questions.
700
Item 20 (agenda modification) was deferred to April 25, 2000 on a motion by Director Keck,
and a second by Director Cazort. The item was:
20. AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE TERMS AND PROVISIONS OF THAT
CERTAIN AMENDED, RESTATED AND SUBMITTED LEASE AND CONCESSION
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
AND BG EXCELSIOR LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, EMPOWERING AND
DIRECTING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO MADE AND EXECUTE THE
ESCROW AGREEMENT, DECLARING AN EMERGENCY.
Marian Kahn gave a presentation and update on the Sister Cities Commission.
Vice Mayor Wyrick asked the clerk to read the consent agenda, which consisted of the
following items:
1. MOTION to approve Minutes of the Board of Directors regular meeting held November
16, 1999 and the reconvened meeting held November 23, 1999, regular meeting
December 7, 1999 and reconvened meeting December 14, 1999.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,810- EXTENDING THE EXISTING INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND THE
CITY OF SHERIDAN, ARKANSAS WHICH GRANTS THE LITTLE ROCK
AMBULANCE AUTHORITY ( "LRAA ") DB /A METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES ( "MEMS ") AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO PROVIDE
AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE CITY OF SHERIDAN, ARKANSAS AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 10,811 - EXTENDING THE EXISTING INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND
GRANT COUNTY WHICH GRANTS THE LITTLE ROCK AMBULANCE
AUTHORITY ( "LRAA ") DB /A METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ( "MEMS ") AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO PROVIDE AMBULANCE
SERVICES TO GRANT COUNTY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 10,812 - EXTENDING THE EXISTING INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND THE
CITY OF LONOKE, ARKANSAS WHICH GRANTS THE LITTLE ROCK
AMBULANCE AUTHORITY ( "LRAA ") DB /A METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY
MEDICAL SERVICES ( "MEMS ") AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO PROVIDE
AMBULANCE SERVICES TO THE CITY OF LONOKE, ARKANSAS AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 10,813- EXTENDING THE EXISTING INTERLOCAL
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS AND
PULASKI COUNTY WHICH GRANTS THE LITTLE ROCK AMBULANCE
AUTHORITY ( "LRAA ") DB /A METROPOLITAN EMERGENCY MEDICAL
SERVICES ( "MEMS ") AN EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE TO PROVIDE AMBULANCE
SERVICES TO PULASKI COUNTY, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
6. RESOLUTION NO.10,814- AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE SEWER EASEMENTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION BY LITTLE ROCK
WASTEWATER UTILITY OF SEWER LINES ON CITY PROPERTIES LOCATED
IN PULASKI COUNTY AT: (1) SOUTHERN PORTION OF KANIS PARK; (2) LOTS
7 -12 OF THE JOSEPHINE PANKEY'S SECOND ADDITION; AND (3) NORTHWEST
CORNER OF BLOCK 15, WEST END SUBDIVISION.
7. MOTION - -TO SET THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR MAY 2, 2000, ON
AN APPEAL OF THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING COMMISSIONS DENIAL OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 3420 -3424 JOHN BARROW ROAD.
8. RESOLUTION NO. 10,815 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH JEFCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN THE
AMOUNT OF $357,566 FOR JERRY, JEROME, AND SHEPARD DRIVE
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, A 1998 REVENUE BOND PROJECT.
9. RESOLUTION NO. 10,816 - EXPRESSING THE WILLINGNESS OF THE CITY
OF LITTLE ROCK TO UTILIZE FEDERAL AID MONIES FOR FOURCHE DAM
PIKE IMPROVEMENTS.
Fa
702
10. RESOLUTION NO. 10,817 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH JEFCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, IN
THE AMOUNT OF $115,591 FOR COLEMAN CREEK DRAINAGE PROJECT, A
1995 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BOND PROJECT.
11. ORDINANCE NO. 18,260 - AUTHORIZING AWARD OF $179,923 IN 1999
HOME CHDO FUNDS TO CENTRAL LITTLE ROCK COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION; APPROPRIATING THE HOME FUNDS, AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACT WITH
CLRCD.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 10,818 - AUTHORIZING THE LITTLE ROCK FIRE
DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE FIRE SERVICE FOR ONE YEAR TO CERTAIN
BUSINESS OUTSIDE THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 10,821— AUTORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH FLYNCO, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF
$161,326.00 FOR CAPITOL AVENUE STREET SCAPE.
ITEM 20 RESOLTUION NO. 10,820 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH CWR CONSTRUCTION, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $128,614.00 FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO REPAIR THE
ROOF AND PORCH OF THE MACARTHUR PARK HISTORIC ARSENAL
BUILDING DAMAGED IN THE JANUARY 21,1999 TORNADO.
Director Cazort made a motion to place Item 20 (regular agenda item) to be read as a consent
item. Director Adcock seconded the motion. All members present were in favor of the
motion. Vice Mayor Wyrick asked the clerk to read Item 20 as a part of the consent agenda.
The item was read, and the consent agenda was then adopted unanimously on a motion by
Director Cazort, and a second by Director Adcock.
13. RESOLUTION NO. 10,819 - TO RENAME A PORTION OF MCALMONT
STREET BETWEEN 9TH STREET AND I -630 TO MCMATH STREET. City Attorney
Tom Carpenter asked the Board to permit an addition of some recitals that would outline
some of the accomplishments and contributions he has made to the state. Director Cazort
made the motion to amend the resolution to include these additions. Director Kelly seconded
the motion. All were in favor. Mr. Carpenter then gave a brief summary of the
accomplishments and contributions of former Governor McMath. Julie Speed spoke for
the name change and handed out packets to the Board members which included a bio of
Governor McMath and endorsements of neighbors and businesses. The clerk read the
resolution. A unanimous voice vote was taken, the resolution was adopted.
Items 14 and 15 were read as grouped items for the first time
14. ORDINANCE NO. 18,261 - APPROVING MODIFICATION TO ORDINANCE
NO. 17,970 AND PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLANNED
ZONING DEVELOPMENT TITLED MANGAN -SHORT FORM PCD
LOCATED AT 2011 NO. VAN BUREN STREET IN THE CITY OF LITTLE
ROCK, ARKANSAS, AMENDING CHAPTER 36 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF LITTLE ROCK; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
15. . COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
ENTER INTO A SOLE CONTRACT WITH NEW FUTURES FOR YOUTH,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $48,000 FOR THE PROJECT BASED LEARNING
PROGRAM; DECLARING AN EMERGENCY; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
Dorothy Nayles, Director of Community Programs, explained (Item 15) was an initiative of
the education commission which has identified it as an important project, which takes rising
eighth graders and sets up community based learning centers where young people have an
opportunity to earn while they learn. It is considered a sole source because they are the entity
that has put together the collaboration, which included the school district that pays for
teacher's time for the project and community, based organizations that set up the projects.
The rules were suspended to provide for the second and third readings of the Ordinance by
unanimous vote of the Board members present, being ten in number and two - thirds or more
of the members of the Board of Directors. The Ordinances and emergency clause (Item 15)
were passed.
3
702
16. PUBLIC HEARING —TO APPEAL THE LITTLE ROCK PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW
THE OWNER/OCCUPANT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 2403 KRISTINA COURT TO
OPERATE A DAY CARE FAMILY HOME. (PLANNING COMMISSION: 9 YES, 0
NO, 2 ABSENT.) AND A RESOLUTION TO RESCIND THE LITTLE ROCK
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION IN APPROVING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT
TO ALLOW THE OWNER/OCCUPANT OF THE RESIDENCE AT 2403 KRISTINA
COURT TO OPERATE A DAY CARE FAMILY HOME
Richard Wood, Planning Department staff, presented a brief summary of the item, explaining
that the special use permit is for a day care that is required for a special process for a resident
home, and is limited by the number of children you can have in your home. These types of
permits require the applicant maintain their dwelling as a dwelling, it does not require
parking lots, or the usual kinds of commercial atmosphere of a day care center. These were
designed for this kind of activity in residential blocks or neighborhoods. There was some
discussion and questions from the Board Members regarding this type of day care center.
Vice Mayor Wyrick declared the public hearing open. The applicants, Mr. And Mrs. Bailey
answered questions regarding the day care, and stated the general response from their
immediate neighbors was positive. At the request of Director Hinton, the applicants gave a
summary of their qualifications, certifications, etc. At the request of Director Stewart the
parking the applicant addressed issue. The applicants at the request of Director Keck
discussed the hours of operations. Jan Taylor spoke in opposition of granting the special
use permit for the day care. She stated she had a problem with the permit being permanent in
nature, or as long as the applicant lived at the same address, and could not be revoked. She
stated it was not this particular permit or situation that she had a problem with, it was special
use permits for home day care in general. George Brown representing the John Barrow
Neighborhood Association stated they had a neighborhood plan that the land use was
supposed to be residential only, and spoke in opposition of the day care. Director Keck
stated a good point had been brought, not particularly regarding this applicant, but in general,
that once the permit is issued it cannot be revoked unless the person lost their license, and felt
these issues do need to be addressed. Director Kumpuris asked if the city could come back
and review special use permits on a periodic basis. City Attorney Tom Carpenter stated it's a
more complicated issue than a yes or no, he gave some parameters. Director Kumpuris asked
Mr. Carpenter to look specifically into special use permits. Richard Wood, in response to
Director Kumpuris' request stated that the next Planning Commission amendment or
development package for this working year, from about July of this year until next July,
would include a special use permit process for day care, special use permit and the type of
use, as in this instance. Mr. Wood stated that the Planning Commission had determined that
special use permits need a thorough review, because the same concerns and issues come up
not only on the Board level, but also on the Planning Commission level, and had plans that
the next Planning Commission amendment or development package for this working year,
around July, will include a review process for these types of permits. He stated he thought
that would be a time when the city Attorney could work with the Planning Commission and
the Staff to deal with those issues. The resolution was read. Director Keck made a motion
to adopt the resolution. Director Pugh seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken and
recorded as follows: Yes — Directors Pugh, and Adcock, No — Directors: Hinton, Lichty,
Cazort, Keck, Stewart, Wyrick, Kumpuris, Kelly. The permit stood.
16. ORDINANCE - AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 31 OF THE CODE
OF ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS PROVIDING
FOR A WAIVER OF MASTER STREET PLAN STREET WIDENING
REQUIREMENTS FOR CRACKER BOX LOCATED AT 8822 STAGECOACH
ROAD. Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director gave an update and brief history of the
item. There appears to be some confusion on the item as in the city versus the action of the
state. Mr. Turner stated that in conversations with the Highway Department, they do not
want anybody to work in this area other than their contractor at this time. When their
contractor is completed with this project, the state has no qualms about the city having the
requirement that they widen the road to the full Master Street Plan standards. Troy LaHa,
Vice President of Southwest Little Rock United for Progress, stated he represents people that
would like to see Baseline Road widened and brought up the major arterial width and asked
the Board to deny the waiver. Mr. Lewis Gardner represented by Mr. Q. Byron Hurst, Jr. and
the Cracker Box Store. Mr. Hurst stated that Jim Hill, who works with Putnam Realty
handed out some correspondence and information that they thought might be helpful to the
Board in making a determination in this matter. He stated this was an unusual situation in
that Mr. Gardner and the Cracker Box Store has tried very hard to comply with every
condition that was placed on the building permit and the application that was obtained.
When the application was received there was a condition in it that the applicant had to apply
with the Master Street Plan. The difficulty arose due to the Highway Department at the same
time this construction was proposed, was also doing work on both Baseline and Stagecoach
Road. The Highway Department contends they have the ultimate authority over all of this
4
703
area and in regard as to how wide the road should be and what should be needed. The
dispute came between the city and the Highway Department because the city wanted the
Master Plan and the Highway Department said it was not necessary. Mr. Turner stated that
with a permit the applicant could get with the state, they would allow work on the right -of-
way, and construct city Master Street standards. The have autonomy over their complete
right -of -way, but they will grant permits. Mr. Turner said the dilemma in his opinion was
that you have an active construction project by the state and a development occurring at the
same time, had those two things not come together, the issue probably would not be as
confusing. If the development were on a different area of Stagecoach Road or different state
highway within the city the developer would prepare plans, submit those plans to the state for
issuance of a permit and they would proceed to construct. Mr. Turner stated if the developer
had coordinated with the state, this problem would not be occurring. Director Kumpuris
stated that he thought there wasn't a clear right or wrong to this issue. Mr. Turner agreed that
if the planning staff were to do this over again, staff would have been clearer that the
development needed to be coordinated. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Turner if he could
possibly sit down with the developer and try to work out something that would be mutually
agreeable and come back later in this meeting or in two weeks with an agreement. Mr.
Turner answered that the problem he had was that he has a Master Street Plan ordinance that
the Board can modify and implement, but that he has to say they have to meet that standard,
and that he didn't feel he had the ability, in his opinion, to compromise. Director Kumpuris
made the motion to defer the issue for two weeks due to the complications and possible
miscommunication in some of the issues at hand. Director Adcock seconded the motion. The
motion was voted on, all were in favor of the two -week deferral. (The item was deferred
until May 2, 2000)
Vice Mayor Wyrick recessed the meeting at 8:15 P.M. for a Board break. The meeting
reconvened at 8:30 P.M.
18. PUBLIC HEARING & ORDINANCE NO. 18,263 - VACATING AND CLOSING
A PORTION OF VICTORY STREET BETWEEN CAPITOL AVENUE AND WEST
6TH STREET OF ORIGINAL CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS; AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES. Mr. Bob Turner, Public Works Director gave a staff presentation
stating the purpose of the ordinance is The Arkansas Teacher's Retirement System who owns
the property on both sides and they would be constructing a building that would encompass
the street within that property. The volume of traffic is relatively low, approximately 600
vehicles a day, therefore closing the street would not cause traffic problems. The public
hearing was declared closed and the ordinance was read the first time. The rules were
suspended to provide for the second and third readings of the ordinance by unanimous vote
of the Board members present, being ten in number and two - thirds or more of the members
of the Board of Directors. The ordinance was passed by unanimous vote of members
present.
19. PUBLIC HEARING AND ORDINANCE NO 18,264 - AUTHORIZING THE
ISSUANCE OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS UNDER
THE MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
REVENUE BOND LAW FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING PERMANENT
FINANCING FOR THE COST OF SECURING AND DEVELOPING
INDUSTRY (THE PARTICULAR INDUSTRIAL PROJECT IS DESCRIBED IN
THE ORDINANCE); AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THE BONDS AND THE
APPROVAL OF BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
TRUST INDENTURE SECURING THE BONDS; AUTHORIZING AND
PRESCRIBING CERTAIN MATTERS PERTAINING TO THE INDUSTRIAL
PROJECT, THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND EQUIPPING
THEREOF, AND THE FINANCING THEREOF; AND THE FINANCING
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A
LEASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE PROJECT; AUTHORIZING AND
PRESCRIBING OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO; AND
DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Vice Mayor Wyrick declared the public hearing
open. The first speaker was Jim Porter. Mr. Porter stated he was definitely for seeing
the Axiom Building go up in Little Rock but was bothered by the fact that no taxes
come off that building for thirty years. Director Kumpuris stated that that property was
generating no tax benefits at present, but felt Axiom has made a true commitment, to
the downtown area. Director Kumpuris stated in his opinion, the city would benefit by
having highly paid, motivated people who will have a great opportunity to live down
town, thus generating more money spent in the city, more taxes generated, etc.
Director Kumpuris stated in his opinion these benefits would exceed these tax benefit
waivers in the long term. Don Shelton, representing Axiom Corporation, stated they
were very excited about coming to Little Rock and presented some photographs of the
proposed project. The ordinance was read the first time. The rules
were suspended to provide for the second and third readings, by
unanimous vote of members present. By unanimous voice vote of
Board Members present the ordinance and emergency clause were
ADOPTED. 5
704
20. M -2 RESOLUTION NO. 10,822, TO AUTHORIZE THE SALE OF THE MAIN
LIBRARY PROPERTY AT 700 SOUTH LOUISIANA STREET TO USTC,
LLC, A GEORGIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, FOR THE SUM OF
$1.52 MILLIOIN DOLLARS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
21. Mr. Brad Walker representing one of the two finalist in the negotiations for the library
property, stated there was no place, when they first got into the negotiations, for him to
go look to know, if they could comply with in the procedures and the presentations. He
stated he called Stephen Giles, the City's Real Estate Attorney, to confirm that the
statute allows the city to act as an ordinary citizen. He stated he was here at the
meeting to make sure, and the city should echo, and the set the example in how the city
should act in its corporate function and the city should be careful that the financial
incentives should not entice it away, for it's conduct to be exemplatory for which other
corporations should model their conduct. He stated in real estate it's the subtleties that
make the differences. He said that when the deadline on the 3`d of April came and
went, his client had three days to review the property and get their packet in on time,
by the Friday afternoon deadline. He said they aggressively offered one million three
hundred thousand dollars for the property. The intention was to have a meeting on the
7th of April, they were told, to select, or negotiate with some thought there might be
some finalist, and some re- negotiation. On April 10th, his client was contacted directly,
and it was suggested they revise their offer to one and a half million dollars. He stated
his client came back to him and wondered if they were bidding against themselves, and
they made a proposal that they would offer one hundred thousand dollars to the city for
technological improvements and advancements to the city. He stated they were
already offering four hundred thousand dollars more than the list sheet said the
property was worth. He stated they were chasing a value that nobody knew what the
value really was, and for their business plan they would spend over one and a half
million for the building, and another hundred thousand which he stated, doesn't make
or break their business plan. He stated he did not feel the procedure was handled
consistently. Mr. Flake in response to Mr. Walker's statements said that all the clients
that had bid, were told, that the city was going to negotiate with the two that had the
better offers by the deadline that was set. He stated they told the others, if an
agreement was not worked out, meeting the criteria, that they would like to come back
to them, and hoped they would be available if that happened. Mr. Flake stated they
never went back to the negotiating parties independently, on a least two occasions, two
of those three came in with unsolicited offers and said this is what we will do in the
event you cannot make an agreement with the other parties. Mr. Flaked stated that one
of these bids exceeded the bids of the two that were being negotiated. Director Lichty
asked if the other four clients had been informed of this offer. Mr. Flake said the other
four clients were not notified formally, but during conversations with all of them they
were told, the ones that asked, and they were in constant contact; some were in contact
more than others, but all were told where things stood, that they had an unsolicited
offer that met the criteria and that they were negotiating with them. Director Lichty
asked if the four candidates were advised or encouraged that they could make another
offer. Mr. Flake said they did not invite new offers with any of them, but as he had
mentioned, one had done so unsolicited. He stated that part of the criteria had to do
with terms of the offer and all of these are nothing more than free options, where
anyone of them can say they have determined the offer not to be feasible and
withdraw. Mr. Flake stated he thought it was handled properly and negotiated it for
the best dollar. Director Lichty stated he was struggling with the fairness of the
process. Mr. Flake stated he was comfortable that it was handled properly but have no
particular interest in any of them, and their sole interest was what was best of the city.
Director Wyrick asked if this bidder had paid a deposit to the city at the point. Mr.
Flake said no, they have executed a contract and it provides the deposit would be put
up promptly on acceptance. Mr. Walker stated the change in circumstances in which
his client was accessing their responsibility to make an offer to the City of Little Rock
was the fact that a third offer came in and they were not made aware of that, they were
made aware of it at 4:30 P.M. today, and stated they would like to make another offer
He stated his client would like to have known there was two competing offers, and one
that recently submitted, so that he would have an opportunity to generate a higher
offer. Mr. Carney commented that during this process, Mr. Flake and his colleagues
kept him fully informed on all the offers, the unsolicited offer and how this proceeding,
and had been very aware of it and had given Mr. Flake and his firm the notice to
proceed as the negotiations unfolded. These circumstances came to pass, and hearing
the questions raised in this meeting, he was confident that what was done was fair and
reasonable and still strongly recommend the Board proceed, and that if the Board
chose not to proceed with this recommendation, the dollar amount and terms in effect
of the offer are now revealed and the process would have to begin again in terms of
some other process. Director Kumpuris asked the City Manager and the City Attorney
what were the ground rules that Mr. Flake was given, what was the job that Mr. Flake
was dispatched to do. Mr. Carpenter stated that what was decided by this Board when
Mr. Flake and his firm were chosen as representatives for this property and the YMCA
2
705
property, was that the City needed to do something that could maximize the city's
profits, and those were essentially the guidelines that were given, to see what could be
done in that regard. Mr. Carney added that no other directives were given to the firm,
and as he met with the firm, that was his general direction, and his suggestion was to
advertise it, make it known, solicit proposals, and go through the normal real estate
commercial selling process which he believed had been done. There were no other
specific timetables, game plans, or set procedures, other than to use the best resources
of their firm to proceed. Mr. Walker said that if candor had been extended to his client
in the negotiations, the city would not have lost any offers, but might have picked up
another higher offer from his client if he had been asked to revise his offer in response
to a third offer coming to the table. He stated he felt they were excluded from
information that might have actually benefited the city as well. Mr. Carpenter
countered that Mr. Walker's client really had three hundred thousand dollars or so in
his pocket that he was willing to offer but decided not to, and low bid, and he got
caught, and this is not a bid situation where you have to go through some formal
process. The city is saying we have a valuable resource and we have not been able to
sell this, we don't have the expertise to sell this, let's find someone who does, and they
got the bid. The policy issue for the Board is do you want to go forward? There was
more discussion between Mr. Walker and the Board members. Director Kumpuris
asked Mr. Flake if when he presented the criteria to Mr. Walker's group if it was clear
that he said "here is what you have to do, I'm negotiating with you and if you do X -Y-
Z, then I will recommend you." Mr. Flake said that was correct and when they got the
revised offer which still did not meet the criteria, they then told them that they doubted
Mr. Walker's client would be recommended. Director Lichty asked what happens if
the due diligence expires and the purchaser does not close on the property. Mr. Flake
said if any purchaser does not close after the sixty days they would be going back to
the other four and back through the process again. Mr. Flake said they would go back
to all the offerors. It was the intensity of the competition that moved them to have a
time frame in which to cutoff and start selecting negotiations. Vice Mayor Wyrick
asked for the resolution to be read. The resolution was read, Director Adcock moved
for the adoption of the resolution, Director Kumpuris seconded the motion, a voice
vote was taken and the resolution passed unanimously.
21. Discussion - Vision Little Rock appointments. A motion was made by
Director Kumpuris made a motion to go into executive session to discuss procedure,
Director Lichty seconded the motion. By voice vote, 8 Board members were in favor,
1 opposed, Director Keck.
22-City Manager's Administrative Report - Mr. Carney stated he had only one
item, the Department of Transportation has issued what is called "The Letter of No
Prejudice ", which means now that all of the streetscape and transit and parking
improvements which the city specified to the federal government, are now eligible for
federal funding on a reimbursement basis. This includes twenty plus blocks of
streetscape, a variety of things including expansion of the Second and main parking
garage, and from now on every dollar the city spends as of the date of the letter counts
toward local match. Among those items include the Capitol Avenue streetscape that
was approved at tonight's meeting and other items that would be expended by CATA
along the way. The city was awarded this year, six hundred and fifty thousand dollars
for the first round of streetscape money and the next federal physical year budget the
city has requested fifteen million dollars and that is working it's way through, and was
confident that some portion of that would be approved this summer as part of the
federal budget process.
Director Kelly wanted to follow up on the tree and landscape ordinances. He said he
understood the Planning Commission said to go back into negotiations and suggested
hiring a mediator to help negotiate between the developers who were not happy with
the current proposals. Mr. Carney responded that the Planning Commission had met
the last Thursday, and that he had met with the city planning staff last Friday and at
staff level it was agreed to take this week and have a series of meetings and there were
at least three groups that he knew of, to talk through with the developer group, the
Downtown Partnership, and the Tree Enhancement Committee, to determine where
the points of differences are and to see how many points there are to negotiate. Mr.
Carney stated he had not ruled out the mediator as suggested by the Planning
Commission, but had reason to believe the meetings this week would see a lot of gain
by reaching a consensus and by Friday this week, they would be fairly close and then
the next step, would be the mediator or other things they might do to further
negotiations . Mr. Carney stated there are several outlines and bullet points and
different variations so he has asked the legal department to put them in ordinance form.
What are the specifics of this, so that it is very clear what needs to be agreed to and
determined where is there a difference of opinion. That is where the process is now.
Director Cazort asked City Attorney Tom Carpenter how long did he expect it to take to
have a working draft of an ordinance for this issue. Mr. Carpenter said he didn't know
7
706
that there were two things at play, and he was not quite sure what they want in a
working draft, and the second was that Mr. Turner, Public Works Director, has been
working on this issue most closely and they have not had a chance to sit down and talk,
he stated he had heard some of the participants requested instead of having an
ordinance, they go in and change specific sections, which is what the working
document the city has now, does. Mr. Carney stated that he hoped once it is in legal
form, there would be a document for each of the groups to look at and hoped that would
narrow the issues, and the remaining issues would be issues of substance, unless a
"magic agreement" occurs in the next few days.
Director Kumpuris stated he wanted to change the subject and address two different
issues: 1. A sticker system for downtown residents so they don't get parking tickets,
now that the city is encouraging more and more people to live downtown, this has been
talked about, but never acted on. 2. In the process of talking about Vision Little Rock,
one of the things the city needs to be figure a way to supply money and expertise to
answer the questions that Director Kelly had previously brought up about water,
watershed, etc. He stated that as the city is planning for this, there is a need to take all
the questions that were asked about these things and allocate money and expertise too
let the group that is looking at those issues have that expertise on the front end, rather
than the back end.
Director Stewart asked Mr. Carney about the April 130 request to report on the health issues
relating to blackbird dropping brought up in Citizen's Communication, by D. G. Durham
She stated there was to have been a status report made reporting possible action by the city.
Mr. Carney stated he would need to look at the issue again, he was not sure of the status of
that report.
CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS
A limit of 3 minutes per subject is allotted at this time for citizens to express a viewpoint or
other message to the Board of Directors, with a maximum of 30 minutes allotted for citizen
communications. Communications may be written or oral. No advance permission is
required, but persons wishing to address the Board are requested to fill out a card and hand it
to the City Clerk upon arrival.
The first speaker during Citizen Communications was Shelly McGhee, 25 Pleasant Cove,
asked for the revocation of a special use permit of a day care located at 27 Pleasant Cove.
She presented proposed ordinances listing some restrictions and renewal dates to put into
effect before issuance of the special use permits. The proposal was given to Vice Mayor
Wyrick to be given to the City Manager's Office, to review. Jan Taylor, 29 Pleasant Cove,
spoke on the issuance of special use permits, and also asked for the revocation of the special
use permit of the day care center located at 27 Pleasant Cove. She gave a brief history of the
situation. She stated she and Ms. McGhee had been working together on this issue. Ms.
Taylor presented a packet to be given to the City Manager, outlining some of the incidents
and issues. There was a general consensus by the Board of Directors, that some sort of
review process needs to be established for special use permits, and Mr. Carpenter was asked
to look into the possibility. Mr. Joe Simms III, 7600 Asher Avenue spoke about a courtesy
notice he had received regarding signs he had at the building. He stated that he moved the
signs to where they were in compliance, but that today someone from the city came out and
was taking more pictures of the signs. He said he thought he was being singled out, he said
he did everything he was told to do to come in to compliance. He said he knew of over fifty
buildings that were out of compliance with the city sign ordinance. Florise Blood, 2021
Wolfe Street, stated she had a street ministry named The House of Naomi and Ruth located at
2021 Wolfe Street, which is where the ministry is located. She stated the problem she
wanted to address was that it was a violation to have the sign in her front yard, was asking for
a special use permit to have the sign. Being no other speakers, the meeting was recessed at
10:50 P.M. to an executive session to discuss the Vision Little Rock appointments. The
meeting reconvened at 11:35 P.M. Mr. Carney announced that no decisions were reached at
this time.
There was a motion by Director Keck, a second by Director Cazort to recess the meeting, to
be reconvened April 25`h, 2000 at 4:00 P.M.
8
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Nancy Wood City Clerk Mayor Jim Dailey
6