11-08-00817
Minutes
November 8, 2000
Minutes
Board of Directors Room
City Hall — 500 W. Markham
Little Rock, Arkansas
November 8, 2000
The Board of Directors of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, met in regular session with
Mayor Jim Daily presiding. Director Keck gave the invocation, which was followed by
the Pledge of Allegiance. City Clerk, Nancy Wood called the roll with the following
Directors present: Directors Pugh, Hinton, Lichty, Cazort, Keck, Stewart, Wyrick,
Kumpuris, Kelly, and Adcock — total 10; Absent 0.
With a quorum present, Mayor Dailey declared the meeting in session, and was recorded
as follows:
Items M -1 and M -2 were added to the agenda on a motion from Director Adcock and a
second by Director Hinton and a unanimous voice vote of board members present.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 10,928 — To authorize the appropriation of funds to the
Central Arkansas Transportation Authority (CATA) from the city's federal Welfare
to Work Grant for van transportation to WTW clients and their eligible children to and
from authorized Welfare to Work activities; and for other purposes. Director Adcock
asked that this item be held separate for discussion.
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,929 — Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
contract with One Stop Career Development Center for Year Round Youth
Program. Director Cazort made a motion to place Item M -2 on the consent agenda,
Director Pugh seconded the motion and with a unanimous vote by board members
present Item M -2 was added to the consent agenda.
Item 6 was held separate.
Mayor Daily introduced his new assistant, Shala Bebee.
The first presentation was to recognize Clayton H. Goddard and Kimberly Finch of
MEMS for their life saving efforts toward Mr. Lewis McClure.
The second presentation was by Joe Terry Dance Theatre, titled Wading the Water.
1. MOTION - To approve minutes of regular meetings: September 5, 2000,
September 19, 2000, and the September 26, 2000 reconvened meeting.
2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,917 - To award a contract to Cruse Uniforms and
Equipment to provide police uniform items; and for other purposes.
3. RESOLUTION NO. 10,918 - In support of the West Markham Neighborhoods
Action Plan.
4. RESOLUTION NO. 10,919 - To authorize the purchase of 15 pursuit sedans from
Landers Ford for the Little Rock Police Department as available with the 2000 State
Contract; and for other purposes.
5. RESOLUTION NO. 10,920 - To authorize the extension of a contract with Delta
Dental Plan to provide dental insurance to city employees for 2001; and for other
purposes.
7. RESOLUTION NO. 10,922 - To authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract
with Welfare to Work Educational Services.
8. RESOLUTION NO 10,923 - Affirming the intent of the City of Little Rock Board of
Directors to amend Ordinance No. 18,364 for the purpose of modifying the new
Arkansas State Urban Campus Project Plan at 7th and Main Street.
• •
• I Lei
Minute
November 8, 2000
M -2. RESOLUTION NO. 10,929 — Authorizing the City Manager to enter into a
contract with One Stop Career Development Center for Year Round Youth
Program.
Consent Agenda Items 1,2,3,4,5,7,8 and M -1 were read. A motion was made by
Director Adcock to adopt the consent agenda, Director Pugh seconded the motion, and by
unanimous voice vote of members present the consent agenda was adopted.
6. RESOLUTION NO. 10,921 - -To approve extension of the current agreement with
Health Advantage to provide health care insurance for city employees for 2001; and for
other purposes. Director Cazort made a motion for Item 6 to be pulled from the consent
agenda and held separate for discussion, Director Lichty seconded the motion, and with
a unanimous voice vote by board members present the item was pulled from consent to
be held as a separate item. Directors Keck, Wyrick, Kumpuris, and Adcock recused.
City Attorney Tom Carpenter stated for the record, the reasons for the recusals are that
Directors Wyrick and Adcock are on the Board of Directors of Southwest Hospital which
could be a beneficiary and Doctor Kumpuris could be impacted by who gets the
healthcare insurance and Director Kelly's wife could be impacted, and Director Keck is
with the administrative staff of the Heart Hospital. Director Cazort asked that next year,
advance planning be done to prepare for the medical plan for city employees in 2002. He
asked for a review of alternative healthcare packages, examination of cooperative efforts,
consultations with various employee groups. The other board members present were in
agreement with the requests that Director Cazort suggested.
Citizens Communication was the next item on the agenda. Ms. Beverly Jones, 2222 S.
Gaines Street, stated she had completed the Targeted Neighborhood Application, and
asked the board what the process is, and needed funds to finish the work. Mr. Carney,
City Manager, stated the board needed two additional actions, at the next regular board
meeting the certification of the tornado areas as the fourth TNEP area and the board
would need to certify the area. The next step, if the application is in order, after the board
approves that area, the applications should be able to be approved. Mr. Carney stated that
the approval process could begin as soon as the board approved the area.
Director Adcock made a motion that public interviews for the Planning Commission be
held at a reconvened meeting on November 14, 2000, Director Pugh seconded the
motion. By voice vote, all board members except Director Hinton were in favor, Director
Hinton abstained. The motion passed. Director Adcock then made the motion to hold
public interviews for the Airport Commission on November 14, 2000. She said this was
an important and very visible commission and thought it good to bring it before the
public. A roll call vote was taken and recorded as follows: Director Lichty amended the
motion to state the interviews would be held on November 28`x' at a reconvened meeting,
because he felt more time was needed than a week. All board members were in favor, of
the amendment, except Director Hinton, who vote no. A roll call vote was taken on the
motion to hold public interviews for the Airport Commission position on November 28,
2000 at a reconvened meeting. The vote was recorded as follows: Director Pugh, yes,
Hinton, no, Cazort, no, Keck, yes, Stewart, yes, Wyrick, yes, Kumpuris, yes, Kelly no,
Adcock yes, Mayor Dailey, no, for a total of 6 yes, 5 no. The motion passed.
9. ORDINANCE NO 18,385 - Z -6897 — Reclassifying property located at 3524
Mabelvale Pike from R -3 (Single Family District) to C -4 (Open Display Commercial
District), amending Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinance of the City of Little Rock,
Arkansas; and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absent) Staff
recommends approval.
10. ORDINANCE NO. 18,386 - Z -6940 — Rezoning property located at 9300
Claremore Drive from MF -6 (Multi - family District) to R -2 (Single Family District),
amending Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas; and
for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 9 yes, 0 no, 2 absent) Staff recommends
approval.
Items 9, 10, were grouped and read the first time. The rules were suspended to provide
for the second and third readings of the Ordinances by unanimous vote of the Board
2
Minutes 819
November 8, 2000
members present. By unanimous voice vote of board members present the ordinances
were adopted.
11. RESOLUTION NO. 10,924 - To authorize a contract with Dougan Asphalt Paving
Company, to make repairs at the City Compost Site; and for other purposes. The
resolution was read, and with a motion by Director Adcock and a second to the motion by
Director Keck, and with a unanimous voice vote of the board members present, the
resolution was adopted.
12. RESOLUTION NO. 10,925 - & PUBLIC HEARING - Z- 6096 -B — Rescinding the
applicant's request the Little Rock Planning Commission's action to approve a
Conditional Use Permit for an expansion of the existing Montessori School located at
15717 Taylor Loop Road, and for other purposes. (Deferred from September 5, 2000)
(Planning Commission: 7 yes, 4 no.) Staff recommends approval. Director Adcock
moved that the resolution be adopted. Director Pugh seconded the motion. By
unanimous voice vote, all board members were in favor, and the resolution was adopted.
Mayor Dailey stated he just noticed that Ed Smith had a card to comment on Item 10.
Mr. Smith said he just had a statement to make. He said he lived at 6 Castle Hill Court,
which borders on the Claremore project and that when he bought his house 22 years ago,
he fenced in his back yard, and also part of the easement and part of the property they
plan to subdivide and wanted to make it known, and no one had been out to survey or
question him about his fence and did not plan to move his fence, but felt someone should
be aware the fence was there. Mayor Dailey said Mr. Carney to have staff take a look at
this and report back.
13. ORDINANCE - Z- 4923 -A — Approving modification to a Planned Zoning District
and providing for the establishment of a Planned Zoning Development titled Summit
Mall — Revised PCD, located at the southwest corner of Shackleford Road and
Interstate 430, located in the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, amending Ordinance No.
15,385 and Chapter 36 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas;
and for other purposes. (Planning Commission: 8 yes, 2 no, 1 abstention) Staff
recommends approval. (1st Reading.) Mr. Carney, City Manager, lead the discussion,
stating the presentation tonight would be primarily by the Planning and Public Works
directors, and asked them to give a review of the project. Mr. Carney said staff is
convinced that the detailed plan is greatly improved over what was there originally and
the new proposal fully meets the new landscape ordinates, and address traffic issues and
other concerns, and have been working with the development team for several months on
this proposal. Mr. Carney asked Mr. Jim Lawson, Director of Planning and Development
to lead off the review. Mr. Lawson gave a brief history of the mall. He stated the mall
was approved in November of 1987 by the Planning Commission, and went to the board
in December of 1987, and was approved. At that point the Land Use Plan was changed.
In 1991 the owners came back with a three -year time extension, and then again in 1994.
He stated the mall ownership has changed, and the people who own it now are not the
same as when it was first approved. In 1997 another three -year time extension was
approved by the Planning Commission, and was reviewed again by the board. Mr.
Lawson said it came before the Planning Commission early this year and it was decided
to give a six -month time to go more work on it. On September 14, 2000 the Planning
Commission approved the revised PCD. Mr. Lawson said the bottom line is the PCD did
expire. This meant the time had run out. From the staff standpoint it does not mean the
land went back to R2, which it did not, but the three -year time extension had run out.
From staff's standpoint, what they did was not a debate as to whether there should be a
mall, that was done some years ago, the debate and the review from the Planning and
Public Works standpoint is how does this revised PCD work, or does it work. What are
the major issues that need to be reviewed? Mr. Lawson presented charts that showed
comparison of the first proposal and this proposal. There were several questions from the
board regarding the comparisons. Mr. Lawson stated that there is concern by staff of
what impact this mall would have on the existing malls. He said the applicant said if the
University Mall does close they (the Simon people) would pay half of a study done to see
what kind of reuse could occur. He said the applicant still will commit to that, but have
changed it some so that they would not have to wait until the mall actually closed. He
said they have contacted APA (American Planning Association and ULI (Urban Land
3
820
Minutes
November 8, 2000
Institute) have experts that come in and do a report/study. He said ULI will be coming in
and they did add the University area to the study. The Summit Mall applicant has agreed
to pay a portion of the study, to look at adaptive reuses. He said this is not to say that any
of the malls will move out, but it important to look at those and if it occurs, what could be
used for the area. Director Keck asked for copies of the traffic report study and economic
input assessment that was mentioned in the presentation. Director Lichty asked for
clarification on what the board is being asked to do. He asked for the City Attorneys
comments. He said as he understood it, the existing planned commercial development
has expired, and they were being asked to approve a new plan, revised. He asked what
happens if the new PCD is not approved to the zoning on that land. Mr. Carpenter, City
Attorney stated that with the expiration of the other one, it would revert to the zoning it
was prior to the planned development. Mr. Lawson said what has always been done in
the past, is that it would come back to the board, and the board would pass it, but it would
be almost automatic. Director Lichty said in some people's minds, those he had talked
with, that there is an existing PCD, which regardless of what the board does, can be built,
and he did not think that was the situation. Mr. Lawson said, no that was not true.
Director Lichty said once that expires it's gone and this is a new one. Mr. Carpenter said
there was litigation in 1991 or 1992, in which the city's planned development ordinance
was challenged successfully, and as a result of that, the city rewrote the planned
development ordinance and created essentially two classifications, the single use planned
development and the multiple use planned development. At that time the city also
drafted an ordinance and adopted it, that would deal with PCD's, PUD's as they expired
the applicant could come in an asked that it be renewed, and it has been done on a
numbered occasions, most expired because of the courts order, (the Arkansas Supreme
Courts Order, that the single use planned developments under the ordinance they were
created were not legal. He said he thought the city went though a whole process of them
for a year or two, and they went back to original zoning. Mr. Lawson stated from staffs'
standpoint they have made a commitment to a concept. Director Lichty said he was
trying to understand from a legal standpoint what exactly the zoni% is on that land as of
September 19 of this year, the day after it expired on September 18 , and historically
what happens to PCD's when they expire. Mr. Lawson said if you called today and asked
what the zoning was, he would say PCD. If you can to get a building permit, you would
not be allowed to get a building permit because it's expired and has not come to the board
in an ordinance yet. It's kind of in limbo, but you could not proceed with it. He said
when the PCD were done many years ago it was perceived as automatic. He said the City
Attorney advised it was not automatic, but the board has never revoked one. Directory
Lichty said he felt this was an affirmative question and needed an affirmative opinion.
Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Lawson if he was familiar with the Urban Land Instituted.
Mr. Lawson said he was. Director Kumpuris asked if you were going to have two malls
in the middle of your city suddenly close, what sort of re- development would they
suggest you do in this situation, how do you pay for it and does it work? Mr. Lawson
said the people involved on this panel would be people who had done it elsewhere and
have made it work. Mr. Lawson said he did not know the answers, but these people were
people who have done retail redevelopment. Mr. Bob Turner, Director of Public Works
stated he wanted to do in to detail about the University Avenue Project. He said clearly
this is a major arterial, north/south through town with University Avenue. It's not tied to
a single development, but to everything along it's route. He said traffic studies had been
done, and projects are ongoing in this area. He said to the best of his knowledge the
Summit Mall is the largest and most complicated single development staff has seen in the
city. He said this a very significant development, a large 90 some acres, the movement of
approximately one million cubic yards of material, the excavation approaching one
hundred feet, the areas that were variances were considered and approved by the planning
commission. He said the higher walls on 1 -430, by facing these walls with decorative
stone and allowing them to be somewhat higher, almost twenty feet of additional trees
can be saved that are there now. The other area was the depth of the cut, any thing over
thirty some feet needs to go to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
considered that and that was part of their recommendation for approval. Mr. Turner said
they have been working with the traffic engineers on this project for over a year.
Significant improvements have been recommended. He said they have worked closely
with Peters and Associates who have done a very comprehensive and complex traffic
study. He said staff has independently run a state of the art computerized model of what
the traffic generation is, and shows the effect of these vehicles on the proposed
4
821
Minutes
November 8, 2000
infrastructure improvements. There are three entrances into the facility; they are all
spaced in such a manner that they can accommodate the volumes of traffic. Shackleford
is being improved to the extent necessary to handle the traffic; to the south of this
location at 36ffi and Colonel Glenn traffic signals would be installed. Mr. Craig Berry,
Vice Chair of the Planning Commission, stated in review of the Summit Mall application
the Planning Commission diligently completed the task for it has authority to exercise.
He said many would not like the result and review of that decision process. The reality is
that the momentous decision was made thirteen years ago to allow this large parcel of
land to change the land use and zoning too commercial. The only proper focus of the
Planning Commissions deliberations when this PCD was up for renewal was to ensure a
good site design and to ensure that needed infrastructure improvements surrounding this
development on/off site are properly identified and cost fairly allocated. There were
several planning objectives that were accomplished through the Planning Commission's
review. The Planning Commission in this review, the road infrastructure needs off and
on site and the developers financial liability where those improvements were clearly
identified. The Planning Commission imposed condition upon the application that the
Summit Mall cannot proceed without Simon obtaining the proper permits and financing
to construct off site improvements to 36`" Street, Shackleford Exchange, the highway
ramp and interchange coming off I -630. The cost is explicitly not be borne by Little
Rock taxpayers, but by the developers and any other government parties they can get to
agree to sharing the cost. Through the Planning Commission review, he stated they took
a traditional mall design to the next level in terms of pedestrian sensitivity and muted
tendencies to over park. He stated Simon limited the number of parking spaces to the
ULI Industry benchmarks and most importantly at the Planning Commission's request,
Simon Incorporated pedestrian walkways that radiated out from the mall. Mr. Berry said
this had never before been asked by a public body and seen in a traditional mall
development in Little Rock. Third, through the Planning Commission review, they
insured that Simon honored the previous developer commitments made to Camp
Aldersgate to protect it from any adverse impacts. Those commitments include
protection of watershed and water quality of the lake in the Camp Aldersgate, as well as
the restrictions on certain intensive uses in the southwest parcel of the mall development.
A Camp Aldersgate Board member came before the Planning Commission and clearly
stated they didn't oppose the proposed application by Submit Mall, and Simon had
negotiated with the Camp in good faith to honor those previous commitments. Fourth,
through Planning Commission review, Simon was required to financially contribute to
redevelopment planning for the University mall area, should it close. Mr. Berry
reminded the Board this has never been asked or required of any development application
in Little Rock that he was aware of. The question, he felt that would dominate the
discussion, on whether to require the Summit Mall to first determine and proof no
harmful economic impact of this development on other parts of the city before it can
proceed. He said it is a very separate question, and a separate standard of analysis for
which there is no precedence in the history of applications in the City of Little Rock. It
becomes fully a political question. Only the Board has the right to ask outside the normal
process of regulatory review, requiring a development application to determine its
economic impact on existing retail development in other parts of the City is a very
slippery regulatory slope to step out on. He reminded the board that the Planning
Commission and the board in the last four years, has approved zoning for enough retail
commercial floor space along the Chenal corridor, to equal accumulatively three Summit
Malls. He stated that recently the Planning Commission and Board did not apply this
economic standard to the to Cousins project on Chenal when the City approved it's
roughly 350,000 square feet of commercial space that is zoned on that property. He
stated that intuition tells you that developments on Chenal will have some negative
impact on business and retail in Central Little Rock, the magnitude that is unknown and
probably unknowable. Mr. Berry said he understood very well the dynamics of suburban
malls and sprawls and economic activity displaced from the urban core, but amongst all
the previously approved large commercial developments, what makes Summit Mall so
special, and different to suddenly not warrant this kind of analysis. Mr. Berry asked the
board if they could fairly single out the Summit Mall which has to prove no damaging
impact economically on Central City malls and retail business. Mr. Berry summarized
that the Planning Commission in this development application amply and aptly addressed
the planning questions. He stated that all remains before the board now is, a raw and
basic political question ... u want a large new mall that cuts deeply into a hill on
y
i
822
Minutes
November 8, 2000
Shackleford, at Interstate 430, and finally is it worth throwing a lot of process and
expending a lot divisive political energy over a proposed mall that some say may not
really develop to begin with. There is some question about whether this mall will really
ever see the light of day. Detector Kelly asked if it were such a strange thing in other
cities to ask these economic questions that "may lead the city down a slipper slope "? Mr.
Berry said it is not an oddity. There are some states like Vermont; there is a legislative
requirement of development applications. Mr. Berry said it's not odd to do it, just need
to be aware that is a political question, not a planning question. Representatives from the
Simon Company presented the developers overview of the project. Mr. Tom Snyder,
Senior Vice President in charge of new development, for the Simon property Group,
stated that most of the properties they have developed since 1960 are stilled owned by
them. He said included in their portfolio are the University Mall and McCain Mall. He
stated the mall development business has changed significantly over the years, especially
the last five to ten years. He said what they do is follow department stores, and follow
that demand. He stated Little Rock has experienced some pretty explosive growth, and
looking at the numbers from 1970 to present, the Little Rock Metropolitan Area has
grown from 320,000 to 565,000 people, and has made an incredible gain in expenditure
potential. He said the demand is there to create a new mall. He said the site as
mentioned in an earlier presentation was zoned in 1987 and they got involved in the
property in 1995. He said they believed the property is uniquely situated to serve Little
Rock and the surrounding communities. He stated that when you look at the demand that
is created and who the tenants are that want to be here, they could kind of analyze what
the options might be. He stated they could have a fractured development, that there are
proposed developments far west in Pulaski County, and there is a site that is being
proposed for development in Faulkner County near Conway, and in Saline County there
is a proposal for a development opportunity. He said they believed the market would be
best suited, and the City of Little Rock is best suited by putting that inside the Interstate,
inside an area proximate to the population and people of the market. He said they didn't
believe it was a case of when it would happen, but would be an explosion of retail growth
in this market and the questions is where it will happen. He said he believed this was the
best site and the company was very excited about it. He said they perceive themselves as
being in the business of competing for people's leisure time. He stated that shopping
centers today aren't just shopping, but are gathering spots, socializing spots, retail and
entertainment spots, and believes the design they have come up with for this site will
create some space that will be exciting and functional. He said with respect to University
Mall, that real estate would not be abandoned they have a substantial investment in that
real estate, and adaptive functions would be looked at for this site. He said they believe
the time is right since there have been no new mall developments since the mid - seventies.
He said he believed this site would serve the metro area, and address the needs of the
market. Director Keck asked if he understood correctly that properties Simon owned are
not abandoned but that adaptive reuses are fund for them. Mr. Snyder stated he would
not say they have not sold properties, but went on to state they have sold very few
properties. He said he could think on maybe only a dozen and he had been with the
company 27 years. Director Keck asked for how they have developed the adaptive reuses
and the time frame it might take for the reuse to take place. Mr. Snyder replied that
sometimes things move a little slowly when a new project is developed there would be
some migration, and it would open the door to other opportunities. He gave one recent
example in the Dallas Metroplex where the company was planning a new regional mall in
that metropolitan area, and happened to won a smaller community mall, three to four
miles away, and about three years ago they stated the process of making that mall more
of a community center. Bring different types of uses in to serve the market it was
actually serving, as it was no longer serving as a regional mall. Director Keck asked
what type of transition is the city looking at with University Mall, and if the concept of a
community mall rather than a regional mall is considered, what are the general concepts.
He said he did not think there would be two Sears, two Penneys, he said he thought that
would be stretching the capacity of this market, to have duplications of these large stores.
Mr. Snyder agreed that Sears has allowed and committed to name them as potential
occupant of the new development and in that particular instance, they would be out of
their present location, as they do not own that building, and would be out of term and
there is a question as to whether they would be able to extend their lease and continue
doing business. He said that adaptive reuse might be higher and better used for uses that
work with the hospital. He said he did not know what the landowners might have in
G
Minutes
November 8, 2000
823
mind. Director Keck asked why they chose this location, that it was going to be the
largest dirt moves in the history of the bulldozer in Arkansas, and obviously something
that has created interest in the community. Mr. Snyder answered that there were clearly
difficult issues to be dealt with, the dirt work, would be difficult but not impossible, they
have had developments that have been significantly larger. He said this is very
strategically located property, central and proximate to most of the Little Rock market.
He said they look at things in a twenty- minute drive time, and a lot if not all of the market
can get to the interstate because of interstate access within that time frame. He said that
also from a transportation standpoint, because of I -430, and the rest of the interstate
system. Saline and Faulkner Counties are very accessible, and could draw some of that
business into Pulaski County. He said the site itself is not without its challenges, but
most sites do have some challenges. Director Keck asked how many tenants were
anticipated, besides the large anchors. Mr. Snyder stated that on the average, a hundred
and ten or so mall tenant shops in addition to the department stores. He said there are a
lot of shops in this market that have two locations, and many of them would continue to
operate both locations in the market. There will be a number of tenants, they have
identified ten to twenty who would be new to the market, whether they would come in
with one store of two would depend on opening the store, see how they do, and move on
from there. Director Lichty asked if it was unconditional that they would pay for a
prorated share of the land study around the University/Markham area? Mr. Snyder said
what was suggested to him was that this was exposure of less than $10,000 and there was
no hourly fee, it was basically paying transportation, and lodging expense, and direct out
of pockets, and they did agree to pay half of that up to the $10,000. He said they believed
strongly that ULI is a great organizations and have many directors who. are principals of
their company and have spoken at many of the conventions and they do a very good job,
and its irrelevant that they would sell or close or do anything with University Mall,
because what their recommendations might be, he thought, would be a very positive thing
for Simon and would be very good information to have, and it was not conditional on
University Mall closing. Director Stewart asked Mr. Snyder if she had heard correctly
that they had no plans to abandon University Mall, and what did they plan to do with it if
tenants move out. Mr. Snyder said the development of the Summit property would take
probably eight months to get underway, architectural and engineering planning, close to
two years to develop, probably a three -year time frame. He said they would begin to
study that, as they got further into the new development. He said Simon has four other
groups that handle redevelopment and that the point he was trying to make, was that 80%
of the human resource in their company is spent on renovation and expansion of exiting
portfolio. She asked Mr. Snyder if Dillard's would be willing to sign an extension lease
at Park Plaza. Mr. Snyder said he could not be responsive to a question of what the
Dillard Company might do, or not be able to do, that Simon has no interest (legal interest)
in any of that real estate, and are not familiar with that real estate transaction. He said he
knew they owned their two buildings, and had no idea what their plans might be for those
buildings. She then asked Mr. Snyder if he thought if Dillard's moved out, would they
lease their two buildings. Mr. Snyder replied that in his opinion, if it were Simon's
buildings, they would make every effort to make use of those buildings, but again, he
could not guess what Dillard's plans might be for those buildings. Mr. Carpenter, City
Attorney intervened by raising a concern. Mr. Carpenter stated that the question that was
before the board is the propriety of the land use. He stated that whether it's appropriate
to allow planned development for the mall. That question is independent of who may
lease, who may not lease, who may move, who may not move. From the context of if
this mall is developed will this mall continue to operate, and if the answer is no, what
impact would that have on your decision as to the land use, are appropriate questions, but
when you start getting into individual tenants and what they may or may not do, and
whether they may or may not move, it seems your assumption has to be, what if they all
move from University and Park Plaza and would you still think this is an appropriate land
use out there, or what if they didn't and they all stayed at Park Plaza, would you think
this is an appropriate land use. To ask the applicant questions about who would actually
lease is beyond the scope or the inquiry before the board. Director Stewart said even
though she new it was a land use, she was concerned about what might happen to that
particular area. Mr. Carpenter said he thought questions in terms of for example, Park
Plaza has a massive moving out of tenants and therefore there is problem, how does that
work in other places, that is the land use question. Who may or may not move is the
question causing him concern. Director Adcock asked for copies of the growth figures.
7
824
Minutes
November 8, 2000
Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Snyder if the growth area included in the study was the
metropolitan area, not just Little Rock? Mr. Snyder said the study was a two county area.
He stated that when he quoted numbers in terms of population, and expected sales
potential, the metropolitan areas they were talking about was defined by some market
research data they subscribe to which includes Saline and Pulaski County, it does not
include a broader market. He stated if they wanted to define what they believe the
market is for this regional mall location, they would think it was probably south of the
river, relating to Pulaski, and believe it would extend in to Faulkner and Saline Counties,
and maybe in a few other directions, but those are the primary areas. Director Kumpuris
asked Mr. Snyder what is the footprint of this building compared to the footprint of the
former building, the first time it was submitted. Mr. Snyder answered that it was very
close, maybe slightly smaller. That they were trading off two and some three level
spaces, for in the old plan there was some six level spaces in the office and hotels. He
said there is also 30,000 GBA, Gross Building Area reduction. He said if he had to take a
shot at it, he would say it's smaller, not in terms of how much square footage is covered
by buildings, it's slightly less, but he could provide an accurate answer, with a little
research. Director Kumpuris asked Mr. Snyder to take his hat off as a developer and
move behind a board of directors chair, and gave this scenario. A mid city that is not
struggling, but certainly not prospering along this strip. You have a development that has
announced, that there is two shopping areas across the street form each other, one has one
major tenant, and one has another major tenant, both of which have announced they are
leaving, if the developer builds the new mall. What would you asked the new developer
and what would your thoughts be about what would happen to the land use in the mid
city of a town this size if you have two malls simultaneously, both losing their major
anchors. Secondly in the question of adaptive reuse, community malls is mentioned, and
could that term be defined, with examples. Mr. Snyder responded, that one of the first
questions was the migration of department stores to a new location. He sated that Park
Plaza has two Dillards Stores, as it's major department stores, University has JC Penney,
Montgomery Ward and MM Cohn. Sears is on land in close proximity, but free standing.
He said they face adaptive reuse in many markets, both by their own hand and in meeting
completion from other developers. He said there are probably 300 regional malls in the
country, and a thousand of them are probably out positioned. He said they have taken
somewhere they have retenanted them, such as the example he gave earlier in the Dallas
Metroplex. He said they have taken some and scraped them and started over. Director
Kumpuris said, in this hypothetical situation, you have my job, and you are supposed to
be protecting your city, and you are losing two major tenants. You have on your map,
Dillards and Sears, on the map you have given the board. Mr. Snyder said he thought he
had also mentioned, in their opinion, that this isn't if it will happen, it its where it will
happen. If something doesn't happen here, there is enough of a demand that can crate
very exciting new retain destinations that will eat away at markets for others. It doesn't
mean that the real estate is no good, and doesn't mean the real estate can't be used,
maybe in its existing physical condition, and maybe with some minor or significant
redevelopment, but thinks University is a great street, it one of the main north/south
arterials, carries a lot of traffic has a lot of good anchors with the hospitals and other uses.
He said he doesn't see it doesn't have a market. He said he would be thinking what are
the reuses for and going to ULI is very valuable information. Director Kumpuris stated
to Mr. Snyder, in the Dallas Metroplex you moved new tenants into the mall, what are
examples of the type of tenants? Mr. Synder answered those things like discount
department stores, Sam's Club, and Coscos, specialty anchors such as in the sporting
category, different types of restaurants, large format bookstores, theatres, and many
things that can serve a community very well. Mr. Snyder stated that when he refers to
community retailing the difference usually is talking about a five to ten minute drive time
as opposed to a twenty or thirty- minute drive time a regional mall usually experiences.
Director Kumpuris asked what has been the impact on the neighborhoods where this is
done? What impact does it have on housing prices, the economic viability of the
surrounding area? Mr. Snyder said he thought it a positive thing. He said he would
rather have something that serves a local community and does a good job of it than what
was packaged as a regional mall and maybe isn't serving its essential property. In other
areas, redevelopment projects have been very positive. Director Kelly asked Mr. Snyder
about the number of shops in the proposed malls, and that ten to twenty would be new to
the market, and asked if 80% to 90% of folks to occupy this proposed mall will in fact
already be people who are already operating retail in businesses already. Mr. Snyder said
8
Minutes
November 8, 2000
825
in terms of numbers of outlets, numbers of stores, it might be seventy percent or higher.
He said he was unsure what the exact figures would be; he would have to consult with the
leasing people. Director Kelly said it seemed to him in his readings about new retail and
new mall kinds of development, that they don't follow this type of design, but have more
diverse shops with more green and open space that present almost a village effect. He
asked was he wrong in thinking that malls were moving to more of the village concept.
Mr. Snyder said Flat Iron Crossing was a new mall in Denver and has an indoor as well
as outdoor component. The outdoor being primary a gathering area, and the indoor more
the two level regional mall, it a combination of those uses. He said there are many
lifestyle center malls that are much smaller, usually one hundred to two hundred fifty
thousand square feet, where is a million, two hundred thousand square feet. He said there
are not that many regional mall opportunities in the country, and felt this was a good one.
He said but they do want to incorporate some of those outdoor features. He said it's more
difficult to incorporate those things on the scale of the proposed mall. Director Kelly said
the city of Little Rock's population is not growing, and you are talking about doing
redevelopment and being able to go back to the potentially abandoned areas, and make
them work in different ways, and his question was does this work in a city when the
population is remaining rather stagnant. Mr. Snyder said it is not unusual to see a city
inside the city limits maybe not be growing at the same rate of how the market is
growing, because new communities adjacent or opening up, might be the density that
there is no place to go inside of the city. It doesn't mean a market is not growing. He said
their numbers show that from 1970 to 1999 the population in the metropolitan area as
grown by almost 80 %. That doesn't mean to imply that the City of Little Rock is where
that population is increasing. He said if this project is built, it could bring those dollars
back into Little Rock, back into the market. He said he wasn't focusing on the City
limits, but on the larger market. Director Lichty asked what the potential income means
to the City of Little Rock, via property taxes, things of that nature. Mr. Snyder said they
have presented to the City, an economic analysis of what the employment, the real estate
taxes are, etc. Director Lichty stated he had not seen that. Mr. Snyder said there was
some numbers that need re- evaluated, but these figures could be provided. Director
Lichty asked for a comparison as far as the success of some of the malls that have been
abandoned and rejuvenated. Mr. Snyder said that could be provided. Mr. Rod Vosper,
the Regional Vice President of Development for Simon, reviewed that their company
acquired the land in 1995, and the plan has been modified from the existing Planned
Commercial Development Plan to address the many changes that have occurred in the
retail industry. He stated one of the more notable changes was that they had tried to
incorporate some exciting features that make the project, not only an inward oriented
project but also a project that is very pedestrian friendly. He stated they have attempted
to address any and all issues that have arisen in the new landscape ordinance, and making
a good faith attempt to be consistent with the new ordinance. He said they have in the
process of working on the project, they stated about two and half years ago participating
in the traffic study. He said many of the extensions of time were to respond to staff, to
take a look at traffic at a different way. He said he believes they have come up with a
concept that is very valid, it's an eight million dollar improvement package, of which six
million dollars is closely tied to the interchange itself. It would be a complete rebuilding
of the interchange to a much more functional state than it is currently. He mentioned that
in the process, they have gone to the Aldersgate folks early on with the process of their
plans, and sought their input and worked fairly close with them in particular the last two
to three months to craft an agreement that they think is going to preserve their beautiful
sight for the purposes it is currently being used as. He said their agreement include
provisions for buffering and security, lighting spillover, water quality issues, and felt they
have a good spirit of cooperation with the group at this point. Director Hinton asked if
there was any other city where this exact mall had been built. Mr. Vosper said no, this
was the only one. Director Keck asked what was the dollar value anticipated for the
construction. Mr. Vosper said it was difficult to quantitate because the department stores
would be built by the department stores, and they don't really have solid figures on what
they spend. He said the project would in his estimate exceed a hundred million dollar
investment. He said this particular project is projected to provide about fifteen hundred
construction jobs, probably close to twenty four hundred permanent jobs, the annual
payroll for those permanent jobs would exceed forty million dollars a year. The
projected real estate taxes, which they feel, are on the very conservative side would
exceed an incremental one million dollars a year. The sales could be projected to exceed
O]
826
rout s
ovem�er 8, 2000
two hundred and seventy million dollars the first year. Director Keck asked for a copy of
that information. Director Lichty asked that it be provided for all the board members.
Director Kelly asked about he access road from the interstate, and who would pay for it.
Mr. Vosper said the full off site package which includes all the work at the interchange
and all the work that would be along the frontage of Shackleford Road, and various signal
and intersection improvements beyond that area is projected to be about and eight million
dollar package. He said approximate six of the eight million dollars is situated in and
around the interchange. He said that they will be pursuing federal funding for that work
and have initiated with the support of the Mayor's office and hopefully going forward
they will be able to get a quick reading from them on the financing. Director Kelly asked
about the access road off of I -430. Mr. Vosper said the 430 ramp would be rebuilt. It is
currently a diamond interchange, and they would rebuild the ramps into more of a clover-
leaf design. This allows free flow of traffic that would come out of the intersection and
merge into Shackleford as you head south. Shackleford Road will be widened and have a
continuous decel lane as it goes along the frontage of the property, and turn lanes as
required for each of the three entry ways. Director Kelly asked if any exits off the
interstate were planned. Mr. Vosper replied there were not. Mr. Vosper asked Mr. Ernie
Peters if he would answer the traffic questions. Mr. Peters said there would be no new
point of access from Interstate 430 to this site. He said there would not be any frontage
roads constructed along I -430. He said what would occur was the diamond interchange
that now exists at Shackleford Road and I -430 would be greatly improved. One of the
major improvements would accommodate the very heavy traffic originating from the
north of the site that wants to go south on Shackleford. What the improvement would be
is the construction of the cloverleaf or loop ramp. He said it's very similar to the ramp
the highway department built a few years ago at McCain Mall. Mr. Peters told the board
he would make copies of the traffic study and provide them to the board. He said
included in that study is a drawing that depicts what that layout is. Mr. Peters stated that
the expectation is that they will seek federal funding for the interchange work on the
basis that the interchange currently doesn't function at acceptable levels of service today
and feels they will be successful in obtaining the federal funding. Director Kumpuris
said that there has been much discussion concerning the loop south of this property but
what will this to traffic north of this property as people try to move in and out of this area.
If you live in the Chenal west area, what will this mall do to the residents who live in
other areas of west Little Rock that need to be moving through this area, rather than the
people who live in Saline County who drive in, get off and shop and go then return. Mr.
Peters said they have worked with the City staff on the directional distribution. He said
with the improvements that have been recommended and the mall developer have
embraced and are pursuing the federal funding for, those facilities, the Shackleford Road
Improvements the interchange at Shackleford improved, will function properly but have
not analyzed anything that would happen five miles out from this area. Director
Kumpuris stated he understood the concept of regional, of brining people in from Saline
County, Faulkner County, etc. and the obvious way of doing that is to bring them down
the Interstate, and you improve a loop you bring them in, then they get back on the
interstate and go wherever they want to go. The real question is what happens to
everybody that lives north and west of there that wants to come to this area; an area
where there is already a bottleneck that there have been two or three studies without lots
and lots of money it's a hopeless situation. Director Kumpuris said the traffic analysis he
wanted to see is what is happening north of the site. He said to the south, it's a great
idea. He said the people that are here daily, say you can't get anywhere on Chenal now,
that peak traffic is getting worse and worse, and how far do the improvements go north?
Mr. Peters said they go past the on/off ramps on Shackleford Road. He said it's already
five lanes beyond there to the north. Director Kumpuris asked when you get back to the
intersection at Chenal Parkway, how far would Shackleford get improved going back to
that area. Mr. Peters said the improvements recommended do not go beyond the
Shackleford Road north on/off ramps. They do not go as far as the Heart Hospital. They
do go through Peachtree to the north. Director Kumpuris asked if it was not worthy to
analysis this area. Mr. Peters said he realized this is the largest bottleneck in the state of
Arkansas, and needs some attention. Director Kumpuris asked what this development is
going to do to what is the largest bottleneck in the city. Mr. Peters stated that in concert
with the city staff they have agreed to analyze what the city believes would be the worst -
case condition. That is the peak hour of the mall on a Saturday. He stated most of the
congestion that occurs in the Shackleford /630 areas occur during the am and pm peak
10
Minutes
November 8, 2000 u'"
hours during the weekdays. He said that malls peak times are on Saturdays and the
volumes are lower on Saturday than during the worst -case hours during the weekday.
He said the have analyzed what is the worst case hours for the mall which typically
doesn't have all the stores open during the a.m. peak hours, and their peak periods occur
after the adjacent street peak hours. Director Kumpuris said as a pure layman driving
around out there during the last month or so, it's awfully busy to his uninformed eye
during all hours of the day, whether you are talking about two in the afternoon or ten in
the morning, whether you are talking about Friday or Whether you are talking about
Saturday. He said if he tried to get to his office, to Baptist Hospital, on the interstate
anytime after three thirty or four p.m., its almost impossible, He said if he tried to get off
at I -630 on to Shackleford, its almost impossible. He asked what happens during that
period of time to people as they are trying to shop or go home, and then you have people
coming in and out of the mall. He said those are the kinds of studies he thought the board
needed to analyze. Mr. Peters replied that they have not analyzed the Shackleford I -630
interchange as a part of this study. Director Keck asked if in addition to what Director
Kumpuris had mentioned about the impact on the other interstates and on/off streets, he
thought it important that Kanis Road be included in the impact study. Mr. Troy Laha
spoke in opposition to the proposed mall. He said he was involved in the new ordinance
on excavation, and the intent was to bench and slope and not remove an entire hill. He
said a condition of approval was that that taller retaining walls be used. The Planning
Commission approved that. He asked, "Do you realize what you are doing ?" He stated
this is the first time out the shoot with this new ordinance and you've changed it already.
You know that the next person that comes in, you don't have any choice but to give them
the same waiver. The green on the landscape plan, he said kind of reminded him of what
is going on, and he said "I see the train coming, and I'm going to step back." Ms. Dottie
Funk, representing the City Beautiful Commission, said the green you do see on the
illustration is mostly outside of the site and it on the interstate buffer that belongs to the
interstate, that doesn't belong to the property. The City Beautiful Commission is charged
with ensuring a high level of visual aesthetic structures, vehicle parking, hillsides,
streams, trees and other vegetation for the city. She said they were concerned about the
excavation ordinance. She said they were told earlier that over fourteen hundred trees
would be planted on this site, but with the excavation, over fourteen thousand matured
tress will disappear from this site and over one and one half million cubic yards of soil.
Some trees can be replaced, but once a hillside is flattened, it will never be built back up
again. She said that part of the green on the drawing is the site that belongs to Comcast,
and no one knows what is going to happen to that property. The environmental
consequences have not been studied and the City Beautiful Commission recommends that
an Urban Ecological Analysis be performed at the expense of the developer. The study
should cover the quality of life issues and should be performed by a reputable consulting
firm possibly using City Green Trademark GIS soft ware, developed by American
Forests. She went on to state that granting a variance defeats the purpose of the recently
updated landscape and excavation ordinances and the minimum standards that were
established. Ms. Funk said if the University Mall is vacated by the stores that are
currently there, she asked if Simon and Associates, and possibly the landowner, would be
willing to re -green that area to make it more attractive rather than it become one of those
sink holes in the center of our city. Mr. Hyatt Lee, who was asked by the Conservation
Committee of the Central Arkansas Sierra Club to express strong opposition to the
Summit Mall. He stated that with the prospect of using federal funding, he would urge
the board to require environmental studies before approval of the drastic action to our
environment. He said he had a lot more he wanted to say but there wasn't time. Ms.
Katie Elliot said she was a citizen who had worked actively with a large variety of
community organizations for the past four or five years. She stated she was against the
Summit Mall because it was just one more example of unmanaged unsustainable wasteful
outdated city planning and development. She said there is plenty of existing commercial
space, in the east part of the city alone there is about twenty seven percent of existing
commercial space available to be developed and inhabited, and there is a real need to do
that. She said the myth that those developments strengthen the local tax base is outdated.
Many times these revenues are eaten up by the cost of maintaining this extra city space.
It makes sense the larger the city is, the more money it takes to take care of it. She said a
number of rent studies have compared the two models of growth. Taken together the
studies show that smart developments consumes less land, costs twenty five percent less
for roads, fifteen percent less for utilities, five percent less for housing and two percent
11
Minutes
November 8, 2000
less for other physical impact. She said the number of jobs that would be created has one
of the lowest multipliers of any other type of development, meaning the money made by
the people quickly leaks out into other communities. She said she hoped her comments
would have some impact on how the board would vote. She said you can vote no, and
that would be the first step in the right direction. Mr. Shawn Porter was the next
speaker and said he was angry that the developers and the city staff takes about three
hours to promote this mall, and that the citizens that show up get to split fifteen minutes.
He said he was volunteering with the city on the Vision Committee, and it frustrates him
that the main issues worked on, sprawl, environmental issues, green space development,
traffic, infrastructure; put a face on it and call it the Summit Mall. He said that is what it
looks like and that's why they are all meeting in those Vision Committees to try to do
something about, and it's a slap in the face when the planning Commission votes eight to
two to approve something that every citizen in their right mind knows is going to make
the problems of this city worse. He said smaller scale developments are needed that
decrease vehicle use. He stated this kind of development is a traffic magnet, and the air
quality problems will become worse for years to come. He said redevelopment of
University Avenue could not continue to be touted, and at the same time promote a
development that is going to suck the life out of University Avenue faster than anything
you have ever seen. He said he would save the rest of his comments for the next meeting.
Ms. Ruth Bell, representing the League of Women Voters of Pulaski County, said her
group feels a much wider diameter traffic study is needed before the city can truly
evaluate the impact of all the traffic that will pour through all those grid locked
intersections to get to the new mall. She said they were concerned about the way the
developer was sure he was going to get the money from federal agencies to do the I -430
improvements. She said they were told there is currently no federal or state money
available for more improvements on 1 -430 or other highways and didn't know where they
were going to get the money, and hoped they would not ask the City to take money from
existing projects to do that project. Mayor Dailey announced that that would not be
case. She said their third concern was the ozone levels and it seems it would be very
appropriate to have an expert analysis to look at the plans and the traffic generation
amounts and decide how much additional ozone this would add to the atmosphere and
send them back to the drawing board on how they might redesign their center to generate
less ozone. Mayor Dailey said his position, and he thought city staffs was the same was
the developers request for any kind of dollars would be federal dollars and it would be
direct Department of Transportation requests, not something that would be through any
of the City's TIP or federal funding that would be competitive with other projects. He
stated that if this approved at all, it would be conditioned up them coming up with the
money. Director Adcock asked if the gentleman that wanted to speak, but had not filled
out a card, could speak, since one lady who did fill out her card had already left. Mayor
Dailey acknowledged that he could. Mr. Rod Ryan told the board that he had traveled
every state many times over for ten years and has watched the homogenization of many
area and stated that Little Rock has a chance of having a president coming from here, a
chance to make a statement that no other southern community has made. He said you can
see how Atlanta has grown out of control and the way the developer speaks about the
location, the metropolitan location, he said he heard the same talk in Springfield
Missouri, where in Springfield the population might be two hundred thousand, of
Springfield, but it's strategically located so that it services a million people. He said if
you have been there and you see what it is, it's just the bleak reality of living in a place
like that; where all you see is billboards and cars. He said we have a natural beauty here
that as the city spreads out could disappear. He said in Dallas, the street maintenance is a
constant. He said it's like we are tempting ourselves to fail down by throwing our efforts
westward. Director Keck asked Mr. Bob Turner the Public Works Director, if this site
plan met and exceed the requirements of the new ordinance, and asked if waivers and
variances were being sought for this project and were they in line with the new ordinance.
Mr. Turner indicated there are two variances that are sought and were approved by the
Planning Commission, one was the depth of cut, once you exceed thirty foot of
excavation, and staff could no longer approve it that has to be approved by the Planning
Commission. The other is the benching. The intent of the bench in the ordinance is to
hide hillside cuts and blend them in. Mr. Turner said that was done two ways in the
ordinance, one was that the height limit of the excavation was limited to ten foot and you
could go a maximum of thirty feet. Planting along the front of these they could be
hidden. The other option was to go into fifteen -foot cuts with a bench in between, but
12
Minutes
November 8, 2000
a- q
then the requirement was to face that cut with architectural stone so that it wasn't the bare
rock or soil that would be seen. Both of those as to the height can be appealed at a
request made to the Planning Commission for a variance, which was done in this case.
Mr. Turner said he supported both of those. He said he supported the depth of the cut,
which approaches eight to a hundred feet primarily because this sight was previously
approved as a mall. The excavation in the previously approved site was going to be
almost identical. He said there was no difference in his mind between those two sites.
He said in regard to the benching, he was in support of that and still is, primarily because
it will save an additional twenty feet of mature trees. The ordinance was read the first
time.
14. RESOLUTION NO. 10,926 - To increase the daily storage fee for the City
Impound Lot; to amend Little Rock, Ark., Resolution No. 10,248 (December 15, 1998);
and, for other purposes. Director Adcock made a motion for adoption of the resolution.
Director Pugh seconded the motion. By voice vote of board members present all were in
favor except Director Kelly, who voted no. The resolution was adopted.
M -1. RESOLUTION NO. 10,928 — Authorizing the appropriation of funds to the
Central Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) from the City, federal Welfare to Work
Grant for van transportation for Welfare to Work clients and their eligible children to and
from authorized Welfare to Work activities and for other purposes. Director Adcock
asked why these services were not bid on. Mr. Cy Carney, City Manager said, as he
understood it, this arrangement was not necessarily an exclusive arrangement. Mr.
Moore said this contract allows the city to enter into the contact with CATA and at
Director Adcock's suggestion would try to bring some other organizations into this as
quickly as possible. A motion was made by Director Kelly to adopt the resolution,
Director Keck seconded the motion, and by voice vote of the board members present, all
were in favor except Director Adcock, who voted no.
15. REPORT - City Manager's Activity Report. Mr. Carney wanted to call attention to
the West Little Rock Park being considered. He said in the next week he would be able
to lay out some of the alternatives he was looking at for funding of this project. He said
one of the alternatives may require action by the board and possible public hearings and
one of the things he would like to do is alert the board. Mr. Carney said the Deltic
Company made it clear this must close the deal by December 31, 2000, so time is limited
and he would keep the board posted. Director Cazort asked staff to prepare for the board,
some kind of statement about what Amendment one is available for how it can be used,
when does it go into effect and specially to look and see how that might be a possibility
on the west Little Rock Park acquisition, does part two require legislative action. City
Attorney Tom Carpenter stated there was a statute that has been on the books for about
eight years that required an opinion of the Attorney General that it was legal before it was
effective and its never been issued because its never been legal but would suspect that
General Pryor would be inclined to grant that opinion in which case the legislation is
already in place. Director Cazort asked what changes are now in effect dealing with
Amendment Three, in our Municipal Courts, does it affect jurisdiction, court costs, fees,
etc. Mr. Carney stated staff would also take the liberty of also providing that response to
Amendment Two. Mayor Dailey announced that the Street re- naming of Fourteenth
Street to Daisy Bates dedication would take place this coming Friday at 11 am at the
intersection of Fourteenth Street and Martin Luther King Drive. He announced the
Secretary of Transportation, Rodney Slater is slated to be there to make comments, along
with Reverend Young, Annie Abrams and others. Mr. Carney announced that the
National Parks and Recreation Association Accreditation Team would be finishing their
review of the City's Parks and Recreation Department in response to the City's
application to be nationally accredited. He said it looks very favorable and it is likely the
accreditation will be received and we would be among only 33 or 34 in the nation to
receive this type of accreditation for the department. He said the three -year re-
certification for the Police Department is happening and felt the accreditation would be
received again there as well, and there are only four hundred accredited and Little Rock is
one of two agencies in the state. Mr. Carney stated he hoped that under the leadership of
the Zoo Board of Governors and others including the Zoo staff would be re- accredited
this fall.
13
? Minutes
�' Ly ovember 8, 2000
16. RESOLUTION NO. 10,927- To make appointments to various Boards and
Commissions. The board recessed to executive session to consider applications for
appointments to various boards and commissions. The meeting was called back in
session by Mayor Daily and Mr. Carney, City Manager, announced the recommendations
to the various Boards and Commissions which included: One appointee to the Arts and
Humanities Promotions Commission, Mary Louise Williams, re- appointments to the
Arkansas Museum of Science Board of Trustees, of Mr. Bob Birch, and Mr. Dick
Williams, and appointments of Jana Bishop, Fred Taylor, Christine Martin, Barbara
Herring, and John Herzog. The City Beautiful Commission reappointment of Karol
Zoeller, and Nash Abrams, and new appointments Billy Calloway, Sharon Vogelpohl,
Ann Ivy, and Troy Laha, The Little Rock Planning Commission, reappointments of
Richard Downing, Obray Nunnerly, Jr., Judith Faust, Rohn Muse, and Mizan
Rahman. A motion was made by Director Adcock to accept the appointments as
presented. Director Pugh seconded the motion, and by unanimous voice vote of board
members present, the resolution making the appointments was adopted.
Director Adcock made a motion to recess the meeting to November 14, 2000 at 4:00
P.M., (To consider a resolution to approve the 2001 CDBG Annual Action Plan)
Director Pugh seconded the motion and with a unanimous voice vote of board members
present, the meeting recessed at 11:40 P.M
ATTEST:
F�NVWOA./
4I
r �
14
APPROVE:
AY
JIM ILEY
MAYOR