LITTLE ROCK — The Little Rock Technology Park Authority Board should consider looking for alternative locations, a consultant told the board in a letter released Wednesday.
The board had requested that Charles Dilks, a consultant considered an expert in technology and research parks, examine the three sites still under consideration for the park and highlight any potential engineering problems before a final site is chosen.
Dilks’ Jan. 2 letter to the board asks about the size, topography, zoning, utility placement and demolition costs for the three properties. The letter begins and ends, however, with a caution to the board that none of the sites is ideal.
Dilks repeated word for word an admonition that was in his October report, which looked at all 23 sites submitted for consideration.
Board Chairman Mary Good said the letter will likely have an influence on the board’s decision but will not immediately restart the search for a park location. She said the board is trying to schedule an in-person visit for Dilks to tour the three sites and make his final comments on their chances for success.
Board member JayChesshir, the chief executive officer of the Little Rock Regional Chamber of Commerce, said board members will ultimately ask Dilks to weigh in before they make a final decision.
“Certainly the letter contains nothing yet from which to create a decision,” Chesshir said.
“The board will ultimately have to pick the site, but he’s done this all over the country. And as we go through this process, we have requested that he tell us, in his opinion, what would be his choice. We’ve also asked for his opinion regarding private investment coming into the specific sites.”
The three remaining sites under consideration are:
About 10 acres between Collins and College streets and East Sixth and East Eighth streets.
About 35 undeveloped acres near John Barrow Road and Interstate 630.
About 84 acres consisting of several parcels at South University and Asher avenues.
The board voted in December to ask Dilks to evaluate the sites from an investment perspective, as well as to have the Crafton Tull and Associates engineering firm do a preliminary engineering assessment of the sites.
Dilks has been involved in several successful technology and research park projects, including the nation’s first collaborative research park in Philadelphia.
The proposed park inLittle Rock is a partnership among the city of Little Rock, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences and Arkansas Children’s Hospital. Each institution has pledged to contribute some startup funds, and the city has agreed to contribute $22 million from the citywide sales tax increase that started being collected last January.
The plan for the park is to attract private companies and public investment to further develop research being done at the city’s higher-education and medical institutions.
Dilks’ report highlights problems at each of the three sites.
He notes that the downtown 10-acre site is too small, and he recommends that the board make sure that adjacent properties would be available for expansion.
“If my expectation is confirmed and more contiguous land is not available, then potentially this site should be excluded,” he wrote.
He also wrote that the board should ask whether the Woodruff House, which is on the National Register of Historic Places and is adjacent to the site, is salvageable and what costs would be involved.
Other concerns about the site include the cost of demolishing four buildings that sit on it, environmental factors related to its past industrial use, accessibility to nearby Interstate 30, residential zoning issues and whether the tract has sufficient utility capacity.
For the University Avenue site, Dilks raised concerns about the U shape of theproperty and urged the board to ask whether access could be granted through the UALR track and field facility.
He also said the board should ask about alternative configurations for phased development related to the shape of the property, the cost of demolishing the business park that’s already on part of the property and any environmental factors tied to its past uses. He also said questions should be asked about traffic issues stemming from heavily used roads nearby and about demolishing the event center and old theater building in the University Village shopping center.
For the John Barrow Road site, Dilks raised concern about its topography. The property slopes, and it has a lake in the center of the main parcel. He also recommended that the board consider the cost of laying utility lines on the vacant property, plan for access to major highways and find out whether there are any zoning concerns such as height restrictions that would have an effect on the tech park’s development.
While several authority board members were confident Wednesday that the selection process will move forward with the three commercial sites, at least one city official remains concerned about residential sites.
In December of 2011, the board began its search by studying three mostly residential sites in the Forest Hills and Fair Park neighborhoods. Residents and community organizations protested against putting the park in a residential neighborhood, although some property owners saidthey would be interested in selling their houses if the site was selected.
The Little Rock Board of Directors passed an ordinance in June requesting that the authority board take six months to look at nonresidential sites unless a substantial portion of residents gave their support for consideration of a neighborhood site.
Ward 2 Director Ken Richardson said Wednesday that more protection is necessary for the city’s neighborhoods. In June, he proposed an ordinance that would have prohibited the authority board from using the city’s pledged sales-tax dollars for the use of eminent domain - the taking of private land for public use in exchange for compensation - in residential neighborhoods.
Richardson’s ordinance was tabled for six months and went back before the Board of Directors on Tuesday.
“I was somewhat baffled last night that I didn’t get a second to move the ordinance to a second reading, and I was somewhat baffled that there was no substantive discussion last night either,” he said Wednesday. “To me, it seems like the ordinance we passed in June has an escape clause, and it is that caveat and condition that makes me adamant about moving forward with my ordinance.”
“It would be a disturbing historical precedent set by this city to ask residents to pay for their own dislocation with their sales-tax dollars. That is why those funds need to be taken off the table in terms of being used for eminent domain in residential neighborhoods.”
Front Section, Pages 1 on 01/10/2013