[The document below was prepared by the City of Fayetteville in response to questions from the Mudwompers. It was presented to Annee Littell, Chair of the Fayetteville Environmental Concerns Committee (ECC), by Fayetteville Mayor Dan Coody immediately after the ECC's special meeting on June 5, 2002.]

Fayetteville's I-540 "Park" -- Some Unanswered Questions

Comprehensive Statement to the City from the Mudwompers relative to the City’s proposed impact on the natural landscape at the proposed Business and Technology Park

The City of Fayetteville Administration and the Chamber of Commerce have proposed development of a business/technology park on a 290-acre parcel at the 540 bypass and Highway 112. This site has unique and valuable environmental qualities. Approximately 85 acres of the land have been designated as wetlands by the US Army Corps of Engineers, and much of the remaining land has wetland properties. Wilson Springs is home to the Arkansas darter, a fish species that is a candidate for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. The wetland ecosystem supports a large number of plants and animals, provides a basin for water to be stored and purified, and has great education and research potential. To preserve this unique site, we advocate a conservative approach to development of areas adjoining the wetlands. We also request that the City and Chamber of Commerce address important questions related to the economic viability of development of a business/technology park.

Environment

1. We ask the City to propose no impact on the wetlands and, therefore, no mitigation. While this may cost the City several acres of hypothetically saleable land, it will at the same time save the City tens of thousands of dollars in mitigation costs as well as infrastructure costs connected to filling and stabilization. We have seen no economic information that would justify the development of the wetlands.

Response: A Zero Impact option has been developed. This option was concurred with Andrea Radwell and Tom McKinney on April 10, at the second meeting with the environmental community in the offices of McClelland Engineers, others present were Don Bunch of the Fayetteville Planning Commission and MCE staff. Copies of the concept layout were provided to Tom McKinney several days later for his use. The individuals present seemed to understand that street layout, preliminary cost, mitigation requirements, if any, and benefit cost analysis would be developed. That benefit cost analysis is approaching conclusion, at this time awaiting the completion and a professional and competent development appraisal. When the appraisal is received the benefit cost analysis will be completed and provided to the City Council so that the project can be evaluated before proceeding further.

2. We ask the City to contemplate ONLY development that is LIMITED and AWAY FROM the wetlands. We have seen no hydrological information that supports the City's contention that the wetlands will not be harmed in the long run by development of this area, nor an interest in performing professional environmental assessments of the biological and ecological aspects of this property. We believe that the information presently available is insufficient to assure protection. We do not understand why the City does not support its proposal with more impressive data.

Response: Only very limited wetland is proposed to be impacted by the 17-acre wetland impact scenario. This design concept was developed during conversation with members of the environmental community; Andrea Radwell and Tom McKinney, on April 10, at the second meeting in the offices of McClelland Engineers, others present were Don Bunch of the Fayetteville Planning Commission and MCE staff. Copies of this concept layout were provided to Tom McKinney several days later for his use. This 17-acre impact concept was developed based upon comments from these environmental representatives. The concerns expressed were taken into consideration. The wetlands impacted are upland and prior disturbance is evident on the majority of this generally lower quality wetland area.

3. We do not know why the City has put this project on a "fast track". We have been given information to the effect that there is no deadline attached to the "grant" promised for next fall. We ask the City to take the project off "fast track" and concentrate on gathering all information (economic as well as environmental) that might justify or argue against this project as planned. If there is a deadline, we would like to see that in writing from the granting authority.

Response: It is apparent from the time that the City has been taking to discuss with all interested parties, that this project is not on a “fast track.” That does not mean however that the project should languish. The City is committed to developing an environmentally responsible and economically viable project. A project that while protecting the Arkansas Darter and potentially removing it from the “threatened species” list will also generate the creation of jobs with a livable wage, that will help in retaining our youth and in creating a business environment that will compete effectively with the remainder of the I-540 corridor.

4. We ask the City to justify its claim that the appraisal of this property at $10,000 / Acre is "bogus". If the City has quotations of the selling price of wetland acres near this project site, we would like to see them in writing with a documented source.

Response: Whether the residential appraisal is valid or not, the perception is that it is not based upon the actual sale of a lot within the project area to a local software firm. This lot (sold for $40,000/acre) was subsequently repurchased from the buyer because the City could not complete the infrastructure improvements at that time due to project controversy. In order to satisfy its fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and citizens of Fayetteville, a new appraisal has been ordered. This appraisal will form the basis of the benefit cost analysis that will provide the City Council with some of the information necessary to form the decision on whether to proceed with the project or not.

5. Comments received from public agencies and from private 501c3's during the 404 comment period (Spring 2000) included requests that conservation easements held by (a) 501c3 conservation organization(s) be applied to the wetlands and to all mitigation areas. We ask that the City pledge to do this and begin immediately working with the Nature Conservancy or a similar entity qualified to hold conservation easements.

Response: It is true that a conservation easement will be developed for any wetland preservation area. It is also true that the City will be ultimately responsible for the maintenance of the wetland area and therefore any agreement with another agency to manage any preservation area will need to be carefully considered. The Arkansas Department of Game and Fish will be a likely tenant of the development if it comes to fruition in the near future. This State agency is also a likely organization to manage the preservation easement. However, until there is a project, until the Council has agreed to a plan that requires mitigation and therefore a Corps 404 permit, until the mitigation plan has been developed and approved by Corps, any negotiation with an agency to manage the wetland for the City of Fayetteville would seem premature.

6. We ask the City to take the initiative in asking for a meeting with US Fish and Wildlife within the next 2 weeks to discuss the Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Arkansas darter. We would also like clarification of who is doing the work presently on this CCA and on progress that may have been made.

Response: The City has agreed with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife to voluntarily develop a candidate conservation agreement to outline the City of Fayetteville’s actions to protect the threatened Arkansas Darter species. This agreement is currently being placed in outline form by U. S. Fish and Wildlife so that when the project is authorized by the City Council to move forward, the agreement may be developed as expeditiously as possible. Again, until the project is authorized by the Council it is premature to develop a plan of action based on construction or wetland preservation agreements that may not occur. Other unassociated construction activities on the project site such as the sewer line to the new sewer plant will be required to amend any plan developed as part of this project or if this project does not proceed, then to develop the conservation agreement for the sewer line project construction. Again any action to spend resources or funds to develop this agreement would seem to be premature.

7. There has been no public discussion of the relationship between the two 404 permit applications, i.e. the permit for the B & T park wetlands and the permit that will be required for the large sewer line that we understand will run through the B & T park area carrying sewage to the new Westside treatment plant. We do not believe it should be routed through or near a wetland. We believe further that the 404 permitting process now underway for the B & T Park wetlands mitigation will be invalid if the sewer line is to be run through these same wetlands. We request a map showing the proposed location of the sewer treatment line as well as clarification of the relationship of the two 404 permit applications.

Response: There have been numerous discussions with the Corps of Engineers, who are responsible for 404 permit review. Discussions have also been held between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife and the sewer line project team to make certain that their work is proceeding in a manner which addresses the concerns of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife. Yes, there will be a separate 404 permit for the entire sewer plant project. Yes, of course the wetland in the business park, which will be under the restrictions of the conservation easement, will be protected by means appropriate for sewer line construction. As these documents are developed they can be reviewed. The request is at this time premature until the Council has agreed to go forward with the business park project and the layout for Truckers Lane (also the most likely route for the sewer line) is designed.

Economy

8. The City has not presented any in-depth data about its prospects for the future of the project once the proposed mitigation and infrastructure have been completed. We request answers to the following questions about the economics and the future development of the "park":

Response: There have been many public comments concerning the purpose of this project. Some of those comments have been visionary; i.e., attempting to create an expanding business environment which can provide opportunities for job growth for the community’s young people, so that they will not need to move to Dallas, or Austin, or Kansas City or Chicago to find craft, technical, and professional jobs which pay a livable wage and better; some have been aesthetic; wanting Fayetteville’s exposure to the I-540 corridor to be as attractive and presentable as that of some of our neighbors to the north, such as Pinnacle Point in Rogers for example; some have been practical; wanting to create a development which truly represented the commitment of the City of Fayetteville and its citizens toward environmental preservation and balanced land development in a manner that benefited all parties and in a process that indicated the maturity of the community and its ability to resolve complex issues in an equitable and sincere process.

a. What is the purpose of the business technology park? How does the city benefit from its development?

Response: Perhaps the name of the project business and technology has created some confusion. Its purpose is to create job opportunities in a campus style business park environment. Those job opportunities will most likely come from office development, perhaps with software developers, or perhaps craftsmen or professionals involved with dental, or optical, or medical laboratories, or any number of existing employment opportunities that will offer jobs with livable and better wages to keep and attract the communities young people and graduates from the university. The benefits of this kind of business park seem self evident.

Additionally the purpose is to create a campus style development which will be competitive with quality and amenities to the most attractive and successful business developments along the I-540 corridor.

Perhaps the most significant purpose of this proposed project is the demonstration between the ecology and capital motivation, both working together to build a development that accomplishes the objective of enhancing environmental quality while creating a business park that not only accomplishes its objectives of appropriate job creation but also returns capital to the City for additional programs.

b. How is this project different from the other business parks in the region?

Response: This project is different from other business parks in the region in that is in Fayetteville. The City Administration is of the opinion that Fayetteville should be an attractive place for job creation, that even though we have the University, there remains a need to create a diversified economy, to capitalize upon the opportunities that exist within the region but at the same time create a unique opportunity for those businesses that want to grow and prosper in Fayetteville. Certainly there are other business parks in the region that offer many amenities. The Administration believes that this business park can match those amenities offered in other parks of the region and state and can offer other features which set it uniquely apart from the others. These features include its environmental design, it proximity to easily available redundant single mode fiber optic cable access, its campus atmosphere, and the availability of highly educated and talented human capital in the form of University graduates and teaching staff.

c. How is this project different from the nearby, privately developed CMN Business Park?

Response: The CMN Business Park is a highly successful development. Its focus to date has been toward retail activities. The focus of this project is toward business development, those opportunities will most likely come from office development, perhaps with software developers, or perhaps craftsmen or professionals involved with dental, or optical, or medical laboratories, or any number of existing employment opportunities that will offer jobs with livable and better wages to keep and attract the communities young people and graduates from the university. Certainly there are business opportunities which each of us can envision, but at the same time there are opportunities that have not yet been envisioned, this is the place that they can grow and develop and become a part of our community.

d. What type of businesses are you expecting to buy lots in the park (give specific examples)?

Response: The focus of this project is toward business development, those opportunities will most likely come from office development, perhaps with software developers, or perhaps craftsmen or professionals involved with dental, or optical, or medical laboratories, or any number of existing employment opportunities that will offer jobs with livable and better wages to keep and attract the communities young people and graduates from the university. Certainly there are business opportunities which each of us can envision, but at the same time there are opportunities that have not yet been envisioned, this is the place that they can grow and develop and become a part of our community.

e. What/where is your market? Is it growing, shrinking or staying the same?

Response: The market for this project is not fixed; it is and will constantly evolve even after build out. By the question it seems that there are those who think that Fayetteville is stuck in time and perhaps we have been in the past. This administration is now looking to the future and we feel that if Fayetteville is to continue to prosper, we must recognize (by looking at building permits, sales tax receipts, an other indicators of economic vitality) that we as a City may lose our dominance in the region, even with the University, if we do not create opportunities for job and business growth. Certainly we must be watchful of the jobs that we create to make certain that they provide a livable or better wage, but more, that they are the type of business enterprise that promotes the quality of life which does define Fayetteville.

f. How much will a lot cost per acre? How will that price compare to similar lots in Fayetteville (e.g., CMN, south industrial park, airport and Genesis), Bentonville, Rogers, Ft. Smith etc.?

Response: The cost per lot will be determined by the development appraisal currently being developed.

g. Is high bandwidth fiber optic cable (such as the type located near the B/T park), available elsewhere in the city/county/region/state?

Response: Various people have commented that the fiber optic cable which exists through the project area is outdated and will not be the state of the art communication system of the future. To be perfectly honest, I do not know what the our communication future will be. What those who do know have said is that the system in place can and will serve the communication needs of the tenants of this park for the foreseeable future. The cable in place is a redundant single mode fiber optic cable system that is a part of the overall system which serves the City of Fayetteville. While it may or may not have the capabilities to serve the unknown future, it currently is a part of the backbone fiber network serving Fayetteville, its businesses, its industry, and its residents. Convenient, nearby, easy access to this backbone would seem to be a significant attribute.

h. How much money does the city currently have to invest in the park? How much does the city expect to invest in the park by the time it is fully completed? What will be the major source(s) of public funding for the B/T Park?

i. What do you expect the average square foot costs to be for office space located in the park?

Response: That is unknown and will be determined by the individual developers who buy the lots and build the structures. Earlier analysis done by others anticipated 1,000,000 square feet of development on the first 122 acres developed. These improvements were expected to require a capital investment of at least $150,000,000.

j. How many square feet of new facilities are expected to be built in the park? How much of an investment (in dollars) will be required for a fully developed park (include buildings and infrastructure costs)?

Response: There is currently approximately $1.9 million budgeted for the first phase of the infrastructure development for the park. Approximately $700,000 of that is grant funds secured from the State. The most recent very preliminary engineering cost estimate is between $8 and $9 million. Funding for future phases for infrastructure development is expected to come from proceeds from the initial phase. The funding for phase 2 will be generated by the revenue generated from phase 1. Phase 3 and subsequent phases will be similar funded by preceding phases. The square footage build out will be determined by the individual developers who buy the lots and build the structures. Those costs will also be borne by them. Analysis done by others expects this build out cost to be in excess of $150,000,000 for the first 122 acres developed.

k. Is there a 5-year cash flow analysis for the B/T Park?

Response: Phase 1, with an approximate cost of $1.9 million will be built initially, with construction beginning in the winter of 2002-2003. Phase 2 will begin when funds from the sale of lots in Phase 1 are sufficient of cover the construction costs.

l. How many jobs do you expect the B/T Park to create? How much will the city invest for each job created? Is the cost/job within acceptable standards for a business park?

Response: The proposal at this time is for the project to be self supporting. If the project goes forward, the value of the property after infrastructure improvements will greater than the cost of the land and the construction costs. While some land may be discounted in order to generate appropriate development, the project should return all costs to the City. Analysis performed by others expects that the first 1,000,000 square feet of building space will provide jobs for approximately 2,500 people. That is 400 square feet per employee. The average individual salary is expected to be approximately $45,000. The benefit cost analysis, performed by others, anticipates that the cost per job will be approximately $3,600. They further found that this ratio is within acceptable standards typically embraced by State and Federal funding agencies.

m. What do you expect the average salary to be for employees working in the park?

Response: Analysis performed by others expects that the first 1,000,000 square feet of building space will provide jobs for approximately 2,500 people. That is 400 square feet per employee. The average individual salary is expected to be approximately $45,000.

n. Who will administer the design/building/management/marketing of the park? What are their qualifications?

Response: The development of the park design and construction will be managed by Gary Dumas, the City’s General Services Director. He has experience as a planner and public works director and has helped to guide projects through design, approval and construction. The management and marketing of the park, as each phase is constructed, will be Ray Boudreaux, the City’s Economic Developer and Airport Manager. He has held a similar position in another community.

o. How will you determine if the park is successful?

Response: Success will be determined by occupancy of the park by businesses that are contributing to the City of Fayetteville’s quality of life, businesses that are providing jobs that are paying a livable wage and better, business that at helping the community retain its youth, businesses that are capitalizing upon the assets of the University, businesses that are proud to be a integral part of the regions first environment business park. Additionally success will be measured in the positive cash flow of phases 1 and 2 and the initiation of construction on Phase 3 within 5 years.

9. Public Process

We have requested on several occasions that the City clearly define a process to engage interested parties from the public sector to be involved in further planning of this project. We reiterate this request.

Response: There have been two public meetings on this project in the Town Center this year, there have been numerous discussions before the City Council, at the City Council’s request. Members of the environmental community were included in two planning meetings where the final wetland impact was resolved and where their input was sought and included in that design, there have been three meetings on the site where a variety of features have been discussed and where with some discussion an apparent nesting area for the Henslow Sparrow is proposed to be preserved.

Five months ago, at the initiation of this projects rebirth, approximately 45 acres of wetland were to be disturbed within a typical business subdivision using typical design and construction techniques, through much review and research and public discussion, such items as permeable pavement for parking lots, drainage swales, rain gardens, minimal underground drainage, and a reduction of wetland impact to approximately 17 acres is now being considered. At some point the project must move forward or Fayetteville can truly claim the moniker of “most difficult town to develop in.” I do not want that legacy; rather I would prefer the legacy of “Fayetteville, environmentally aware, balancing the needs of the environment and business growth with a common sense approach to problem solving”.