LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: July 16, 2019

File photo

On the agenda…

  • Removing a tree preservation easement on MLK Jr. Boulevard.
  • Encouraging dismissal of misdemeanor marijuana possession charges.
  • Regulating e-scooters.
  • Three rezoning proposals on West Avenue, Huntsville Road and Broyles Avenue.
  • Changing the notification requirements for property changes.
  • Studying ways to make short-term rentals legal.
  • Changing the lot width of the NC zoning district.
  • Changing the street design and access management standards.

» Download the full agenda

A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council began at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, July 16, 2019 inside room 219 of City Hall, located at 113 W. Mountain St. in Fayetteville.

Listed below are the items up for approval and links to PDF documents with detailed information on each item of business.


Roll Call

Present: Sonia Gutierrez, Sarah Marsh, Mark Kinion, Matthew Petty, Mayor Lioneld Jordan, Sloan Scroggin, Sarah Bunch, Teresa Turk, Kyle Smith
Absent: None

» View current attendance records


City Council Meeting Presentations, Reports and Discussion Items

1. Monthly Financial Report – Finance Director Paul Becker


Consent

Consent items are approved in a single, all-inclusive vote unless an item is pulled by a council member at the beginning of the meeting.

1. Approval of the June 18, 2019 and July 2, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes
Pass 8-0

2. Community Development Block Grant (Details): A resolution to approve the 2019 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, to authorize Mayor Jordan to execute the CDBG agreement for 2019 in the amount of $702,439.00 when received, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0

3. Community Development Block Grant Program Income (Details): A resolution to approve a budget adjustment in the total amount of $2,047.00 representing Community Development Block Grant program income received from a lien payoff and donations from citizens and local businesses.
Pass 8-0

4. RFP 19-29 American Soccer Company Inc. d/b/a Score Sports (Details): A resolution to award RFP 19-29 and authorize a contract for the purchase of youth soccer uniforms from American Soccer Company Inc. d/b/a Score Sports in the amount of $12.10 plus applicable taxes per uniform for the fall 2019 and spring 2020 seasons with an option to renew for up to four additional one-year terms.
Pass 8-0

5. Crossland Construction Company, Inc. Change Order No. 4 (Details): A resolution to approve Change Order No. 4 to the contract with Crossland Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $2,575,959.00 for additional trade packages associated with the Fayetteville Public Library Expansion Project, and to approve a project contingency of 14.5% to be held by the Fayetteville Public Library.
Pass 8-0

6. Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Crafton, Tull & Associates, Inc., pursuant to RFQ #19-01, in the total amount of $110,400.00 for street, drainage and waterline design services for a portion of the Rupple Road Project.
Pass 8-0

7. McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., pursuant to RFQ #14-01, in the total amount of $167,610.00 for updated street, drainage and water line design services for the Zion Road – Vantage to Crossover Project.
Pass 8-0

8. Arkansas Historic Preservation Program (Details): A resolution to authorize a contract with the Arkansas Historic Preservation Program for acceptance of a certified local government grant in the amount of $790.00 to pay for travel and training expenses, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0

9. Multi-craft Contractors, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a contract with Multi-craft Contractors, Inc., pursuant to Resolution 163-16, for repairs to the drainage system at the City Transfer Station in the amount of $67,364.00, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $6,124.00.
Pass 8-0

10. Automatic Engineering (Details): A resolution to accept a quote in the amount of $16,537.39 plus applicable taxes and freight charges from Automatic Engineering for the replacement of a mixer used at the Paul R. Noland Wastewater Treatment Facility, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0


Unfinished Business

1. Tree Preservation Easement (Details)

A resolution to approve the vacation and abolishment of a tree preservation easement dedicated as part of the large-scale development for the construction of the JD China restaurant on Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard in 2001, contingent on the dedication of two replacement tree preservation easements totaling approximately 1 acre.
Tabled 8-0

Background:
This item was tabled on June 18.

The request comes after last year’s failed vacation of a tree preservation easement on the same property.

A tree preservation easement was created in 2001 when JD China was built. After the restaurant closed in 2016, the owners requested (and were approved for) a lot split that created two parcels. One lot included 1.09 acres and was sold to Raising Cane’s to build a new restaurant. The remaining 0.67-acre lot is almost entirely covered in the tree preservation area required when JD China was built.

The applicant last year wanted to abolish the remaining tree preservation to facilitate the sale of the remaining lot, but city staff said approving this request would set a precedent that would allow property owners to utilize lot splits to thwart tree preservation requirements and then later vacate the tree preservation easement allowing sale of the parcel. The council agreed, and voted to deny the request.

This new proposal has support from city staff. While it would provide the same vacation (0.67 acres with 0.38 acres of tree canopy), it would offer the city two new tree preservation easements (0.95 acres with 0.85 acres of tree canopy) on the west side of town adjacent to Harmony Point Park (see attachment). Staff pointed out that the new easements offer over twice the size of the existing easement’s tree canopy. Staff said the new easements offer more environmental services to the city than the existing easement, which is why they are in favor of the request.

June 4 Discussion:
Council member Kinion said considering the history of this property and the owner’s requests, he thinks this request is just “more monkey business.” He questioned the meaningfulness of the trade offer, and said he doesn’t think the two new easements offered could even be developed on anyway. “It’s an issue where there was a promise made when the property was being developed and now we’re being asked to go back on that promise.” He said he won’t support the request.

Council member Scroggin agreed, and said it’s not clear whether the two new easements are developable, but it’s almost certain if the old easement is vacated, the trees will soon be removed and the property will be developed. “There’s just not a lot of trees left on MLK,” he said.

Council member Bunch said she’s not convinced the two new easements are a better deal for the city.

Council member Marsh suggested tabling the request to give the council a chance to go and look at the properties.

Mayor Jordan said personally, he’s not in favor of the request. He said a promise was made about the trees on this property and he believes it should be honored.

The council voted unanimously to table the item until the next regular meeting. The discussion will continue on June 18.

June 18 Discussion:
Staff said the applicant has now included two new tree easements as well as offered to pay additional funds into the tree preservation fund.

The applicant asked the council to table the issue until July 16 to allow more time to firm up the new offer. The council agreed.

July 16 Discussion:
The applicant requested the item be tabled to allow more time to develop a potential new proposal.

City staff put together a document (see below) which shows what City Council members said they would prefer for the site after a recent visit to the area. It includes preserving a portion of the current tree easement, while removing some trees to allow for development of the property.

Here is that document:

The applicant is expected to develop a counter proposal to this document, and the discussion will continue when that proposal is complete.


2. City Prosecutor Powers (Details)

An ordinance to amend 31.45(C) Duties of the Fayetteville City Code to affirm that the City Prosecutor has the traditional inherent power to exercise discretion to dismiss most misdemeanor criminal cases.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was sponsored by Council Member Mark Kinion. It was left on the first reading on July 2.

It is a clarifying amendment to the section of the city code detailing the duties of the legal department including the city prosecutor. Although prosecutors have traditional inherent discretionary powers to dismiss cases that should not be further prosecuted, that discretion is not currently reflected in the Fayetteville City Code.

City Attorney Kit Williams said this clarification is needed to recognize those discretionary powers especially for cases of simple possession of marijuana of less than an ounce for private, personal, adult use.

July 2 Discussion:
Kinion said he brought it forward because he thinks it’s important that the City Council makes it clear that they want small marijuana cases to be a low priority when it comes to enforcement. He said this is in response to recently released statistics from a local group that show a higher than expected amount of marijuana arrests in recent years, despite a 2008 ordinance that intended to make minor marijuana possession a low priority.

The new language states that the City Council encourages the use of discretionary power by the City Prosecutor “to ensure that appropriate cases of simple possession of less than one ounce of marijuana for personal, private, adult use be considered for dismissal.”

Council Member Matthew Petty said he thinks this is a good idea, but hopes the council goes even further in trying to address this issue.

“It’s one thing to give the prosecutor the ability to dismiss cases and not put forward further penalties, but it’s another thing to correct the excessive issuing of citations and having disparities in the issuance of citations,” Petty said.

Petty also suggested amending the language to mirror state law misdemeanor possession amounts (less than 4 ounces) by replacing the words “…simple possession of less than one ounce of marijuana…” with “…misdemeanor possession of marijuana…” so as not to limit the prosecutor to cases that only involve less than one ounce.

The amendment passed unanimously.

Some residents who spoke during public comment said the ordinance should go further by instructing the prosecutor to ignore or dismiss all misdemeanor possession of marijuana charges. Williams advised against those suggestions and said it is a violation of state law to willfully ignore statutes. He said this current ordinance is as far as the city is legally allowed to go with this matter.

Kinion suggested holding the item on the first reading to allow the public more time to weigh in. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on July 16.

July 16 Discussion
Four people spoke during public comment, including NWA NAACP branch president Monique Jones and former Benton County Circuit Judge Jon Comstock.

The two said it’s important to heavily consider dismissal of charges for youth who are low-level offenders, particularly because of studies that have shown the trajectory of a young person’s life can be altered dramatically by a conviction, even if it’s a low-level offense.

Petty said he hopes the city’s leadership can use the data that was recently unveiled as a lens in which to study the deep inherent biases that lead to a racial disproportionality in the number of low-level arrests and prosecutions in Fayetteville.

Mayor Jordan said he apologizes to anyone in this city who has ever felt marginalized or discriminated against. He said he’s spent most of his life fighting for equality, diversity and inclusion.

“I can’t always fix the past,” Jordan said. “But I can guarantee you that I can commit to ensure that this city does not ever sponsor systems that support any type of inequality.”

He said he believes the city’s police officers do a good job of avoiding racial profiling while working 12-hour days and risking their lives in the process. But, he said, he has asked the police chief to deliver a full report of marijuana arrest statistics to the council next week.

“Should we ever find inappropriate behavior, I can assure you we will take appropriate action to correct it,” he said.

Decision
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.


3. Enact Chapter 75 Electric Motorized Scooters and Scooter-share Programs (Details)

An ordinance to enact Chapter 75 Electric Motorized Scooters and Scooter-share Programs.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was left on the first reading on July 2.

A new state law requires Arkansas cities to allow electric scooter companies to set up shop on public property. While the companies cannot be stopped from operating, the new law does allow cities to establish “reasonable standards, rules, or regulations” regarding the use of e-scooters and how the provider companies operate.

This ordinance would establish those regulations, which include:

– Limiting the total amount of e-scooters that could operate within the city to 1,000.
– Creating a permit process to require each vendor to pay a $150 fee plus $20 per scooter every six months. Vendors would be limited to 250 scooters, but could increase their total to 500 after the initial six-month permit period ends.
– Prohibiting users from riding e-scooters on sidewalks that a building faces.
– Requiring e-scooters to be parked in a way that doesn’t impede pedestrian or vehicular traffic, and that doesn’t interfere with the Americans with Disabilities Act. They must be parked standing upright, and must not block transit shelters, commercial loading zones, railroad tracks, passenger loading zones, disability parking, street furniture, building entryways or vehicle driveways.
– Limiting the per-minute charge to be no greater than one-fifth of the unlock charge.
– Requiring vendors to provide access to the e-scooters to residents who don’t own a smart phone.
– Requiring the e-scooters to be equipped with GPS technology that allows no-ride and slow-ride zones.

For more information about this, see our story from June 27.

July 2 Discussion:
Council Member Sarah Bunch said she’d like to ensure that the batteries from the e-scooters are recycled when they can no longer be charged. City staff said the ordinance does require the companies to have a battery recycling policy in place.

Bunch also proposed limiting the number of total scooters allowed to 500.

Scroggin said he’s concerned about inadvertently creating a monopoly by only allowing a certain amount of scooters and then having one company fill that maximum amount. Bunch suggested the number be revisited in six months and possibly again after 12 months.

Petty said he’d like to start with the 1,000 number that staff recommended since it’s not always easy to revisit and change a law after it’s implemented. He said maybe an automatic adjustment system could be implemented that’s based on usage numbers.

Council member Turk said the city needs to go slow in the process, and said she’s in favor of Bunch’s suggestion to lower the maximum amount of scooters allowed.

City staff said since there’s still one more council meeting before the state law goes into effect, the council could wait another two weeks before making a decision if more time is needed to fine-tune the ordinance.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on July 16.

July 16 Discussion
After the previous meeting, staff proposed an amendment that includes a few changes, the biggest would be to reduce the maximum amount of scooters allowed in the city from 1,000 to 500 during the first six months of the program, and provide some guidance on when and how that number could be increased.

The council passed that amendment 7-1 (Smith voted against, but didn’t say why).

Turk moved to amend the total number of scooters to 250. “I’d prefer that we start really slow so we can make our mistakes and then correct them,” she said. “There’s ample evidence that so many cities…have had issues with (e-scooters).” Turk’s motion did not receive a second.

Turk suggested requiring e-scooter users to wear a bicycle helmet. Marsh said she’s not in support of that – partially because not even motorcycle users are required to wear helmets in Arkansas. But also because she said e-scooters are sometimes a “last-mile” benefit to people who are using public transport, and this amendment would require people to carry helmets around with them all the time in case they want to rent a scooter after they get off a bus. Marsh said she’d rather not put up barriers that would hinder the success of the program.

Bunch agreed, and said the city also doesn’t require helmets for the bike share program.

Smith said as a cyclist, it’s hard for him to vote against the helmet requirement amendment for e-scooters, since he knows the importance of wearing a helmet. But he said one of the goals of the program is to get more people out of cars and that the fewer obstacles the city builds the better. He said he knows there have been some injuries with e-scooters, but when put in perspective, the number of incidents are much lower than those involving vehicles.

The helmet amendment failed 3-5 with only Kinion, Turk and Gutierrez voting in favor.

Turk’s third proposed amendment was to require e-scooter companies to provide a certificate of insurance prior to receiving an operating permit (the language perviously wasn’t as specific on the timing). That amendment passed 8-0.

Decision
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. The council also voted 8-0 to adopt an emergency clause so the ordinance goes into effect immediately (this is because the state law allowing scooters goes into effect next week).


4. RZN 19-6666 (119 & 127 S. West St./Canfield) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6666 for approximately 0.40 acres located at 119 and 127 S. West Avenue from NC, Neighborhood Conservation to MSC, Main Street/Center.
Left on the second reading

Background:
This item was left on the first reading on July 2.

The properties are located on the west side of West Avenue between Mountain Street to the north and South Street to the south. Both properties are developed with single-family homes. In 2004, the property was rezoned to NC, Neighborhood Conservation, as a part of the Downtown Master Plan.

The applicant has stated that the MSC, Main Street/Center rezoning is necessary to expand the development options of the property, including the potential for an art gallery, office, restaurant, or bar. While the current NC zoning district does allow for small offices, restaurants, and retail as conditional uses, there is no allowance for bars.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the rezoning.

Location:

July 2 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk suggested holding the item on the first reading to allow for more time for public comment. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on July 16.

July 16 Discussion:
There has been some concern expressed over the allowed height of buildings in the requested zoning district. The applicant said he’s willing to submit a Bill of Assurance to limit any development that occurs within the 25-foot build-to area to not exceed three stories.

The council agreed to hold the item on the second reading to allow the applicant time to file the Bill of Assurance with the Planning Department. The discussion will continue on Aug. 6.


New Business

1. Amend Chapter 173 Building Regulations (Details)

An ordinance to amend Chapter 173 Building Regulations of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to align the city’s building regulations with current building codes and eliminate unnecessary requirements that have little or no impact on the quality or safety of buildings within the city.
Pass 8-0

Background:
Chapter 173 Building Regulations is now over 20 years old and city staff said it’s in need of updating. With only minor modifications since it was adopted in 1998, many provisions are outdated or no longer useful in the administration of building codes and permits, staff said. The proposed revisions are an attempt to align the city’s ordinances with current building codes where possible and to eliminate unnecessary requirements that have little impact on the quality of the built environment within the city. Click here for the agenda item packet which shows language that was removed (red text) or added (blue text).

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.


2. Amend §161.29 Neighborhood Conservation (Details)

An ordinance to amend §161.29 Neighborhood Conservation of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to change the lot width minimum for all dwelling types to 40 feet.
Left on the first reading

Background:
This proposal would modify the lot width of the NC, Neighborhood Conservation zoning district. Currently, the district has a much larger lot width for attached dwellings than single-family detached dwellings. Staff said this criteria can lead to attached dwellings being wider, taller, and having obviously more parking than single-family dwellings. Staff said the larger lot width encourages developers of smaller, attached dwellings to rezone NC property to a higher tier district with a narrower lot width. However, these higher tier re-zonings in the midst of NC districts could allow development that may be out of scale and context with surrounding dwellings. Districts with the same lot width across dwelling types, staff said, allow attached dwelling to be built on a similar scale as a single-family dwelling.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Marsh said it’s a good change that would allow multi-family homes to blend in with single-family dwellings without being so obvious.

Turk said it’s a big change that needs more time for evaluation from the public, and suggested holding the ordinance on the first reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Aug. 6.


3. Amend Chapter 166.08, Street Design and Access Management Standards (Details)

An ordinance to amend Chapter 166.08, Street Design and Access Management Standards of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to modify the applicability, access management, and nonconforming access features regulations to remove barriers that discourage renovation and improvement of existing structures.
Pass 8-0

Background:
The proposed code changes would modify the applicability, access management, and nonconforming access features subsections of city code. Staff said over the last several years, the city has heard from property owners, developers, staff, Planning Commission, and City Council, that the access management portion of the Unified Development Code is too strict and discourages renovation and improvements to existing structures. The code is written such that existing curb cuts that cannot be brought into compliance must go through a Planning Commission variance process. Staff said this results in unnecessary delays in many cases because there is no feasible alternative to the existing curb cuts, and the variance must be approved because of a legal right of a property to access adjacent streets. In the last year, the Planning Commission has started putting most of the access management variances on their consent agenda.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance.


4. Amend §72.18, Residential Parking Permit Program for the Entertainment District Parking Zone (Details)

An ordinance to amend §72.18, Residential Parking Permit Program for the Entertainment District Parking Zone of the Fayetteville City Code to convert portions of restricted residential-only parking along Locust Avenue and Lafayette Street and portions of paid-only on-street parking along Vandeventer Avenue, Lafayette Street, and Church Avenue to mixed-use parking areas.
Left on the first reading

Background:
This item refers to the residential parking spaces in the Entertainment District that are currently only available for residents with a parking pass.

Staff said while several residential streets see high utilization for residential parking, others do not. Two that see particularly low utilization from residents are Locust Avenue between Spring Street and Center Street, and Lafayette Street between Campbell Avenue and Forest Avenue. Those streets have a few businesses on them and it’s an issue for employees who cannot park near their workplace.

The proposal is to convert those two street segment parking spaces to mixed-use (paid parking and residential permit). Also proposed is to convert the following paid parking street segments to mixed-use: Vandeventer Avenue between Lafayette Street and Maple Street; Lafayette Street between West Avenue and Campbell Avenue; and Church Avenue between Dickson Street and Meadow Street.

Staff said converting the two street segments with residential parking spaces to mixed-use would result in over 70 more spaces for people to park when visiting the Entertainment District without any anticipated effect on residents. With the additional three paid parking streets included in the proposal, the change would add over 50 spaces where residential permits are valid.

Discussion:
Petty and Kinion said they’ve received phone calls and emails from people who are curious or skeptical about the proposed changes. They said they’re both in favor of holding this item on the first reading to allow for more public comment.

One resident who lives on Lafayette Street said she’s concerned about potentially losing residential parking spaces in front of her house, and asked the council to consider stopping the mixed-use changes at Mock Avenue instead of continuing them all the way to Forest Avenue.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Aug. 6.


5. RZN 19-6696 (1960 E. Huntsville Rd./Tripodi-Quinn) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6696 for approximately 0.28 acres located at 1960 E. Huntsville Road from RSF-4, Residential Single Family, 4 units per acre to NS-G, Neighborhood Services-General.
Pass 5-2

Background:
Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the rezoning.

The property is developed with a single-family dwelling. The applicant indicated the rezoning is needed to allow use of the property for a professional counseling services office. While the current zoning district does allow small nonresidential uses, a conditional use permit must first be obtained, and the size of the existing building limits the allowed activities of potential users.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk said she’d like to hold the item on the first reading until the next meeting to allow for more public comment. Marsh said she hasn’t received any comments from constituents, and reminded the council that the applicant is only asking to amend the use of an existing structure. Scroggin moved to advance the item to the second reading.

The council advanced the ordinance to the third reading, and passed it 5-2 (Bunch and Turk voted against the rezoning, but neither said why, and Kinion was not in the room during the vote).


6. RZN 19-6703 (535 S. Broyles Ave./Woolsey Farm) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6703 for approximately 30.17 acres located at 535 S. Broyles Ave. from R-A, Residential Agricultural to P-1, Institutional.
Pass 7-0

Background:
Both the Planning Commission and city staff recommend approval of the rezoning.

The property is currently developed with a historic farmstead dating back to the 1840’s called Woolsey Farm. The city is requesting the rezoning with a goal to turn the old farmhouse and accessory structures into a teaching farm and park.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted 7-0 to approve the ordinance (Kinion was not in the room during the vote).


7. Amend Chapter 157, Notification and Public Hearings (Details)

An ordinance to amend Chapter 157, Notification and Public Hearings of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code by expanding the notification requirements for public hearings on applications for developments, annexations, zoning map amendments, conditional use permits, zoning variances, and large site improvement plans.
Left on the first reading

Background:
When changes are proposed to properties, the current law requires the city to notify the adjacent property owners about the proposal. This ordinance would change the language to require the city to notify all landowners within 200 feet of the property. Staff said in many instances, impacts of proposed land use changes affect property owners beyond those immediately adjacent on which the change is requested. Staff said a 200-foot radius notice requirement is common practice with peer communities and results in significantly more property owners notified.

Discussion:
Petty asked why the notifications are limited solely to property owners, when many people affected by changes are renters. He suggested sending notices to everyone who lives nearby instead of just the property owners.

Staff said apartment buildings could be problematic because the notifications are sent using certified mail and it’s unclear how the city would obtain the names of all the nearby tenants, especially in a large apartment complex. Petty suggested just sending the notification to the addresses without including the names of the tenants. Smith, Marsh and Kinion said they support Petty’s suggestions. Gutierrez and Scroggin also agreed.

It was also suggested by a city staff member to consider factoring in street width so as not to overlook residents who live across the street from a property with proposed changes if the street is very wide (like Crossover Road which has four lanes separated by a median).

The ordinance was left on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Aug. 6.


8. Short Term Rentals (Details)

A resolution to request that city staff study and develop an ordinance to regulate short-term rentals in the City of Fayetteville.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This resolution would authorize city staff to explore ways to make short-term rentals legal within the city limits. Currently, most short-term rentals are in violation of city code. Staff said fitting those operations into the city’s lawbook would:

  • Increase sales tax
  • Reduce noise, parking, traffic and trash problems in neighborhoods
  • Ensure a level playing field between traditional homes, hotels, and illegal short-term
    rentals
  • Eliminate party houses
  • Ensure building safety
  • Improve city responsiveness to neighbor complaints
  • Send a clear message to citizens that the city takes short-term rental problems seriously

Staff said most short-term rentals operate seamlessly without any problems, but there are a few bad actors. They said the current situation is also unfair to hotel owners who’ve made significant investments in the city and who deal with safety inspections and pay sales tax.

Staff said meetings would need to occur with several stakeholder groups during the exploration process, as well as studying regulations that other cities have implemented. It likely would be next year before any firm proposal is completed and ready for the council to consider.

Discussion:
Smith said he’s excited to support a study, and that regulations are needed for short-term rentals. He said short-term rentals affect housing affordability, and he hopes the city considers using revenue generated from the program to put toward fighting homelessness.

Marsh said she knows of some affordable homes that have been taken off the market because they’re now being used as short-term rentals. But on the other hand, she said, renting out those homes has provided some financial stability for the property owners, and improves tourism opportunities in Fayetteville. She said all of those factors need to be considered when drafting regulations.

Decision:
The council passed the resolution unanimously.



Adjourned

This meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m.