LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Nov. 5, 2019

File photo

On the agenda…

  • Changes to the residential parking plan near Wilson Park.
  • Changes to allowed driveway widths in form-based zoning districts with a front build-to zone.
  • Banning food service providers from using foam products.
  • Three rezoning requests.
  • Providing two additional School Resource Officers to the school district.
  • Continued study of a possible stormwater utility fee.
  • Exempting homeless shelters from building permit fees and other costs.

» Download the full agenda

A meeting of the Fayetteville City Council began at 5:30 p.m. Tuesday, Nov. 5, 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 Guierrez, 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. Fayetteville Citizen Recognition – The Fayetteville Fire Department would like to recognize 12-year-old Jacoby Gipson for his quick thinking, his bravery and courage in the face of an emergency structure fire at 6321 W. El Paso Street on the morning of Aug. 17, 2019. Jacoby’s actions were valiant and they without a doubt saved his life, along with the family dog.


2. Monthly Financial Report – 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 Oct. 1, 2019 City Council Meeting Minutes
Pass 8-0

2. 2020 T-Hangar Lease Agreements (Details): A resolution to approve T-hangar lease agreements in 2020 at the current rental rate or as adjusted upward by the Airport Board for all T-hangars rented at the Fayetteville Executive Airport.
Pass 8-0

3. Superior Chevrolet (Details): A resolution to approve the purchase of a Dodge Ram 1500 Quad Cab 4×4 truck from Superior Chevrolet of Siloam Springs in the amount of $22,434.00, pursuant to a state procurement contract, for use by the Water and Sewer Operations Division.
Pass 8-0

4. RFQ 19-01 McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc. (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with McClelland Consulting Engineers, Inc., pursuant to RFQ #19-01, in the amount of $92,200.00.00 for the design of the West Center Street and North Harmon Avenue intersection, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0

5. Garver, LLC (Details): A resolution to approve a professional engineering services agreement with Garver, LLC, pursuant to RFQ #19-01, in the amount of $87,200.00 to provide a conceptual study and design of an Interstate 49 overpass at 15th Street.
Pass 8-0

6. Arkansas Department of Transportation Highway 16 Easement (Details): A resolution to authorize Mayor Jordan to sell approximately 2,621 square feet of city property and convey a 124-square-foot temporary construction easement along Highway 16 to the Arkansas Department of Transportation for the Highway 16 (South School to Armstrong) project for the total amount of $1,225.00.
Pass 8-0

7. Bid #19-39 JBZ,Inc. d/b/a Ellingson Contracting (Details): A resolution to award Bid #19-39 and authorize a contract with JBZ,Inc. d/b/a Ellingson Contracting in the amount of $329,299.00 for Phase 1 of the restoration and reconstruction of the Woolsey Farmstead, to approve Change Order No. 1 reflecting value engineering items and reducing the total contract amount to $279,099.00, and to approve a project contingency in the amount of $15,000.00.
Pass 8-0

8. Grasshopper Construction, LLC (Details): A resolution to award Bid # 62123-1902 and authorize a contract with Grasshopper Construction, LLC in the amount of $29,993.37 for Community Development Block Grant rehabilitation of an eligible residence located at 306 Ella Street.
Pass 8-0

9. Community Access Television, Inc. d/b/a Your Media (Details): A resolution to approve a renewal of the contract with Community Access Television, Inc. d/b/a Your Media in the amount of $170,095.00 for the provision of public access television services and the operation of the public access television channel through 2020, contingent on approval of the 2020 annual city budget and work program.
Pass 8-0

10. Christina Mere Access Easement (Details): A resolution to authorize Mayor Jordan to sell approximately 223 square feet of city property and convey an access easement of about 701 square feet adjacent to the west boundary of property located at 93 S. West Ave. to Christina Mere for $1,215.00.
Pass 8-0


Unfinished Business

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

An ordinance to amend §72.18, Residential Parking Permit Program for the Entertainment District Parking Zone of the Fayetteville City Code to expand residential-only parking in the north zone of the Entertainment District Parking Zone.
Tabled 7-1 until Nov. 19

Background:
This item was tabled after its third reading at the Oct. 1 meeting.

This was proposed by Council Member Mark Kinion.

Kinion said now that the sororities adjoining Ila Street have been expanded, the number of sorority members attending meals and meetings has increased, which has placed increased parking burdens on the nearby residential streets. Kinion has proposed to expand the Residential Parking Permit area to an additional block on Ila Street and two blocks on Vandeventer Avenue to give residents more places to park near their homes.

Aug. 20 Discussion:
The neighbors say the student apartment complexes that were recently built, and sorority homes that were recently expanded have led to a lot of people parking in the nearby neighborhoods, some who park on the wrong side of the roads and others who block driveways and intersections.

Kinion said he lives in this particular neighborhood and he can attest to what the neighbors are saying. He said the issue has exploded recently, and has led to a host of issues. He said it’s not uncommon for residents to miss out on getting their trash bins emptied because of the parking issues on the streets.

Residents who spoke about this suggested adding more streets to the program, such as Louise Street from Wilson Avenue to Park Avenue. Others said adding a new street to the program won’t solve the issue, but will just push the problems further to the next street over.

Petty said the proposal could be too broad, and spoke in support for potentially implemented paid parking spaces that residents could purchase, as was suggested by some neighbors. He said he’s worried about expanding the residential area too close to Wilson Park, which a lot of the public uses.

Some have asked that this item not be voted on tonight in order to allow more time to work through this issue. Mayor Jordan said he doesn’t expect a final vote tonight.

The council agreed to hold the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 3.

Sept. 3 Discussion:
Kinion said he doesn’t think any of the problems the students create are intentional, but rather a consequence of a lack of planning. He said the sorority houses host events with up to 600 attendees and it leads to cars being parked illegally in many ways – including vehicles in people’s lawns. He called the current situation “chaos” and said something must be done to address it.

Kinion said he doesn’t want to vilify any of the university students who park in the neighborhood.

“They’re not the ones who caused this problem,” he said. “They are the ones who are having to deal with this just as we are.”

Council member Turk suggested creating a special district for this area that has its own rules. Petty agreed, and said he hopes this area could be designated as what is called a parking benefits district in which residents are given some measure of control and authority over the parking in their neighborhood.

Council members Marsh and Smith agreed with Petty and said there are probably some good models in other cities that Fayetteville could look to for ideas on how to craft rules for a new district.

Staff agreed to look into ways in which a new district could be created, including the possibility of implementing paid parking, residential parking passes, etc.

One resident who spoke, said the problems are persistent and aren’t limited to just the sorority houses. Parking issues also arise on Sunday mornings during University Baptist Church services, he said.

Several other residents said they’d like to see paid parking implemented in their neighborhood.

City Attorney Kit Williams suggested tabling the item at least until the first meeting in October to allow staff time to work through all the details needed to create a district.

The council agreed, and voted unanimously to table the discussion until Oct. 1.

Oct. 1 Discussion
Staff said they examined four options, including 1) keeping things the same, 2) expanding the current residential program that exists in the Dickson Street Entertainment District, 3) installing “Resident Parking Only” signage, and the creation of a new shared residential parking program.

Staff said they’re recommending the fourth option, but they’d like some guidance from the council before any official proposal is made. Meetings with residents and the sororities would also be appropriate before drafting a plan.

Staff said the new program could include no-cost permits for residents and an hourly rate for non-permit holders. Permits could be issued based upon the land parcel size with additional permits available to the larger parcels of land. An example formula was presented that showed each land parcel 10,000 square feet or less receiving two permits. Land parcels larger than 10,000 square feet could be eligible for 1 additional permit for every 5,000 square feet of land area greater than 10,000 square feet.

Council Member Teresa Turk said since a program like this would likely result in a financial deficit for the city (based on usage and expected income from hourly fees), she’d like to see some ideas on how the city could recoup at least the cost of the program. She suggested a small annual permit fee of about $10-$20.

Staff presented this map of the proposed area for the new program (click to enlarge):

During public comment, the reaction to the idea was mixed. Some said the sorority parcels would be eligible for more permits since they’re so large, which could lead to more of the same issues. One person said the answer to the problem could be making the area a complete paid parking district, which could level the playing field.

Council members Scroggin and Marsh said they favor some type of shared-use parking program. They said the entire area shouldn’t be reserved for residents since the streets are public property and at least some of the parking should be made available to the entire public.

Scroggin also said the council should take some caution against an aggressive move like converting the entire area to residential parking. He said if the university needs parking for the sorority homes, it’s possible the state could use eminent domain to take private property from the neighborhood and use it to build a parking lot.

Council Member Kinion disagreed and said the area is a residential neighborhood first and foremost. He criticized Scroggin’s idea and said the sorority members are more wealthy than the residents, meaning if the fees were increased incrementally, the residents could eventually be priced out of their own neighborhood.

Council Member Smith said he’d like to see an alternate formula considered, possibly one that uses structure size and not land parcel size.

Turk said she’d like to see the entire area be reserved for residential parking. She said it’s one of the oldest established neighborhoods in town and it has been encroached upon for years by the growth of the university. “Eventually we have to say ‘enough is enough,'” she said.

Council Member Bunch agreed, and said she’ll also side with the neighbors. She said making the area residential-only would not only be protecting the parking in the neighborhood, but would also help protect the integrity of the neighborhood. She said she was on the Planning Commission when the Pi Phi house was approved, but the conversations about compatibility were centered around how many girls would be living in the house, not about all the special events the houses would host.

Kinion agreed and said in his discussions with sorority officials, it was never mentioned that the houses would host dinners and events in which hundreds of girls would come to the houses and need to park throughout the neighborhood.

Petty said he doesn’t like the idea of a program that doesn’t pay for itself, as was presented earlier. He said he’d like to explore the idea of paid parking in the area, partially because he believes Scroggin’s comments about the state potentially using eminent domain to build a parking lot are entirely possible.

City Attorney Kit Williams said the ordinance should be sent to the council’s Ordinance Review Committee so the details can be worked out before the full council makes a decision.

The council voted to table the discussion until Nov. 5 to give the committee time to formulate a proposal.

Nov. 5 Discussion:
Kinion said the neighbors want the entire area to be designated as residential-only parking, and that considering any other solution to the problem is “totally irresponsible.” He suggested passing the ordinance tonight and then considering other alternatives later if the original proposal doesn’t work.

Petty said he still thinks the Ordinance Review Committee should take the issue up at the next meeting tomorrow (Nov. 6) before the council makes a final decision. He said the council’s responsibility is to address everyone who has an interest in the streets surrounding Wilson Park, which includes more than just the residents who live in the area. He moved to table the item until Nov. 19.

Marsh seconded the motion to table. She said the streets belong to the entire public and she can’t vote to restrict parking to only the people who own houses on those streets.

Turk said the lack of responsibility by the university and sororities to address this issue is disappointing. With that in mind, she said the residents in that neighborhood should get priority in any solution to this problem.

Smith said although the university created this problem, he doesn’t have faith that they could or would fix it. It’s now the city’s responsibility to solve the issue, he said, and taking the issue up at the Ordinance Review Committee is the best way to do that. He said he believes a reasonable solution can be reached – one that could include designating at least two on-street parking spaces for each of the 77 homes in the area.

The council voted 7-1 to table the item until Nov. 19. Kinion voted against.


2. Amend §172.11 and § 166.08 (Details)

An ordinance to amend §172.11, Driveway and Parking Standards for four (4) or less parking spaces and § 166.08 Street Design and Access Management Standards of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to reduce driveway widths in zoning districts requiring a build-to zone and to reduce driveway setbacks for single-family homes in zoning districts requiring a build-to zone.
Fail 4-4

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Oct. 15 meeting.

Council members Sarah Marsh, Kyle Smith, Matthew Petty and Sloan Scroggin sponsored this proposal, which would reduce driveway widths in the front of a home in a form-based zoning district that require buildings to be within a certain range of the road. In those specific districts, the proposal limits driveway widths to the greater of 10 feet or 20% of the lot width.

Discussion:
A petition was recently circulated stating that the proposal would be the end of 2-car driveways and garages in Fayetteville, but Smith said there are several ways builders could still construct 2-car garages under the new rules. For example, he said the limitation on driveway width only applies within the front build-to zone, meaning beyond that, a driveway could be bigger. He said it could be connected to a garage that is recessed behind the build-to zone, or a side-loaded garage, or a 2+car garage on an rear alley.

Planning Commission chair Matt Hoffman spoke on behalf of the proposal and said this change would only apply in zoning districts that require a build-to zone. These district, including mixed-use, multi-family and single-family designations, make up about 14.8% of the city by acreage. Fayetteville has nine single-family zoning districts, and this change would only apply to two of them (RSF-18 and NC-Neighborhood Conservation). Together, those two zoning districts make up about 2.8% of the city.

Hoffman said while some developers have chosen to build neighborhoods in form-based districts, the resulting construction does not resemble traditional town form, which is the intent of those districts.

Restricting driveway widths would help solve that problem, Hoffman said, by allowing wider driveways on wider lots, and skinnier driveways on skinnier lots.

Hoffman said 10-foot driveways would be the bare minimum and would still be allowed even on the skinniest lots. He showed examples of homes built in the city that have narrow driveways which lead to a 2-car garage on the side of the house while still allowing for both a front yard and considerably large back yard.

The proposal would included a six-month delay before the changes take effect.

Council Member Kinion asked what the benefit of this would be.

Hoffman said this type of regulation is a key factor in encouraging traditional town form and walkable environments, the benefits of which are abundant. He said it was important for the commission to not recommend these changes in all zoning districts, but to instead propose them in form-based districts to further encourage traditional town form.

Scroggin said this change has been in the works for a while and he’s in no hurry to rush it through tonight.

The parts of town that would be affected are represented in the map below. The areas in red are where the changes would be in effect (for new construction only):

Council Member Petty said he sponsored this idea and would be voting for it, but he is willing to make some amendments to the current proposal. For example, he would support extending the six-month grace period.

Marsh said she thinks six months is plenty of time, and that time is of the essence in getting this change in place.

Bunch said she doesn’t think six months is long enough for a developer who might already be in the process of designing and planning a subdivision.

During public comment, a representative of the NWA Homebuilders Association said six months is not enough time.

Don McNaughton, who is president of the NWA Board of Realtors, said he thinks homes with side-load driveways, shared driveways, and rear-facing driveways are not as desirable to homebuyers. He also said six months is not enough because some subdivisions have pre-sales as early as one year out.

About a dozen residents spoke against the proposal. Most said they prefer houses with two-car garages to those with one-car garages. Others said six months isn’t a long enough grace period before the rules take effect, including Steve Clark, president of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce.

One local builder said it could cost more to build homes under these new rules, and that cost would be absorbed by the buyers, effectively raising the cost of housing in these areas.

Council Member Scroggin said he’d like to see the proposal amended to extend the grace period, and also to exempt developments that are planned and platted, but may not be finalized and ready for a building permit before the new rule takes effect.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he needs some time to look into when the best time would be to make this new rule effective so as not to put a burden on developers who are in various states of financing for any in-progress projects.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue at the next meeting on Oct. 15.

Oct. 15 Discussion:
Council Member Smith has proposed an amendment that would exempt all unexpired preliminary plats, final plats, concurrent plats, and lot splits approved after Dec. 31, 2014, and those approved within 12 months following the adoption of this ordinance. This exemption would also include any renewals or extensions and all subsequent phases of plats subject to this exemption.

During public comment, local real estate agent Mitch Weigel suggested 12 months might not be long enough to fully exempt applicants who have already invested time and money into a project that might not be ready for plat approval within that time period.

One other person spoke and said he is against this amendment because it is essentially just prolonging a problem the city is trying to resolve. The original proposal, he said, is a better idea.

City Attorney Kit Williams said he still has legal concerns about the ordinance, and said the amendment, while it is a step in the right direction, does not go far enough in exempting every property owner who may have already begun the process of developing their land using knowledge based on existing zoning and development standards.

Council Member Kinion agreed, and said it softens the blow of the original proposal, but said it ultimately is just “adding smoke and mirrors to an already bad ordinance.” He said this type of regulation should be handled using neighborhood covenants, not by city code.

Council Member Marsh disagreed, and said the point of the ordinance is to make neighborhoods more walkable and safer. She said the integrity of neighborhoods – many in south Fayetteville that were originally built in traditional town form – is at stake since that part of town is seeing a lot of redevelopment. She said she’ll support the amendment.

Council Member Bunch said she always leans heavily on the opinion of the city attorney, and while she’ll likely vote in favor of the amendment, she would like more time to think about the ordinance as a whole.

Council Member Smith said he hopes the ordinance is passed tonight, but that the ordinance itself is held until the next meeting (Nov. 5) to give people time to further consider the proposal and any more necessary amendments.

Council Member Gutierrez said she’d like all property owners to be grandfathered in under the current zoning regulations, and asked City Attorney Kit Williams if that would satisfy his concerns. Williams said no, it would be unreasonable for all property owners to be exempted from any changes that the city makes to its planning regulations. His concern, he said, is only about real estate developers who purchase land for single-family home construction. Those specific individuals’ investment-backed purchases, he said, should be protected.

Council Member Petty said he’s sensitive to the concerns that brought about the proposed amendment, and that he’ll support it and possibly any changes to it that might come up before the next meeting. He said he doesn’t like the suggestion that every property should be exempted going back to the previous transaction, mostly because of the precedent it could set for future code changes. He said when a developer chooses one of the two affected zoning districts, they’re essentially making a deal with the city in which the developer can build more homes than they could in their current district in exchange for complying with the city’s restrictions that are designed to be more environmentally friendly and to make more walkable and safer neighborhoods. This ordinance, he said, is an attempt to correct a problem with the current code that allows developers to build more homes without having to adhere to environmental- and walkability-based intents.

The council voted 7-1 to approve the amendment. Gutierrez voted against.

After over two hours, 24 people had spoken during public comment, and all were against the proposal. Over half of the speakers told the council that they personally prefer larger driveways and garages and gave varying reasons why they don’t think the city should be trying to stop the construction of 2-car garages. Several real estate agents spoke, some who said they don’t think homes built with smaller driveways would sell, and others who said they think this ordinance would result in larger home costs. A few residents said they think this idea is based solely on some council members’ personal aesthetic opinions about what houses should look like, and that they don’t think this will lead to more walkable or safe neighborhoods. Others who spoke said they simply don’t think cities should regulate development.

Petty said he was disappointed to hear so many people speaking to the idea that the city is trying to put an end to 2-car garages.

“Anyone who has told anybody that is simply wrong,” he said. “In fact, the super-majority of the city would still allow it.”

Petty said the idea is simple, and it’s about developers who want to build more homes on smaller lots being subject to stricter standards which is something that cities across the region and country are doing to address environmental and safety concerns in growing areas.

Marsh agreed.

“When we give you more density, we expect you to adhere to a higher standard,” she said. “This is about making safer, healthier and more desirable neighborhoods.”

Kinion said he doesn’t know why the council should go to all the trouble to change city code when it only affects such a small amount of the city. He said home builders and real estate agents know best when it comes to designing houses, and said they should’ve been asked before this idea was proposed. He said if home prices are increased because of this ordinance, it could have a negative impact.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Nov. 5.

Nov. 5 Discussion:
Scroggin said he’s talked to several builders and real estate agents who would like to see NC-Neighborhood Conservation removed from the proposal. He offered an amendment that would remove NC, and said he won’t support the ordinance without this amendment. He moved to pass the amendment, and Kinion seconded the motion. Kinion said while he doesn’t like the ordinance in general, this amendment is a little better than what’s currently proposed.

Marsh said removing NC would offer no protections to older, established neighborhoods like the areas surrounding Walker Park, and she won’t support the amendment.

Several people spoke about the amendment. Some said they support it, and others said while the amendment is an improvement, they still don’t like the ordinance as a whole.

Two lawyers – one representing builders and another who represents a family who says they own land that would lose value if this ordinance is passed – said the city would face lawsuits if this proposal were enacted.

Marsh said her election campaign included a promise to try and protect established neighborhoods in south Fayetteville, and she won’t turn her back on her constituents by supporting the amendment.

Smith said he’ll reluctantly support the amendment. It won’t do everything he wants, he said, but it’s an improvement over what’s currently in place.

The amendment passed 6-2, with Marsh and Gutierrez voting against.

During public comment, 12 people spoke against the ordinance. Most said they think the amendment is an improvement, but they still are against the ordinance as a whole.

One person spoke in favor of the ordinance, and said it’s a matter of increasing safety which is something the courts have upheld during litigation against cities who enacted zoning regulations designed to improve safety.

Petty said he’s still in favor of the ordinance as a whole because it’s simply based on increasing safety. He said while the argument that the proposal takes away property rights is convenient for some of its opponents, it’s not an accurate claim. The ordinance, he said, affects those who choose to build homes on narrow lots, which is not the same thing as taking away personal property rights. He criticized those who campaigned against the ordinance and said it was unethical for them to place advertisements that claimed that the council was attempting to take away people’s rights.

Bunch said while she respects everyone on the council, she’s a bit disappointed by the process in which this ordinance was proposed and has progressed. She said conversations with key groups seem to have been left out of the equation, as evidenced by the amount of people who have spoken against the ordinance. She also said the consideration that people actually like and want homes with two-car garages also seems to have been left out of the conversation. She said she hasn’t yet decided how to vote.

Marsh said the people here tonight speaking against the ordinance represent the real estate lobby, not the citizens of Fayetteville who helped shape the city’s master plans and guiding principles.

Gutierrez said she’s wrestled with this issue because on one hand, she’s heard from more people who are against the ordinance than those who are in favor of it. However, she has also heard from people who have safety concerns about their neighborhoods and from those whose homes have been damaged by flooding, which is another thing this ordinance could address.

Kinion said the anger and frustration over this proposal indicates that it was flawed from the beginning. He’ll vote against it.

Turk said she isn’t sold on the idea of the ordinance being something that could protect the environment or help reduce crime. She said she hopes the relationships that have been affected by this controversy can be mended regardless of the decision tonight. She won’t support it.

City Attorney Kit Williams said although he thinks the amendment was an improvement, he still thinks there’s a good chance the city will be sued over this ordinance if it’s passed. He said while the city would likely prevail over at least the threats that have been presented tonight, it would still cost money to defend against them, and other threats could be introduced in that process that the city might not have an argument for. He recommended the council vote against the ordinance.

Smith said cities shouldn’t be barred from setting reasonable development standards simply because there’s a threat of litigation. He said there are legitimate safety and sustainability concerns that could be alleviated by this ordinance. He said 40 out of the 45 people who have spoken against this ordinance are in the real estate, development or banking community. He said while their opinions should be taken into account, it’s important to know that they all have a direct financial interest in defeating the ordinance. He said his discussions with developers have been productive, but the bullying that some council members experienced from Realtors was disappointing. He said the consequences of backing down to a bully are never good.

Mayor Jordan said he supports the principle of traditional town form, and that he believes it’s the future of Fayetteville. He said he is disappointed by the division that has been created in town over this proposal. He said the city needs more affordable housing, and it needs to address stormwater issues, and while this ordinance could help address those problems, he doesn’t think the city can afford the litigation that would ensue if this ordinance passes.

Decision:
During the final vote, the ordinance failed 4-4. Bunch, Turk, Gutierrez and Kinion voted against. Mayor Jordan declined to vote.


3. Enact §114.10 Regulation of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foam Single-use Plates, Bowls, Clamshells, Cups, and Similar Products (Details)

An ordinance to enact §114.10 Regulation of Expanded Polystyrene (EPS) Foam Single-use Plates, Bowls, Clamshells, Cups, and Similar Products.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Oct. 15 meeting.

The council in May voted to stop buying foam products with city funds, but several members expressed interest in an expanded ban of those types of products. Two weeks later the council voted unanimously to consider regulation of single-use plastic shopping bags and difficult-to-recycle-or-compost single-use plates, bowls, cups and utensils.

This proposal would give food service providers until May 1, 2020 to clear out their current supply of expanded polystyrene foam plates, bowls, clamshells, cups, and similar products. After that, they would be required to use products made of a different material.

The regulation would apply to restaurants; hotels; grocery stores with delis or food bars; cafeterias; convenience stores; coffee, tea and donut shops; caterers; and any other prepared, ready-to-eat food or drink providers.

Retailers (like grocery stores) could still sell the products on their shelves.

A survey conducted from July 7 through Aug. 22 asked residents and business owners for their thoughts on the idea. Staff said 2,167 residents responded, and 154 business owners completed the survey. In total, 74% of respondents said they support a ban onfoam to-go containers.

Of the business owners who responded, 64% said they would support providing educational materials and resources to businesses on where they can purchase cost-effective compostable/recyclable products, 54% supported banning polystyrene/Styrofoam, 42% support banning single-use plastic straws, and 28% answered other.

Staff researched the costs of common single-use to-go containers to determine the price difference small businesses could expect if they move away from polystyrene. The following chart illustrates those cost differences:

Staff said a separate proposal to regulate plastic bags is expected to be presented at a later date.

Oct. 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Turk asked to leave the item on the first reading. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Nov. 5

Nov. 5 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


4. RZN 19-6809 (NE of Gregg Ave. & Van Asche Dr./Fitzroy Fayetteville, LLC) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6809 for approximately 20.71 acres located northeast of Gregg Avenue and Van Asche Drive from P-1, Institutional to UT, Urban Thoroughfare.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was left on the second reading at the Oct. 15 meeting.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. The property is currently undeveloped, and the applicant would like to rezone it to allow for future urban development on the site.

Location:

Oct. 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council advanced the item to the second reading, but Scroggin said he’d like to hold the item there to allow more time to consider the proposal. The council agreed. The discussion will continue on Nov. 5.

Nov. 5 Discussion:
Turk said she has concerns about flooding in the area.

Marsh said she’s worried that a UT development pattern in this area could lead to more parking lots, and said she isn’t particularly excited about rewarding a developer who filled in a floodplain with red dirt, even though it is legal.

Decision:
During the final vote, the council voted unanimously to approve the request.


5. RZN 19-6810 (1961 N. Porter Rd./Paradigm Development, LLC) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6810 for approximately 0.92 acres located at 1961 N. Porter Road from R-A, Residential Agricultural to CS, Community Services.
Pass 8-0

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the Oct. 15 meeting.

Both city staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the request. The property boarders I-49 to the west and north and is across North Porter Road from University of Arkansas agricultural land to the east. The applicant said the goal is to have “the best potential use for this property.”

Location:

Oct. 15 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Nov. 5.

Nov. 5 Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


New Business

1. Fayetteville Public Schools (MOU) (Details)

A resolution to approve the addition of two full-time equivalent positions to the Police Department, to approve a Memorandum of Understanding with the Fayetteville Public School District to provide two additional school resource officers, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0

Background:
The department has provided School Resource Officers to the district for about 20 years, starting with two officers whose salaries were paid by the district and benefits paid by the city. Three more were added in 2013 using grant money. When the grant funding ended in 2017, the five SROs began being paid through a cost-share agreement in which the district pays about 68% and the city pays the remainder. The district is now requesting two additional SROs whose salaries would be reimbursed by the district at a rate of about 68%. The total annual cost to the city would be about $62,000.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Scroggin said he hopes to see more police officers patrolling the city’s trail system, especially in south Fayetteville. Marsh agreed.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.


2. Jack Tyler Engineering, Inc. (Details)

An ordinance to waive competitive bidding and accept a quote in the amount of $15,500.00 plus applicable taxes and freight charges from Jack Tyler Engineering, Inc. for the rebuild of a pump and motor for the Broyles Avenue Lift Station, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0

Background:
The station’s two pumps are nearly 10 years old, and in that time have not required being taken offline for major over-haul repairs. Recently the lift station’s No. 2 pump experienced a motor short electrical failure, leaving the station running a single pump until the other is repaired.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


3. Jacobs Engineering, Inc. Amendment No. 2 (Details)

A resolution to accept and adopt the Stormwater Study for Flood Management and Water Quality Funding, to approve Amendment No. 2 to the professional services agreement with Jacobs Engineering, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $150,200.00 for additional services related to the development of final recommendations for the creation of a Stormwater Utility, and to approve a budget adjustment.
Pass 8-0

Background:
Since Fayetteville experiences issues with stormwater runoff, the City Council in 2018 approved moving forward with a feasibility study to address the issues.

The study determined that property owners’ impervious areas are an equitable basis for a stormwater utility fee because larger developments, businesses and homes generate a greater need for stormwater services since they generate a greater amount of runoff.

A tiered system based on impervious area was selected as the most equitable way to distribute the cost of the program. The proposed tiers can be found below:

This resolution would adopt the study, and the contract amendment would further refine the framework for a stormwater utility fee by developing final recommendations for the extent and level of service with associated rates, investigating and developing the credit program, investigating the necessary ordnance revisions associated with the program and other services.

Actual implementation of a fee would be considered at a later date by the full City Council. Staff said it could be a year before that occurs.

» Read the full study here

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Marsh said it’s a good start, but she hopes to see some more ambitious goals in the final recommendations. She also said the city needs to be more aggressive in creating incentives for improving water quality. Turk agreed.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.


4. RZN 19-6833 (SE of Dunn Avenue & 11th Street/Castrellon) (Details)

An ordinance to rezone that property described in rezoning petition RZN 19-6833 for approximately 0.06 acres located at 510 W. 11th Street from I-1, Heavy Commercial & Light Industrial to NC, Neighborhood Conservation.
Pass 8-0

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

Although zoned for commercial and industrial uses since at least 1970, aerial imagery suggests that the site has never been developed, and represents something of a remnant from this area’s warehouse, agricultural, and railroad-oriented past.

The applicant has not stated specific development intent other than to develop this property along with the property to the south for residential use. The property to the south was rezoned to NC in 2015.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


5. Amend Chapter 159 Fee Exemptions (Details)

An ordinance to amend Chapter 159 Fee Exemptions of the Fayetteville Unified Development Code to clarify that homeless shelters are exempt from building permit fees, water and wastewater impact fees, police and public safety impact fees, and fire protection system impact fees.
Pass 8-0

Background:
The Unified Development Code currently exempts affordable housing projects from having to pay building permit fees and impact fees. Staff said Mayor Jordan recently became aware that homeless shelters are not exempt from paying these fees and directed staff to propose a code amendment to address the issue.

Discussion:
One person spoke in favor of the ordinance.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


6. Ozarks Electric Cooperative and Today’s Power, Inc. Interconnection Agreement (Details)

An ordinance to waive competitive bidding and approve contracts with Ozarks Electric Cooperative and Today’s Power, Inc. to provide for the interconnection of the city’s solar facilities at the Westside and Noland Wastewater Treatment Plants with the Ozarks Electric Utility Grid, and to provide for the ongoing maintenance of those interconnected facilities at a cost of $20,116.00 per year for the 20-year term of the Solar Project.
Pass 8-0

Background:
The city in September activated 10 MW of solar power generation and associated 24 MWh of storage at its two wastewater treatment facilities, moving Fayetteville’s clean energy consumption from 16% to 72%.

This agreement details the preventative maintenance, repair, and replacement work that Ozarks Electric will provide for overhead and underground electric distribution facilities behind the meter (owned by the city) that connect to the solar and battery storage at the two plants.

This allows the city and Today’s Power, Inc to generate (and store electricity) with the solar array and battery storage and feed it onto the Ozarks Electric grid according to the Arkansas Net Metering rules. There is no cost for this agreement.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


7. The Field Shop, Inc. (Details)

An ordinance to waive the requirements of formal competitive bidding and approve a quote from The Field Shop, Inc. of Little Rock in the amount of $14,390.42 plus any applicable taxes and freight charges to reconfigure and install audio systems in City Hall Room 326.
Pass 8-0

Background:
Staff said acoustically, Room 326 experiences a higher level of noise emanating from the air conditioning/heating ductwork above the drop-ceiling. The ceiling space above does not have adequate sound dampening materials and houses a large AC/heating unit over the audience section of the room. According to staff, this unit has become noticeably louder compared to a couple years ago, and is the primary source of the noise affecting the audience and taxing the two audience-support audio speakers. Staff said the noise also affects the Fayetteville Government Channel meeting recordings. This work would help solve the problem.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted unanimously to approve it.


Adjourned

This meeting was adjourned at 11:08 p.m.