LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: Nov. 19, 2019

Background:
This item was tabled at the Sept. 17 meeting.

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

With an extension of Sain Street on the horizon, the property owners would like to rezone this land from an industrial/heavy commercial district to a zoning that would allow for infill development with both residential and retail structures.

Location:

Aug. 20 Discussion:
Hugh Jarratt, an attorney with Lindsey Management and a representative for the applicant, said his team has met with city planners and floodplain specialists in planning for development of this land. He said the plan is to add pedestrian connectivity on both sides of Sain Street. He said all of the city’s longterm plans for this area call for intense infill, and he believes this is one of the most perfect scenarios for development he’s worked on in his 13 years of experience.

Council Member Smith said he’s heard from residents who are concerned about adding homes in this area because of the burden it could place on the school district by adding more students to the area. Jarratt said Lindsey’s plan is to build one- or two-bedroom units here, and the company only has a 0.1 student-per-unit ratio in those size units. He said once their tenants have families, almost all of them tend to move into a larger apartment.

The first person to speak was against the rezoning, and said the neighbors to the southeast are worried about a multi-story apartment complex that will be visible from their homes. She also said some of her neighbors would like the area to stay undeveloped since it’s close to the Mud Creek Trail, which is currently a natural-looking area.

One other person spoke against the proposal, citing fears about possible added traffic, loss of undeveloped natural space, and added students in the school district.

Council Member Kinion said if this area shifts to high-density, he’s concerned about how people will get in and out of the property since the creek and trail are to the north. He said the area is ripe for development, but he’s not sure Community Services is the proper tool for the job. He said he hasn’t yet made up his mind. “This is certainly a unique piece of property,” Kinion said. “We have a lot to think about.”

Council Member Bunch said she’s heard from a lot of residents who are worried about losing trees in the area, and about the property’s proximity to the creek. She asked staff if any of this land is within the streamside protection zone. Staff said no, none of this land is within 50 feet of the creek.

Turk said it’s a complex issue that needs more time before a decision is made.

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

Sept. 3 Discussion:
Staff said the applicant has submitted a Bill of Assurance that limits the height of the buildings on the property to no more than three stories. The document also promises to limit the height of the buildings in an adjacent property to the east that’s currently zoned RMF-24 and under contract to be purchased outright by the applicant. The Bill of Assurance also promises to keep the trees in the steepest parts of the property.

The council amended the ordinance 6-2 to include the Bill of Assurance. Council members Smith and Bunch voted against. Smith said he’s concerned that the three-story minimum height might limit the potential for mixed-use development in that area. He said he won’t vote for this in its current proposal, and hopes the council will agree to leave it on the second reading for further consideration before voting.

Council Member Scroggin said he’s a lot closer to being on board with the request now that there’s a three-story height limit.

Kinion said he’s still concerned about traffic in the area, especially Front Street which he said is already a complicated and confusing street to navigate at peak times.

Council member Petty said he’s comfortable with what’s been presented, and, speaking to traffic concerns, he reminded the council that Sain Street will be extended to meet up with Vantage Drive in the next year or so. It’s a plan that’s been on the books for many years, has already been engineered, and is 80% funded by federal money.

The council agreed to leave the item on the second reading. The discussion will continue on Sept. 17.

Sept. 17 Discussion:
Hugh Jarratt, who represents the applicant, said he wanted to remind the council that this proposal fits with every city plan on the books. He said the plan for this property, when combined with the property to the east (that the applicant also plans to develop), provides more of an opportunity for tree preservation and a natural buffer than if the two properties were developed independently.

Ten residents spoke against the proposal. Many disagreed with Jarratt and said the rezoning doesn’t fit with the city’s master plan goals, specifically the guiding principal of keeping natural beauty. Others said they think traffic would be negatively impacted if the property was developed.

Scroggin asked city staff if the requested rezoning would require more tree canopy preservation than the current zoning. Staff said the current zone requires 15% preservation and the proposed zone requires 20%. He said he’d need to be convinced that the current zonings (Heavy Commercial and Light Industrial) is better for the area than what is proposed before he could vote against the requested zoning (Community Services).

Kinion said he doesn’t think the property will ever be developed in its current zoning. He said he doesn’t like the idea of high density along Mud Creek. He said traffic is already an issue near Millsap Road, and he doesn’t think the Sain Street extension will alleviate the issues. He said he also has some concerns about stormwater runoff if the area were developed. “This is the wrong zoning for this property,” said Kinion. “That’s the bottom line.”

Turk said the council should be questioning whether anything should ever be developed in this area because it’s in a flood plain. She said she also has traffic concerns about the area.

Bunch said she agrees with Kinion that the area is unlikely to be developed currently. She said she thinks this area is preferable for apartments, especially because of its proximity to the trail system. However, she is worried about stormwater runoff if several parking lots are built near Mud Creek. Overall, she doesn’t think Community Services is the appropriate zoning. She said the area needs something more subtle.

Marsh said the last thing she wants to see is another Lindsey apartment complex in Fayetteville. But, she said the city needs more affordable, high density apartments and this is a good part of town for that. It’s the floodplain that causes her to pause, though. She said she’d prefer a Planned Zoning District in this area so that the developer would be forced to work with the city and the neighbors through both the zoning and large-scale development plan.

Smith said was in support of the plan as it was first presented because he wants high density in this area, but the introduction of the Bill of Assurance which restricts the height of the buildings puts limits on the density. He said he can’t support the current proposal.

Scroggin said he also likes the idea of a Planned Zoning District, and said he might move to table the item to allow time for staff and the developer to consider a PZD. He said he knows the neighbors want this to be voted down outright tonight, but getting the area zoned correctly before Sain Street is extended is important considering the current industrial zone is not a good fit for the area.

Petty asked Jarratt if he’d rather have an outright down vote tonight or if he’d be OK with tabling the issue. Jarratt said he’d prefer tabling the issue. Petty said he agrees that the area needs to be rezoned to something better for the area, but he’s most concerned about the C-2 zoning, which would allow the current undesirable development patterns that already plague College Avenue. He said Mud Creek is designated as an endangered waterway with respect to pollution, all of which has come as a result of C-2 developments.

Jordan said PZDs worked well when he was a council member. He encouraged the council to consider a PZD as a tool in this situation.

Scroggin moved to table the item until Nov. 19. Marsh seconded. The group voted 6-2 to table the item. Kinion and Turk voted against.

Nov. 19 Discussion:
The applicant asked that this item be withdrawn from the agenda.

Hugh Jarratt, an attorney with Lindsey Management and a representative for the applicant, said after talking with the neighbors, they think a new plan is in order. The new plan might be a Planned Zoning District, which would need more time to be developed. If that’s the case, it would come back brand new as a separate issue at a later date.

The council voted 8-0 to table the ordinance indefinitely.

Background:
This item was tabled at the Sept. 17 meeting.

This proposal would close Center Street during the Saturday Fayetteville Farmers’ Market. It would not apply to the Tuesday or Thursday markets.

For more information, see our story from Sept. 16.

Chuck Rutherford, director of the Fayetteville Farmers’ Market, said the market board is in favor of the proposal, but there are some members of the market who do not want to see Center Street closed. He said the members will vote on the issue in November, and asked that the item be tabled until after the vote.

Petty said he’s wanted to see Center Street closed during the Saturday market for a long time. He said there’s an obvious safety issue that’s only getting worse with time.

Marsh said she doesn’t want to table the item. She said she wants to see it passed tonight. “Safety first,” she said.

Scroggin agreed, and said he’d vote against tabling the item.

Kinion said there are people who want more information about this and more time to consider the proposal. He said he wants to table it. Mayor Jordan said he’s heard the same thing, and has told several market vendors that he would ask the council to hold this item tonight.

Smith asked what the mayor has heard specifically. Jordan said he heard from 16 market vendors who aren’t in support of the idea, and their concerns were about competition from other vendors who might be put in a better situation if Center Street was closed and more room was opened there. Rutherford said Center Street is historically the most desirable location for a booth, partially because it has a lot of foot traffic and also because there are shade trees on that part of the square. He said a point system is used to allow vendors to choose their booth location each year.

The council voted 4-3 to table the item until Nov. 19 (Marsh, Scroggin and Smith voted against). Bunch left before the vote, so Jordan cast the fifth vote needed to table.

Nov. 19 Discussion:
Chuck Rutherford said the board voted to approve expanding the market, and the full membership also voted to approve the expansion.

There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This item was tabled after its fourth reading at the Oct. 15 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.

Nov. 19 Discussion:
An amendment was offered that would establish a new district (Wilson Park South Neighborhood Permit Parking District) instead of expanding the current Residential Parking Permit area to include an additional block on Ila Street and two blocks on Vandeventer Avenue. It would reserve about half of the parking spaces for residents and make the others mixed use.

Here’s a map:

The amendment passed 8-0.

The council will now consider two possible scenarios for rates. See Option 1 or Option 2 (relevant language is highlighted).

Petty and Smith said they both prefer Option 2 because it’s a better representation of what the Ordinance Review Committee discussed.

Kinion agreed and said it make the rules easier to adjust without requiring a political process.

Turk said it’s too complicated. She suggested simply setting the rate at $2 per hour and waiting a while to see how it works.

Bunch asked how long it would take to implement whatever is passed. Staff said they believe everything can be taken care of within 30 days, which is when the ordinance would go into effect. She said she likes the amendment.

Petty moved to amend the ordinance to include the language in Option 2 (read the full Option 2 amendment here).

City Attorney Kit Williams recommended setting an initial parking rate instead of leaving it up to city staff as it reads in the proposed amendment. Staff said they recommend $1/hour from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., and $1.50/hour from 6 p.m. to 2 a.m.

Kinion said he’d prefer $1.00 per hour from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. and then increase it to $1.50 per hour from 4 p.m. to 2 a.m.

Turk said she’d like the possible rate re-adjustment occur in September 2020 instead of August 2020 since things are hectic in the university area in August when the students return. Kinion disagreed and said there will be plenty of time to study utilization between now and August – including the spring semester, summer break and then the first two weeks of the fall semester – and an extra month of data won’t likely make any meaningful difference.

The council amended the ordinance 8-0 to include Option 2 with the time/rate changes suggested above. See that language below (we think we wrote all this down correctly):

(F) Public Use of Paid On-Street Parking. For parking in the neighborhood permit parking district, the parking rates shall be established by the Parking Division within the following parameters:

(1) The initial paid parking rates and hours shall be $1.00 per hour from 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., and $1.50 per hour from 4 p.m. until 2 a.m.

(2) Adjustments to the paid parking rates or hours shall be subject to the following limitations:
(a) The first adjustment to the paid parking rates and hours, if necessary, shall be made in the first two weeks of August 2020. Thereafter, the paid parking rates and hours shall not be adjusted by the Parking Division for a period of one year.
(b) The Parking Division shall conduct a utilization assessment based on peak hours and days prior to any adjustment.
(c) Rate and hour adjustments shall be based on deviation from ideal utilization of the paid parking spaces as determined by the Parking Division. The Parking Division shall increase or decrease paid parking rates by $0.10 for every 5 points away from the ideal utilization rate with the goal of reaching the ideal utilization rate of 75%.
(d) Rate adjustments shall be made in $0.10 increments and shall not exceed $0.50 per adjustment period.
(e) Adjustments to the paid parking rates or times shall be communicated through signage in the district and the mobile parking application for fourteen (14) days prior to the implementation of the adjustment.
(f) Rates shall not be adjusted below the rates established within the Entertainment District Parking Zone.

Petty thanked everyone involved who helped shape the new ordinance, including Kinion, the council, city staff, and the neighbors.

Kinion said he’s very pleased with how this solution has progressed.

“This has turned out incredibly good for visitors and neighbors,” said Kinion. “This is such a unique and unusual situation that became evident overnight, but if we can start with this…I think we’ve got a good deal.”

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

Background:
The Gregg Avenue Sewer Lift Station is the largest single feed into the Hamestring Lift Station, and is one of Fayetteville’s higher capacity lift stations. It is equipped with four 80 HP submersible pumps, all of which have received overhaul maintenance in recent years. Pump No. 3 was most recently re-installed in February 2019 after rebuild maintenance. Staff pulled Pump No. 3 in September in response to abnormal pump operation. A preliminary inspection by maintenance technicians revealed a damaged impeller, which led staff to suspect the pump’s drive shaft could be also damaged. The pump was sent to JCI Industries, Inc. in Joplin for a full disassembly inspection and repair proposal. JCI found extensive internal pump damage stemming from a broken drive shaft. In addition to a new drive shaft, the repair quote calls for a replacement impellor, mechanical seals, and bearings.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This corridor is a priority project in the 2019 Bond Program and includes several different components. The corridor is 2.3 miles in length and runs in an east-west direction through a flat part of the middle of the city from I-49 at Porter to College Avenue at Poplar Street. The project includes vehicular improvements to the intersection of Porter Road and I-49 and may include a roundabout to improve the traffic flow for the large volume of traffic from the west of I-49 turning onto the interstate heading north. Along Porter Road and Deane Street from the interstate to Garland Avenue the project includes street improvements with new turn lanes and drainage as well as separated pedestrian and bicycle facilities. This will include coordination with the planning and design of the new police headquarters and fire station. The street, drainage pedestrian, and bicycle improvements will continue along Sycamore Street from Garland Avenue to the Razorback Greenway. From the Greenway to College Avenue, the project will include multi-use trail construction along the Poplar Street alignment. Finally, a connection to the south from Poplar Street to Gregory Park will be designed as part of this contract.

The Active Transportation Advisory Committee unanimously supported the project, and also supported shifting the corridor from Sycamore Street to Poplar Street east of the Razorback Greenway to take advantage of flat grades along Poplar Street. The Transportation Committee also supported that shift, and recommended moving forward with the selection of a design consultant for the project.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This is to accept a $410,000 grant from the Walton Family Foundation to be used for the above mentioned corridor project.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
The property is at the corner of West Hendrix Street and North Addington Avenue, and include one single-family home built in 1951.

The applicant told city staff they would like to build up to four single family homes as a cluster housing development or four townhouses with a conditional use permit.

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

Location:

Discussion:
Two people spoke against the request and said it would break the character of the neighborhood by allowing more density. Kinion agreed.

Marsh said the area is close to transit stops, retail stores, services and restaurants. She said it’s the exact type of area where the city should encourage an increase in density and walkability. Scroggin agreed.

Turk said she thinks the integrity of the neighborhood is slowly being destroyed, especially with the new nearby multi-family complex behind Harps. She said one increase in density leads to another, and if the city continues down this path, she thinks every neighborhood around the university will one day have very small homes instead of what’s currently there. She said she won’t support the request.

Smith said he doesn’t see this as being out of character with the neighborhood, which already has many small homes. He said he is concerned about tree preservation and stormwater runoff in the area, though. He said he’d like some time to think more about this and visit the area before deciding.

Bunch said there are currently some drainage issues is the area, and she also has some concerns about the potential removal of trees in the neighborhood if this property is rezoned and developed. She said she’d also like to tour the area.

Marsh said this rezoning request has no effect on trees or stormwater, as neither the current or proposed districts are restricted by those regulations.

City staff said if the applicant decides to build cluster housing and is issued a conditional use permit to do so, that project would fall into the small-scale development category and would be subject to both stormwater and tree preservation regulations.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on Dec. 3.

Background:
The city and county entered into an interlock agreement for jail services in 2004 in which the county provides jail space for use by the city’s police department, which a set price for each booked prisoner. As of 2019, the city paid $62 per booked prisoner charged with misdemeanor crimes, and no charge for prisoners booked with felony crimes.

Two months ago, the county’s quorum court passed a new ordinance establishing a daily fee of $63.12 per prisoner for all charges. The county also developed an alternate per capita fee for cities that could instead be paid in a lump sum. Staff recommends paying the lump sum instead of the daily fee because the new daily fee “has the potential to significantly multiply” the city’s total annual payment.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
Phase 1 funding of the voter-approved 2019 bond measure included the purchase of land and construction of 2 fire stations and a new police headquarters. The council in September authorized the approval of a land sale agreement with the University of Arkansas System Division of Agriculture for 11.50 acres to build the headquarters and one of the fire stations.

This contract is for the police headquarters and an adjacent support building.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
This contract is for services related to the new fire stations included in Phase 1 funding of the voter-approved 2019 bond measure.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
City staff recommend approval of flood insurance rate map revisions based on studies provided by a proposed project located near West Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd and South Stadium Drive.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

Decision:
The council advanced the item to the third reading, and voted 7-0 to approve it. Petty was not in the room during this vote.

Background:
City staff recommend approval of flood insurance rate map revisions based on studies provided by a proposed project located near West 15th Street and South Razorback Road.

Location:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This 2005 the City Council established the Highway 71 East Square Development No. 1 District Project which was a TIF District and issued bonds under the Arkansas Community Redevelopment Financing Act.

See the city’s description below:

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
This is to approve the 2020 budget. The full document can be found here.

Discussion:
Marsh said she’d like to table the resolution for two weeks, to allow time for the Fayetteville Arts Council to meet and discuss possibly recommending that the city hire an Arts & Culture Coordinator as a full-time staff member.

Turk said with an expected budget deficit, she would only support adding another position if the city is somehow able to balance the budget by the end of the year. Marsh said the deficit wasn’t unexpected and the council knew this would happen, at least temporarily, when it voted to give raises to city employees.

The council voted 8-0 to table the resolution. The discussion will continue on Dec. 3.