LIVE UPDATES: Fayetteville City Council recap: June 1, 2021

The Fayetteville City Council on Tuesday…

• Revised the city’s mask mandate to simply recommend face coverings for unvaccinated people.
• Designated Juneteenth a paid city holiday in Fayetteville starting in 2022.
• Amended the city’s tree preservation requirements.
• Called a special election for Aug. 10 to renew the city’s 1-cent sales tax.

Background:
The council is required to revisit the city’s mask mandate because the current law includes a sunset clause that calls for a decision to be made after the state’s emergency declaration ends (it expired yesterday).

The proposal is to remove the mask mandate for people who are fully vaccinated.

City Attorney Kit Williams drafted the proposal. He said the goal is to bring Fayetteville’s rules more into alignment with new recommendations from the CDC and the city’s Board of Health.

In anticipation of the sunset, the city’s Board of Health recently outlined the following set of recommendations for the council to consider:

1. We strongly recommend that all citizens be vaccinated as soon as is feasible.
2. Those persons that are fully vaccinated should no longer be required to wear masks within the City of Fayetteville, with the following exceptions: on mass transit, in healthcare settings, in prisons and jails, and in homeless shelters.
3. Fully vaccinated people are those that are at least 14 days post receiving their second dose of either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccines or 14 days post receiving the single dose Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
4. Unvaccinated and partially vaccinated persons need to wear their masks until they are fully vaccinated. This is to protect themselves and other unvaccinated and partially vaccinated persons from becoming ill with Covid-19.
5. We understand that knowing who is and is not vaccinated is not feasible.
6. We encourage mask wearing for those that still feel more comfortable doing so for whatever reason, especially those with underlying health conditions or on medications that might limit the efficacy of the vaccines.
7. We support local businesses that still require masks for all patrons.
8. We encourage our citizens to be respectful of each individual’s decision to either wear a mask or not.
9. If the active cases in Washington County are over 120 active cases/14 day rolling average, we recommend all citizens wear a mask in public indoor venues.

Anything the council decides can only be in effect for about two months because the state legislature recently adopted a law which prohibits city’s from having their own mask mandates. That law goes into effect July 28.

Read more about the proposal in our May 26 story.

Discussion:
One person who spoke said he would like the city to update the signs it passes out to businesses to say that disabled people are exempt from the mask mandate.

Council Member Turk said she would rather the proposal recommend (instead of require) masks for unvaccinated people. She said she agrees with Council Member Holly Hertzberg, who last week suggested the same thing since the city cannot know who is vaccinated and therefore cannot enforce the rule. Kinion agreed, and seconded Turk’s motion to amend the revised law to use the word “recommend” instead of “require.”

Hertzberg thanked Turk and Kinion for considering her suggestion.

“This will show that we definitely do agree with the CDC’s recommendations, but that we aren’t requiring (masks) because it’s unenforceable,” said Hertzberg.

City Attorney Kit Williams said businesses that want to continue requiring masks are free to do so.

Council Member Petty said while he’ll support the ordinance in the final vote, he doesn’t support the amendment. He said it wasn’t until the governor pivoted from recommending masks to requiring them that many people started actually wearing face coverings in the state.

The amendment passed 7-1 with Petty voting against.

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

Background:
This item was left on the first reading at the May 18 meeting.

City staff have suggested changes to clarify standards, reduce redundancies, and streamline processes associated with the city’s tree preservation and landscape codes.

Here’s a summary of the changes:

May 18 Discussion:
Petty said while these changes should be passed because they clean up the current language and streamline the process, the city’s tree preservation rules don’t go far enough toward protecting the tree canopy. He said he hopes more proposed changes would soon follow this proposal.

Two people spoke during public comment and said there indeed are more things the city could do, but these changes are needed now.

The council agreed to leave the item on the first reading. The discussion will continue on June 1.

June 1 Discussion:
Resident Will Dockery spoke and said he hopes the changes are adopted tonight.

The council amended the ordinance to include some changes suggested by city staff.

Mayor Jordan said the changes might not be perfect or include everything that all the council members would like, but he said it’s a good start.

Decision:
The council voted 8-0 to approve the ordinance.

Background:
This proposal would make Juneteenth an official city holiday in Fayetteville. If approved, June 19 would be a paid day off for city workers starting in 2022. The proposal was brought forward by Council Member D’Andre Jones.

Juneteenth — also known as Freedom Day and Emancipation Day, Liberation Day and Jubilee Day — commemorates the ending of slavery in the United States. It celebrates the day when Union soldiers landed at Galveston, Texas, in 1865 with news that the war had ended and that the estimated 250,000 enslaved African Americans in Texas were now free.

Jones said he included a one-year delay before the holiday becomes a paid day off in case there are any budgetary issues that arise from city employees being off work on June 19. By waiting until 2022, he said, the council can go through its regular budget-setting meeting to ensure the city is prepared for an additional paid holiday.

Discussion:
Several residents spoke in favor of the resolution, and several council members thanked Jones for bringing the item forward.

“This makes me very happy,” said Jones. “Fayetteville is once again leading the state.”

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to approve the resolution.

Background:
Staff said one of the two denitrification pumps at the Noland Water Resource Recovery Facility failed and was sent out for a hidden damages evaluation. A second pump later failed. The total cost for two pumps would be $117,034.00 plus taxes and freight charges.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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

Background:
Staff said clearing had occurred on the property in close proximity to a stream (approximately 20-30 feet). A violation notice was then issued. The property owner later indicated that he plans to build a home on the parcel. Staff said they reminded the applicant that a variance from the streamside protection rules would be required before a house could be built. They said he had previously been told this before clearing the land. Staff said they told him that if he submitted a site plan for a building permit the violation could potentially be dealt with through the variance process. Staff said they advised the applicant to go ahead and submit the site plan for review and further direction. The applicant instead submitted an appeal for the violation. If the appeal is denied, staff said they will continue to work with the property owner to ensure the appropriate plans and potential variances are submitted for review and approval. If the owner fails to submit plans for the property in a timely fashion, staff will pursue further enforcement measures outlined in the original violation notice.

Discussion:
The applicant did not speak during public comment.

Scroggin said he won’t vote in favor of the appeal, especially considering the requirements to come into compliance – planting a few trees to mitigate any damage – are fairly minor.

Decision:
The council voted unanimously to reject the appeal.

Background:
City law currently requires certain stormwater improvements for developments based on the type of use and number of units being proposed. Residential single-family and duplex developments are exempt from stormwater requirements if the proposed development does not exceed the maximum number of units.

Staff said during the last few years, more and more developments being constructed are exempt from any stormwater requirements which is having a large impact on the properties neighboring these developments as well as the overall drainage system. Staff said that development pattern may be somewhat driven by the fact that they are exempt from stormwater and tree preservation requirements and more intensive development requires a much more involved approval process.

Staff said they’ve worked with CH2M Hill to develop a framework to address the issue that responds to a project’s impact on stormwater and not solely on land usage. The framework develops a progressive means by which the impact of the development is mitigated depending on the amount of proposed impervious area. In other words, the requirements would increase as the amount of impervious area increases.

The changes would impact developments that propose less than 10,000 square feet and are located on a parcel less than one acre and area based on the chart included below:

With the proposed revisions, individuals desiring to fill in floodplains on their property would need to demonstrate that the proposed fill does not negatively impact properties upstream or downstream by increasing floodplain elevations or velocities. They would also be required to create additional floodplain storage elsewhere on their property to offset any proposed filling of floodplains so that there would not be a net decrease in floodplain storage due to their development.

Both city planners and the Planning Commission recommend approval of the revisions.

Discussion:
Turk said she’d prefer the language include the expiration of legacy drainage plans when a project is in line with the current standards.

Williams said he has concerns about that idea. If the council wants to sunset legacy plans, that idea should be looked at more closely than it has tonight. He said regulations aren’t usually removed retroactively, and that a separate ordinance should be drafted that can be guaranteed to pass constitutional muster. Turk removed her motion to amend.

The council advanced the ordinance to the second reading, but Turk said she’d like to leave it on the table for at least one more meeting to give more time for the public to consider it.

Background:
This proposal would renew the city’s 1-cent sales tax. Voters most recently renewed the tax on Oct. 11, 2011. In that special election, the tax was set to last through June 2023. The proposed election would extend the tax through 2033.

The city collects about $22.5 million annually from the tax. That amount is split 60-40 between General Fund Operations ($13.5 million) and Sales Tax Capital Improvements ($9 million). That equates to about 27% of the overall general fund revenue and 100% of the sales tax capital improvements program.

Staff said a revenue loss of that magnitude could not be replaced by other sources, especially considering other revenue sources are currently experiencing downward pressures in the short run due to coronavirus and related issues.

Voters in 2011 approved the renewal of the tax by about a 75% margin.

“The citizens of Fayetteville have shown themselves to be thoughtful and intelligent voters,” said Paul Becker, the city’s chief financial officer. “I am confident that after being shown the facts, they will overwhelmingly vote to continue this tax, which provides funding for many vital programs.”

Discussion:
Steve Clark, president of the Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the proposal. There was no other public comment.

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

Background:
This item would call the special election described above.

Discussion:
Becker was asked why the election would take place in August of this year when it’s not set to expire until the end of 2023. Becker said if the tax isn’t renewed, the city would need enough lead time to figure out how to continue to operate with an upcoming $22.5 million loss. Having a decision well before the expiration date, he said, is key when considering tax renewals.

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

Background:
This item creates a budget adjustment to pay for the special election.

Discussion:
There was no public comment.

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