September 26, 2011 Fayetteville City Council Meeting


Uploaded by cityoffayetteville on 25.10.2011

Transcript:
[bangs gavel] >> Want to call the September26th, 2011,
Fayetteville city council meeting to order. Thank everyone for being here tonight.
We ask that you stand for invocation, led tonight by reverend Dr.James Randal from
the Pearson Presbyterian church on Cliffville road.
Then we will do the pledge of allegiance. >> Please join me as we boy our heads before
god. We thank you for the men and women who have
volunteered and committed their lives to serving in Fayetteville city council.
We ask for your blessings upon them tonight, and we pray that they would all serve in their
offices with integrity with an eye to love and compassion for this great city of Fayetteville,
North Carolina. We pray that they will always do justice,
love compassion, and remember to walk humbly with our god.
We pray that righteousness will be present in their dealings each and every day as they
remember that righteousness exalts a nation and a city and sin is a disgrace to any people.
And heavenly father, we pray tonight that those who have been elected to these offices
of great prestige and honor remember that they are servants of the people of city of
Fayetteville, North Carolina. We pray that they will lead us into the future
as they do remember that they are your servants and those of this people.
We pray these things, heavenly father, in Jesus' name.
>> Amen. [pledge of allegiance]
>> Thank you, pastor. Appreciate you being with us tonight.
Okay, we'll move first to item number 4, which is approval of tonight's agenda.
Okay, Mr.Mohn seconded by Mr.Bates. Any discussion on that?
Hearing none, let me hear your vote on that, please.
That's unanimous. We'll move now to items in recognition, and
council member Arp is going to help us with this one.
>> It's my pleasure to introduce the following folks.
I'd ask that you stand when I call your names out.
Ms.Sandra Mitchell, Ms.Pauline heart, sergeant Rinardo Schuler from the United States
marine corps, sergeant Gary Clark, and corporal Phillip of the Cumberland county sheriff's
department are here to represent toys for tots.
Toys for tots is a program run by the United States marine corps reserve which donates
toys to children whose parents cannot fear to buy them gifts cannot afford to buy
them gifts for Christmas. On Saturday, October8th, at 1:00p.m.
at Methodist University at monarch stadium, toys for tots Cumberland county is proud to
sponsor a flag football contest called Super Bowl 2011 and the contestants are the Fayetteville
police officers versus the Cumberland county sheriff's deputy.
The entry fee is 1 new unwrapped toy of a or a $5donation.
What we'd like to do is encourage all of you who can to be a part of this special outreach
to the less fortunate, youngsters in our city and county, and if you need more information,
we have fliers available and we will make them available here in the city offices, but
I want to encourage you to come out and support this great event, and I want to thank these,
these great Americans for coming forward and volunteering their time.
Thank you very much. [applause]
Is in  >> Thank you so much, Mr.Arp.
We move to 6.0, tonight's consent 6.0 tonight's consent agenda.
>> Mr.Mayor, with your permission, sir, I would like to pull item 6.6 on the consent
agenda for brief discussion. >> Okay.
All right. Any other changes?
Mr.Crisp will take that motion in the form of consent with the exception of 6.6.
Any decision? Ask for your vote, please.
Okay, that is unanimous and we will move now to item 6.6.
Mr.Iman, will you help us with this one, sir?
Good evening, council. Item 6.6 is a contract award for the purchase
of six automated side loading refuse trucks for use in our environmental services department.
This item was budgeted during the year, and is a cost efficiency item as well as a long
term savings for the city. The bids have been the RFP has been prepared.
They have been advertised, properly advertised and bids have now been received in this action.
Be happy to answer any questions if you have them.
>> Mr.Crisp? >> Mr.Iman, the question, one of two is
insomuch as we understand we are taking a review of the possibility of privatizing some
if not all of environmental services the question is are we being premature in ordering these
trucks, spending in excess of $1million prior to the recommendations of the study
on privatization? >> We're not undergoing a study for privatization.
We have a, a request for proposals on the street right now.
Soliciting contractors to submit proposals. That study not study.
That proposal would include the collection of basically one quarter of the residential
properties in the city or 15,000 properties. That still leaves us with obviously 45,000
properties to collect the solid waste from those properties, and these trucks are needed
and we project they will be needed. We don't think it's wise to bite off more
than probably a quarter of the city at a time with a new contract until we have an opportunity
to work with this first contract for a while. Things work well, then I think we would certainly
look to the council to begin to continue to progress in that direction, but again, I wouldn't
expect that it would take, that it would happen so quickly that these trucks, again, with
the short life span of about seven years, if, I wouldn't expect that we would be in
a position where we were going to end up with a lot of trucks sitting around that we don't
need. >> Am I understanding that we have some trucks
that are in such condition now that we need to replace them, and if we do approve this
tonight, when would we see these new vehicles? >> We have some coming on right now within
the next two months, and then these vehicles probably would not come on board for about
six months. Takes a while to get them constructed and
built and delivered. About six months from the time of the award
of the contract. >> Thank you, Mr.Mayor.
>> Questions? Mr.Arp?
>> Very briefly, if I may. Mr.Iman, I understand, so the life cycle
of these new garbage trucks will be about seven years?
>> Yes, I believe, that's the current trucks, anyhow.
I believe the new ones are also projected to have a similar life cycle.
>> And currently we have a fleet of 22 trucks of which one third or seven basically, one
third are spares that we use to rotate in with these trucks are nonoperational?
>> That's correct. >> And so that spare number would decrease
based on these new trucks coming into the fleet.
That's the current plan? >> Yes, but the, if the council moves towards
privatization, that would not occur. At the earliest, it would be July1st.
>> July1st. >> Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Mr.Bates. >> Thank you.
Mr.Iman, if this is approved tonight, we actually coming in about $68,000less than
what was budgeted, so that $68,000, it's still in there, but it would actually go back into
the general fund that could be used to help clean up the city and that kind of stuff?
>> It stays in the environmental services fund until the end of the fiscal year, and
then if it would remain there if it's not spent on another issue that comes up or an
emergency, then it would go back to the general fund and potentially could be reallocated,
reappropriated by council for a variety of uses.
>> Well, if it stays in the environmental fund, then those are the ones that are responsible
for picking up the bulky items and tree limbs and that kind of stuff.
>> Yes, that's correct. >> Okay, thank you.
>> Any other questions? Okay, is there a motion from council?
Mr.Bates? >> Motion to approve.
>> Okay. We have a motion 
>> Second. >> And a second by Mr.Crisp.
Any other discussion on the motion? May I ask your vote, please?
Okay. That motion carries.
Those in favor, Mr.Crisp, Mr.Bates, are Applewhite, Mr.Haire, Mr.Massey,
Mr.Mohn. In opposition, Mr.Arp.
Okay, council will move now to our first public hearing.
Let me give the rules if the public hearing. for the public hearing.
First of all, each side will have a total of 15 minutes to present your position, whether
you are for or against. Individual speakers will have one time to
speak. It will be limited to three minutes by each
unless by previous arrangement a single spokesman is designated, in which case the spokesman
may use the entire 15 minutes. When you hear the beep and see the light on
the podium change from green to yellow, that means there are approximately 30 seconds left
of the three minutes. When you hear the beep see the timer on the
podium change from yellow to red, that means the full three minutes has expired.
Come to the podium, state your name and address clearly for the record.
And we will begin tonight with item 7.1. Mr.Nash.
>> Good evening, Mr.Mayor and members of the council.
This first public hearing tonight is regarding the city of Fayetteville hazard mitigation
plan. I will be giving you an overview of the process
that has gone on recently about this, and then you will have your public hearing.
The original hazard mitigation plan for Cumberland county was done about five or six years ago,
and this was a document, over 500 pages long. It was a five year document, and it needed
to be updated again. And the city of Fayetteville had worked with
all the other jurisdictions in this county on the original plan and elected again to
work with all the other units of local government in updating it.
The updated plan that this hearing tonight about is this document.
Came in at the same length, over 500 pages. The work on the update began in may of 2010.
Most of the research and work or city's efforts were completed in September2010.
It was then submitted to FEMA and the state. It was approved by the state on April the
4th, 2011. We're now in the update process.
All local government units in Cumberland county are considering whether to adopt the updated
version of this plan. I believe you're the last unit to have your
hearing and consider adoption tonight. Just a little bit of terminology.
Because it is called a hazard mitigation plan, just want to clarify that it's about natural
hazards. These are occurrences or events that are part
of the world, the natural world that we cannot control.
They're inevitable. They're very destructive.
But when it happens to just the natural world, the natural world has a tendency to be able
to recuperate pretty well. Hurricanes are good examples.
Disasters refer to the fact that human activity often has settled or taken place in the path
of these forces of nature, and so there's often a heavy damage when a hurricane comes
in on a beach area that's been heavily occupied by people or when a river rises out of its
banks and floods the area where people decided to live or work.
The problem is that people have chosen to often live and work in these vulnerable areas.
The focus is on keeping these natural hazards from becoming disasters.
The focus has been natural disasters, not terrorism.
There are a couple examples there for hazard mitigation.
It basically means reducing some of the adverse consequences of these hazards FEMA has its
own definition. Any sustained action to reduce long term risk
to life and property from natural hazards. And just some examples of that, restricting
new development in vulnerable sections of the community and making existing development
in hazard prone areas safer. A couple of benefits of having an approved
hazard mitigation plan is it makes the area eligible for hazard funds should an event
happen in the area. And it makes the staff and the elected officials
also identify actions that might help keep future hazards from becoming disasters.
Keeping hazards from becoming disasters is the key.
In the work we did here in Cumberland county, 11 hazards were identified.
Hurricanes, tornadoes, thunderstorms, severe winter storms, extreme heat, wildfires, flooding,
earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis were in the original plan.
We were given permission to not address those this time.
For the most part, most of our efforts have really been about the hazard of flooding.
That's the hazard that has mostly impacted this area, and here's a couple of pictures
of how Fayetteville has been flooded in the past.
The flood of 1945 looking west along person street.
You can see the market house there in the middle way down the road.
And then this one's a little closer up. This is almost at liberty point.
Again, from the flood of '45. First photo was courtesy of the Fayetteville
observer. The second was provided by Jim Greathouse
of our historic properties section. Just some highlights of what we updated here.
We identified, updated the hazard occurrences here through June of 2010.
Please note that this does not include any data on the tornadoes that struck this area
in April2011. The work had already been completed and was
in review right then getting approved right when the tornadoes hit.
It involved reviewing the strategies, the actions.
There were 13 city actions. Most of our work was in the vulnerability
assessment. The reasons we had to spend a lot of work
there was the city went through annexation. We have a new county Eastover that had to
be added in as a new section of the report. There has been a lot of new construction.
We received new flood maps from the state. And the 2010 revaluation provided new tax
values to use in our work. Just a little bit of information on what we
found this time. There are a number of buildings in Fayetteville
increased from 47,000 to 60, almost 69,000, and none of these numbers include anything
in Ft. Bragg even though now fort Bragg is now inside Fayetteville.
Our percentage of buildings in hazard areas went down from 14% to 5%.
Obviously the city numbers went up just because the growth the city's had and the new development.
The percentage decreased because of changes in procedures we used.
We had new flood maps, they're more accurate. We had a different procedure last time which
tended to capture more buildings as being vulnerable.
There were 13 mitigation actions. Just one or two examples here for Fayetteville.
One was to modify our flood damage prevention ordinance.
It was recommended that we raise the lowest floor elevation to one foot above the base
floor elevation. Actually, the change made in January '07 was
there would be a two foot distance above the base floor elevation required.
And that's been noted in the update. We're now in the kind of review and adoption
process. Our fire and emergency management department
took another close look at this recently and questioned some of the numbers in there about
the fire department. I've talked to that person, explained that,
and I think we can come to an agreement on the numbers as they are now.
It's been reviewed by your planning commission on August16th and again on September20th.
The planning commission noted a few things about perhaps the value of the sewage treatment
facility being too low. They had some questions about the projection
of value of critical facilities. They were also concerned about whether this
included information or tornadoes, and of course it didn't.
At the September20th planning commission meeting, they did have a public hearing.
It was well advertised. No one spoke.
The commission did go on record as approving that you consider approving the plan.
They did have two recommendations to you that perhaps PWC focused on putting the existing
overhead utility wires overhead as time permits. But that is a way electric outages could be
prevented in the event of heavy windstorms or hurricanes, in the future, tornadoes.
They also recommended that perhaps the city give consideration to hiring a grant writer
that perhaps could apply for disaster mitigation grant money.
Tonight is the night of your hearing. You will consider whether to adopt it.
If it is adopted, the mayor will sign the resolutions.
They will be sent over to the county and then to FEMA and the state.
Finally it will be approved for another five years.
The recommendation coming from planning commission and staff is that you do adopt the city of
Fayetteville hazard mitigation plan as part of the overall Cumberland county plan.
There is plenty of information, a lot of interesting information particularly on the hazards.
How frequently they've occurred here since 1950.
It's all back there in appendix A of the report. You can go to this web site and see the entire
report. We did not attempt to print it all for you.
This is your public hearing, and it has been published two times in the "Fayetteville observer."
>> Any questions for Mr.Nash? Mr.Mohn?
>> Thank you, Mr.Nash. When you referenced the base flood elevation
and the new standards being two feet above, are those off the new FEMA maps?
You know, when you said they're base flood, not 100 year flood, it's the base, you know,
actual  >> The base flood elevation data is embedded
in the maps, which we have in GIS. So that'll tell you at any place along the
creeks in the city what the base will be. That does generate the 100 year flood.
Any new construction going into an area that would be impacted by that be raised so that
it's lower floor level would be one foot above, but the city actually went a little further
than that in 2007 to two feet. >> Mr.Crisp?
>> Mr.Nash, you who did you say was recommending the grant writer?
>> Planning commission. >> How did we handle the grant request for
the April16th disaster? Who did those, Mr.Iman?
>> That's been handled through your emergency management department, and I believe the city
manager's office. I'll defer to anyone 
>> Did we find that that approach was insufficient or untimely?
>> Not at all. Chief Nichols led the effort, but we also
hired a temporary employee at the time that had experience in emergency management.
We had two staff people also in the position of emergency management personnel, and we
were very thorough in working through the process.
Of course, we had a leg up on the rest of the many other municipalities I should
say because we had AshBritt there, and their experience, and it really helped a lot in
the process as well. So you know it was record keeping and the
report filing has been timely, and it's been almost exclusively accepted by FEMA and reimbursed.
>> And then my final question is, if we hire a grant writer and we don't have any significant
hazards, what will the grant writer do? >> I think the idea was from the planning
commission is that there are hazard mitigation grants out there that would perhaps help purchase
properties that are in vulnerable location 
>> This isn't a response to a tragedy. This is a grant writer you look for funds
to help strengthen your proactive part of your plan, not just the reactive parts.
Not grants in the extent that you are looking 
>> That's what I'm trying to reconcile. Why are we tying the grant writer to the hazards
mitigation. That wouldn't be exclusively what the grant
writer is doing, is that what you're saying? >> I guess potentially they could find funding
opportunities for proactive things that we might do that would mitigate if we were to
have a disaster. I guess that is an example, kind of like putting
the power lines, you know, something you do early.
>> Okay. Anything else for Mr.Nash?
We will start the public hearing. If you will stand by for questions.
>> We have no speakers on this item this evening. >> All right, ma'am.
Thank you so much. We will close the public hearing, and any
additional questions for Mr.Nash? Okay.
We'll entertain a motion. Mr.Bates?
>> Motion to adopt. >> Okay.
>> Second. >> Second by Mr.Crisp.
Motion to adopt. We're on a roll here.
Any discussion on the motion? Let me ask for your vote, please.
That is unanimous. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr.Nash. We will move now to 7.2, consider a petition
requesting annexation requested by Methodist University.
Mr.Nash? >> Change files here.
Just a minute. Okay, this one is this slide show is all
three of the annexation public hearings coming up, and they are in this portrait orientation.
I hope that doesn't throw you off because of the map layout that we used.
Tonight you have three annexation public hearings. The first one is the petition received from
Methodist University for the Meadowcroft Drive-Riverdell Drive property.
This property and the other one are also between Ramsey street on the west and the Cape Fear
River on the east. This particular property is 28.25acres.
Get to a map of it real quick. The boundary of it is shown here in a dashed
yellow line. Just showing the aerial photography in the
area from 2008 I believe. Meadow croft Drive is coming from the west
of Ramsey street. Riverdell is running on the southern edge
of the area. The golf course fairways and so forth of Methodist
college are east of the area, and apartment complex known as Tartan Place is just north
of it. The bright green area running through this
area meandering throughout is Cape Fear River Trail.
The reason this petition was submitted is I believe it's related to a sidewalk construction
project now going on Ramsey Street. The existing land use in this area is mostly
vacant, but there are two lakes and several storage buildings.
We verified that with Mr.Clayton at Methodist, and the trail does pass through the area.
No housing units or population. Some of the issues is that it is sufficient.
We checked the ownership. Methodist is the owner of the property.
This has been on a fast track, and it has not been through a formal review by city departments.
We're just trusting that that the impact is so minimum it shouldn't cause trouble.
We told them about it, but we didn't give them too much time to react.
Two lakes and a small storage buildings would perhaps generate some demand for service.
And the trail of course going through the property.
Mr.Bates asked at a recent agenda briefing meeting about the Cape Fear River Trail and
the status of its being on top of Methodist college property.
We checked. According to Jerry Dietzen who was involved
and I believe helping this happen years ago, there are recorded easements on top of the
Methodist college property, and the city paid 60 to $65,000for those easement rights.
If you choose to go through with this, then we're recommending you make it effective tonight.
Should be neutral budget impacts on this area. This property is exempt from taxes.
No cost projections have been done on it. The staff does recommend adopting it effective
this evening, September26th. >> Mr.Iman, do you have some additional
information, sir? >> Yes.
Some clarification. These are the enclaves if you will recall
back when we looked at all the enclaves with the donut holes in the city.
These two properties are both donut holes in the city.
As Mr.Nash said, there's no development on the properties.
There's no harm to the university because they would not pay taxes.
I had a discussion with President Hancock, and he took it to his board, and he did it
he asked for the annexation basically because we want to see the map filled in.
And it was again, no harm for the university and we're working very cooperatively with
the university, and this is just another example of that.
>> Thank you, sir. Mr.Crisp, do you have a question?
>> Mr.Nash, I want to hear it in plain English for our audience.
This action will in no way restrict our citizens from crossing that property using the river
trail, is that correct? >> I don't see how it could, no.
>> Just want to make sure. >> Any other questions?
Okay. Ma'am, we'll open the public hearing.
>> We have no speakers on this item. >> Okay.
Thank you, ma'am. We will close the public hearing.
Any additional questions for Mr.Nash. Mr.Bates?
>> Like to make a motion to adopt the annexation ordinance with effective date of September26th,
2011. >> All right.
Mr.Crisp. >> Second.
>> I think Mr.Hurst got you on that one. We have a motion and a appropriate second
on the floor. Any discussion on the motion?
May I ask for your vote, please. That's unanimous, thank you.
We will move now to item 7.3. Longview drive.
>> Second property for Methodist University is referred to the Longview drive extension
property. Map of it real quick.
It's shown by the dashed yellow line, aerial photography is there.
Bright blue area represents the Cape Fear River.
That's been color enhanced. Not normally that blue.
This is get to it off Longview drive extension. That's just the best way to put it.
There's about 37acres in there. Again, it's related to the working with Methodist
on some projects that are helping us out. The only thing that I know of that passes
through that area that is anything close to being developed is the Longview drive extension
running through it, and it's really just a trail at this point leading to one house.
There are no homes or population in this area. The petition is sufficient.
The services should be okay. This will create a several new enclave
areas. There are some homes along Longview drive
extension and I'm not sure one would be there.
And several more on these lots. This property will wrap behind them, creating
a small enclave area there. And on the other three lots.
It's recommended again, September26th, 2011, tonight, if you go along with this.
The budget impact, slightly positive. I'm sure Mr.Iman is not aware, but in the
tax records, this one actually has a little bit of value right now.
Perhaps the university has not applied for an exemption on it.
Based on that value, it works out to about $278property tax revenue to the city.
And that would be $1766carried out for five years.
It's very likely perhaps the school would try to get that exempted, in which case that
revenue would not continue on in the future. And the staff recommendation is that you adopt
the ordinance effective September26th. >> Thank you, sir.
Any questions for Mr.Nash? Ms.McGill, we'll open the public hearing.
>> Mr.Mayor and members of the city council, we have no speakers on this item this evening.
>> Okay. We will close the public hearing.
Any additional questions? Mr.Bates?
>> [speaking off microphone] Recommend adopt the ordinance effective
date September26th, 2011. >> Second.
>> Mr.Haire got you, sir. Contest going on here.
>> I did it the right way. I pushed my button.
>> Okay. We have a motion and an appropriate second.
Any discussion on the motion? May I ask for your vote, please?
That motion carries. Those in favor, Mr.Crisp, Mr.Bates,
Ms.Applewhite, Mr.Hurst, Mr.Chavonne, Mr.Haire, Mr.Davy, Mr.Arp, Mr.Mohn,
in opposition, Mr.Massey. We will move now to item 7.4, Baywood Point
subdivision. Mr.Nash?
>> Didn't we have three of these on Wednesday? For Methodist?
>> Two. >> There were two on Wednesday and then this
one? Okay.
I'm sorry, I thought we had three from Methodist. I was wondering what happened to the
>> This one is regarding the Baywood Point subdivision.
This is a satellite request grant for annexation. You may remember in July you had this on your
agenda but it was pulled on July25th because it was determined time on the petition was
not sufficient. New petition has been received I believe on
September12th, and utilities are now on hold pending the outcome of all of this.
Let's go to a map. This is on the east side of the city.
There's a label pointing to it. Lets me see if you can see that.
Talking about right here, and there is an existing satellite of the city nearby.
It's located in an area referred to as Vander, the Vander community, which is unincorporated.
16.7acres are in the area requested for annexation.
This one is zoomed in a little closer, allowing you to see some more detail.
In this particular side, Baywood Point is shaded in green.
It's nestled up against the North Carolina 24 highway, which is almost like an interstate
highway right there. Baywood road crosses NC 24, and this property
is in the southwestern quadrant of that intersection. The nearby satellite area referred to as
is shown a little to the southwest of Baywood Point.
It's on Clinton road and this is zoomed in almost on top of the property just showing
an outline of the boundaries. Why was this petition submitted?
It's required by current city policy for properties within the city of Fayetteville's MIA area,
municipal influence area, and PWC water and sewer requested the owner must submit an annexation
position. petition.
That's the way I interpret the policy reading right now.
This shows the Baywood area in orange. Immediately to the east is a dark green area,
which is represented Stedman MIA area protruding to the west from Stedman, off the edge of
the map, the man also shows map also shows the existing city over in far yellow to the
left, and the little satellite we have already talked about.
The purple area at the top is Eastover. The blue area, it's actually in white but
it's bounded by blue area is one of the sewer service areas designated on the MIA map.
And finally, the light green area is the town of Eastover's MIA area, upper right corner
of this map. The names of the petitioners are in the material
I believe you received, but essentially they are Baywood Point, LLC, Mr.Wesley Meredith
being a member manager two individuals we received signatures on from that LLC.
And then we have petitions from several either already current owners of small lots in the
area, owner of lot 7, owner of lot 8, and owners of lot 30.
The developer submitted two more names on the petition noting them as pending, which
I believe means that they are going to probably close on their lots sometime soon.
It does not appear they are currently the owners.
Just some more information about the area. It's being developed as a residential subdivision
of single family detached houses. There are 30 lots.
It appears that 11 of them are now developed, 19 do not appear to be yet developed.
Number of housing units, 11. Single family units as of last week or September15th
I believe, there were three occupied and eight vacant.
This map shows you the development status of those lots back in the middle of July prior
to your first time you were going to look at this.
And this particular map, the green represents the undeveloped lots, the purple represents
the lots that were then being developed with homes.
The yellow represents completed housing units in July.
September15th status, all homes under construction are now completed shown in yellow.
The remaining lots have not had any construction yet started on September15th.
This shows the ownership. Lot number 8 in purple, lot number 7 in blue,
and brown shaded is number 30. Yellow ones are owned by savvy homes and the
green areas are owned by Baywood Point, LLC. Little bit of demographics about the area.
Based on it having three occupied housing units, we're just going to estimate seven
people. Citywide averages.
When the area is completely developed, it should have 75 people.
The current streets where the subdivisions have recently been built, no additional streets
were expected. This is the sheet that's in your packet.
It's a little it's too small to read from. Some of the issues are that some sufficiency
has been verified as of this afternoon. And we feel confident that the petition is
okay. That is, it's valid or sufficient.
Your services were reviewed back in prior version of this process, and we had a little
meeting in July about it. Departments haven't given me any new information
to say anything's changed. The issue of when should it be effective,
should you annex it, comes up, and we're recommending on this one December31st, 2011.
That is because there are some people living in the area.
We got an election coming up. There's no way these people would be precleared
to vote in your city elections in time for the primary and general election in November.
So the simplest thing to do is postpone the effective date until December31.
The impact of the current hold on PWC services from the school of government, they've written
that I'm sorry, I'm jumping ahead. It's assumed that should you annex this area,
all that will be resolved with your action. The impact to the future sale of property
after the ordinance is adopted should you adopt it tonight according to the school of
government experts on this, any sale of property after the ordinance is adopted but before
the effective date occurs is immaterial, doesn't make it invalid.
Stays valid. As long as it's valid at the time you take
your action. An interesting issue is the impact on the
homeowners. The additional taxes and fees.
Little bit of information on there. An excel spread sheet was prepared.
We assume the homes in that area would be valued at $200,000, automobiles would be worth
at least $20,000, that's probably a lowball figure.
That home value is right at the target point for Baywood Point according to the signs out
in the area. We're assuming 5,000gallons of water per
month. We're assuming that local taxes are deductible
on federal and income tax forms. Based on all those assumptions, and if we
plug in the figure for 99,000, a person with an income of $99,950assumed that they're
filing married, filing jointly, their total taxes and fees on annual basis would go up
by $105. We feel like that information might take some
of the fear out of what people might've been afraid of in this area.
The reason for that figure is it's easy to look up in the income tax booklet, just go
straight to the table that is valid for anybody with an income under $100,000and look it
up. The budget impact for the city should be positive.
It's been projected that over five fiscal years there could be as much as $196,000revenue
annexing this area. That should offset any costs.
A little bit of information on the revenue projections.
Over five years, it assumes that all 30 houses will be built by the end of FY13 14.
That your current tax rate stays the same, the current revenue factors stay sales tax
being based on $150,000per capita. Assume that stays the same.
Put all those things into a spread sheet, and you come up with perhaps a revenue $196,000.
It's broken out there for you. It's about $90,000being ad valorem tax
revenue. The rest being based on population and base
things. Some of your cost would be $1560for rollout
carts to the area, one time only. About $7200a year for contracting costs,
contracting this out for garbage collection based on $240per year.
Mr.Dietzen I believe reported that he would probably also enter into a contract for that
other area nearby if this area's annexed and contract both of them.
This cost here is attributed only to the Baywood Point annexation.
And finally the fire department reported 1,000 a year for contracts for fire protection with
the Vander fire department. Police department reported there would be
some costs for time and gas to get out there to serve the area.
We didn't get any cost projections from them. But in light of that, it does look like it
would be a positive annexation from the standpoint of fiscal impact.
The staff again recommends adoption effective December31.
>> Thank you, sir. We have got a couple questions.
Mr.Crisp? >> Mr.Nash, your projection of $196,000over
five years breaks down to $39,200a year. Can we service that development for $39,200or
are we coming out in the red? >> Well,.
>> I mean, we're talking fire and service, police for and we're going to gain by your
projection $39,200, can we do it for that? >> Well, the costs here indicates $7200a
year for garbage pick up service, and that's assuming all 30 homes have been built and
are getting the service. A thousand dollars a year for fire protection.
I guess the unknown is police protection. We don't I don't think we got any cost
figures in. I apologize if we missed something.
Perhaps if the limb pick up, or sanitation. These are city operating department costs
that we did receive. >> Got anything else?
>> Thank you, Mr.Nash. The homes that are already 3WEU89 built
and occupied, are they tied in and receiving PWC and sewer?
So they are actively using those services? I thought it was progress energy for the electric.
Okay, and then if we contract with the Vander fire department, would those homes out there
receive the same ISO rating on their insurance as we enjoy here in the contiguous part of
Fayetteville versus the satellite portion? Do you know that off the top of your head,
if Vander fire department has the same ratings? >> I think the ISO rating is for the whole
city, and they have just gone through a process, did all that I believe verified for a while.
They did point out that they were perhaps a little, you know, they weren't concerned
about it, but they did say that it could impact that.
That's back when they were being reviewed for, I think ISO.
Or it might've been accreditation in the middle of the summer.
>> Did you have something, Ms.Montgomery. >> I did also want to point out, I believe
Mr.Nash is correct on the ISO. But additionally, when we contract with the
fire departments, we do enter into a contract which requires that they respond the same
number of personnel and meet the time limit as the average time limit within the regular
contiguous portion of the city. >> Okay.
Yeah because I believe right now our fire department has three trucks respond.
I was at the fire this weekend. That's pretty standard.
Three trucks from three different engine companies. I'm just wondering if Vander has that same
capacity. That might drain their whole fire department
for one call. Just curious.
>> Mr.Arp, did you have a question, sir? >> I do.
Mr.Nash, the property owners that you showed listed, there were two pending, but all of
the property owners that are listed, they are in favor of this annexation, is that correct?
>> They signed the petitions. >> Okay.
A lot of times we get questioned about I just want to make sure.
They are asking for this petition. >> Yes, sir, we do have signatures.
>> Thank you so much. >> Okay.
We will open the public hearing. >> We have no speakers on this item.
>> Thank you, Ms.McGill. We will close the public hearing and address
any questions on the item. Mr.Arp?
>> Mr.Mayor, I would move that we approve the proposed annexation as recommended by
city staff. >> Probably need to be specific on that effective
date. >> 31 December, 2011.
>> Second to Mr. >> Second.
>> I had a question. >> Okay.
>> First an appropriate second and now a question, Mr.Mohn.
>> If this might be for Mr.Iman or the city attorney.
If we do not go through with this annexation, and understanding the charter they can expand
anywhere in the county without council's approval by the charter.
I know we have agreements. If this annexation, voluntary annexation does
not go through, can the remainder of the property still receive PWC sewer and water with the
direct agreement with PWC without going to the council?
>> We're currently working on a revision to policy 150.2 regarding this exact issue at
the direction of the city council. Currently, the policy states that in order
to receive Fayetteville utilities in terms of water and sewer, that a petition for annexation
must be received and acted on by council. That does not say that it has to be approved
by council. That's correct, under the current language.
But on the work session, October3rd, we're going to have a revised policy for council
consideration. >> Any other questions?
Okay, let me ask for your vote on the motion, please.
That motion carries. Those in favor,.
Thank you, Mr.Nash.
Now move to item 8.1, uninhabitable structures demolition.
Mr.Swanson is with us this evening. >> I'm sorry, I didn't bring my glasses with
me this evening. Before you this evening is staff request for
demolition of three buildings determined to be dangerous or blight.
Staff has complied with all statutory requirements in determining these buildings are dangerous
or blight. All statutory processes and service requirements
relating to the issuance of notice, notices and the respective property owners has been
met. None of the properties were eligible for the
city's acquisition demolition program, and a letter of the agenda item for this meeting
was mailed out to each of the property owners. First property we have here is 516 link and it's located between grove and Pearson
street. We've determined it's a blighted building.
It's not an historical property. Vacant house in a residential zone.
The utilities were disconnected as of September2009. This one here we have had in the last two
years, 166 calls for 911 service and 18 code violations.
We have 1,000 543 .66 dollarsin city assessments in cleaning.
Low bid for demolition cost was $1300. $1543.66in city assessments.
The picture here is the front of the structure. What you see there used to be an overhang
for the porch that's completely gone. We went out to inspect it, took photographs.
The building was open. This is a picture of the inside.
Kitchen. Next property is 806 Eugene street, that's
located in Borden Heights off of Cumberland Road.
This structure is a dangerous building. It doesn't have any fiscal value.
Utilities were disconnected as of February2009. The last two years has been three calls for
911 service and three code violations. We have $494for lot cleaning.
No outstanding taxes and the low bid for demolition is $4,300.
This is a picture of the front of the house. You can see this is part of the damage of
the roof. There's a hole that goes right through the
roof on the inside, and this is the damage to the floor from the hole in the roof.
Where it's rained and caused the floor to buckle up.
And this is where you can stand inside and look right up through the roof.
The last property is 1639 Rudolph street. That's Rudolph Street.
It's located close to E.E. smith high school. This is dangerous building, fire damaged in
April, on April22nd, 2011. It's not an historical property.
It was a vacant house when it was when it received the fire damage.
It's residential zoned. The utilities were disconnected in September
of 2009. Last two years 11 calls for 911 service, and
we had four code violations. There's $1,050for lot cleanings, $1528.50of
outstanding taxes and low bid for demolition cleanup is $4,900.
Photograph of the front of the house. This is the rear.
This reflects the fire damage on the inside of the house.
That concludes our presentation. Staff's available for any questions.
>> Okay, we have any questions for Mr.Swanson? If not, is there a motion?
Mr.Davy? >> I would like to make a motion to adopt
the ordinances and demolish the structures, which is at 806 Eugene street, 516 link street,
and 1639 Rudolph Street. >> All right.
Is there a second to that motion? >> Second.
>> Mr.Bates, thank you. Any discussion of the motion?
Let me ask for your vote, please. That is unanimous.
Thank you, Mr.Swanson. Thank you for being here, sir.
8.2, consideration of a planned neighborhood district for Bingham drive.
Mr.Harmon. >> Good evening Mr.Mayor, members
of council. Before you tonight, we do have a detailed
development plan for planned neighborhood district.
The name of this proposed development is the reserve at Bingham.
The property's located on southeast side of Bingham drive across from Lake ridge Drive.
Actually, borders on the city limits in that area.
As I mentioned before, this is a PND for a detailed development plan, and it currently
is 55 .9acres. Just as a reminder, in the PND plan approval
process, it is a two step process requiring first a general plan approval, which went
through the planning commission in January and then was approved by the city council
in February of this year. Once that is approved, then the developer
has a two year window to come back with a detailed development plan.
This developer has come back already with this one.
It has gone before the planning commission. They have recommended approval, and tonight
it is up for your consideration. This gives you an idea of where the property
is located out on Bingham drive. Just to give you a little idea of the area.
This was rezoning about year and a half ago where there is a new food lion.
We've also had a cell tower here at this church within the last six to 12 months.
As I said before, this proposed development is city limits with the county.
Currently the property is developed. There is a food lion, couple of churches,
smaller areas to the north, couple of auto paint body shops and this longer one being
a mini storage. Then the yellow being low density residential
mainly around this project. Land use plan in this area is called for low
density residential, however as I mentioned when it was in this it was PND, planned neighborhood
district. Aerial photo again just to give you an idea
of where this is mainly wooded property currently. You see utility easement coming through the
middle of the property where there were no trees.
Other than that, undeveloped at this point. Hopefully you can see this okay.
I think on y'all's monitor's monitors, it's not coming through clear tonight.
Hopefully it's coming through more clear than it is on the monitor to the right of me.
The site plan I'll show you in just a moment. This was mainly to show you the connectivity
to the existing development here to the south. You have Bingham drive here.
We have painters row we have actually silver bell coming off of Bingham drive here.
And this development, painter's mill will now connect into this new development run
north and then connect back into Bingham drive. So it'll not only give this new development
two access points in and out, but it'll also now give this development here where painter's
mill and silver bell are two entrance ways in and out of their development, which have
not had in the past. I think this, this map is in your packet,
and I think it comes out a bit clearer on the monitor.
You can see here from the entrance way off of Bingham, the north entrance way here, to
the north to the east side of it, it's where the multifamily residential will be.
Then we have on the south side here their commercial area that they're proposing.
Then we have single family residential here around this cul de sac and then this whole
area in here is also single family residential. Then you have open space here, which does
connect into a larger open space area connecting into a creek system back off the map.
And then open space here as well where that power easement comes through the property.
Just as a run down and a reminder, the, under the PND there is a percentage breakdown that
has to occur with the certain different types of development on the property.
The commercial is, under the PND is to be developed as C1P commercial.
This one came in under the old ordinance just as a reminder.
There's 2.8acres of commercial around 11acres of open space, I believe it's about 8acres
that are required open space. Then we've got as far as the R 10 residential,
we have got 25acres of that, which will accommodate 75 single family residential lots.
And then the multifamily being about 15acres which the developer is asking for 216 lots
or units proposed. They could've had as many as as four more,
220 allowed under the densities for that. Staff has noted to the developer during the
first process and again through this process if council wants to go this way that the possibility
of a berm or more substantial fence and landscaping may be needed along the public edge on the
rear of the development. I'll just back up real quick.
What's that talking about is the area right through here, the single family residential
abuts up against Bingham drive. The developer does show a fence through that
area, but that being the public edge, it may be good to have better landscaping or something
so it's not just a solid fence wall going through there.
A TIA or traffic impact analysis will be required on the project, and the open space we noted
the first time should help connect the natural corridors in that area and as I pointed out
a moment ago, it does. The planning commission and staff have recommended
approval of this detailed site plan. This is a reminder again this is not a public
hearing tonight. It's just a regular item.
There are at least one representative of the developer here if you have questions of them
as well. But are there any questions of staff at this
point? >> Mr.Crisp has one, Mr.Harmon.
>> Are we sure there will be a light at the entrance way, or will that be determined at
the TIA? >> I believe the TIA has already been done
out there, and they are going to have to put a light at that intersection, and I'll defer
just real quickly to the developer's engineer if you don't mind just to 
>> And if we do put a light there, will it have a turn lane?
>> I will let the project engineer. >> Good evening members of council, mayor.
In reference to council, we have done TIA, referenced to both DOT and the city and the
recommendation of the TIA was to install a light there.
The light's a phased improvement based on the build out of the development.
The single family subdivision on its own does not dictate that the light be put in, but
before we can complete construction on the multifamily and the commercial, the light
needs to be installed as part of the improvements. So we're anticipating that's probably a three
to four year build out to get to that point, but as part of that work, there would be a
reuse of the existing left turn lane on Bingham drive on to painter's mill into the project,
and there would be a right turn lane coming into painter's mill off Bingham drive and
to the project. And there would also be a little bit of a
widening coming out of Lakeridge on the other side to allow for a left turn with the light
coming out of there and us to be able to get in traffic, we actually have a little piece
of property over there that may be another project.
>> Thank you. >> Yes, sir, thank you.
>> Mr.Bates? >> Yes, sir?
>> Well, at the same time, we're talking the front entranceway or not entranceway but the
front border, I've seen some developments where they have the berm, you know, in the
trees and the wood there. Do y'all plan on doing that or do we need
how we can, you know, say that's what we want to see in there?
I've seen them, and I think they look pretty good that way.
I mean, so I and I guess it helps with the noise and stuff too I guess.
>> To an extent, yeah. This, there's a lot of topography on this
piece of property. And in order to make it work, they'll have
to be a lot there'll have to be lot of grader done.
From talking grading done. From talking with the developers, they do
plan to do some landscaping on Bingham drive. Now to what extent they were planning on berming
it, we really haven't discussed that yet just because we haven't gotten far enough in the
engineering plans to see where the grades are going to end up.
I think what's going to happen if you ride by the project on Bingham drive and look at
it, what we will end up doing is lowering the single family section of the site down
some from the Bingham drive grade so you won't necessarily get the full effect of the house
that backs up to the road. It may be something that a fence and adequate
landscaping can, you know, buffer adequately, but at this point, I wouldn't want to say
yeah, we're wholeheartedly planning on putting a berm yet because we just haven't finished
the grading plan yet. >> All right, thank you, and then Mr.Harmon,
we've talked about it before, and it's not a requirement, but have we approached the
developers on easement just large enough to put a busstop in in five years, ten years,
one year? You know, so that way when the time comes,
the easement's already there, we can put a busstop in?
>> I don't believe in this case that we have. >> Hmm.
All right. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Okay.
Mr.Crisp. >> Mr.Mayor, I move that we approve the
consideration of the planned neighborhood detailed development plan applicable to the
location on the southeast side of Bingham drive across from Lakeridge Drive containing
56.22acres more or less and being the property of Edgar L. Manness and wife, and Robert C.Draughon
and wife. >> Any further discussion?
Let me ask for your vote. >> Go in peace.
>> That was unanimous. Ignore my red light.
I'm getting all kinds of all my buttons are falling off again.
>> Unanimous? >> Okay.
Thank you so much. We will move to item 8.3, a request that a
sidewalk a request that the sidewalk not be required to be constructed with the city's
MIA. >> Instead of the staff all being here, I
stand in for one of them. Karen Hilton, thank you.
This is, as noted, an MIA sidewalk waiver request.
That's municipal influence area. It comes up when a project is going through
the subdivision process in the county within the MIA area.
It's located at 1171 south eastern boulevard. A little bit of background.
It is owned by Mr.Hardin. It involves 12 .4acres being split into
two parcels. The front part will be the larger one, about
eight acres, and the second, the remaining portion is the, about four acres, 4.2.
The front area is more the structure as you'll see from some of the photos.
The back part, the county is asking, encouraging them to split off the outdoor storage area
from this piece. So that will be the portion that's being separated.
The area for which the sidewalk would be required would total about 500feet, there's 400
maybe across the front and then a 20 foot access lane across the top edge of the property
to the back portion of the site. If it were to be done under the city where
we do have in lieu of payment, it would be about $16,300in lieu fee.
The site as you can see is just south of the intersection of the MLK boulevard and south
eastern boulevard shown in the hatched area. It is in an area that's currently zoned almost
entirely industrial. As you'll see from the aerial, a lot of that
area is not necessarily developed. Where it is, it is done as industrial development
and it's likely to stay this way for sometime. As a general use pattern.
As you can see, there are essentially two portions to this site.
The large, the front parcel, and the large wooded section would be parcel number one,
the rear portion would be parcel number two. This is moving sort of northward toward downtown.
Your parcel is to the right. ANT trucking and little bit farther down the
road. This is a service road that it parallels eastern.
So it is controlled entirely by D.O.T. That is one of the issues.
D.O.T. on the service road will not allow the sidewalk.
Individually. Where it would occur would have to be on the
private property, and there is no sidewalk in the area.
Consequently as you continue to look at the pictures, the staff considered that it is
unlikely in the relatively near future with large parcels industrially used that we're
likely to see a fill in over time of sidewalks. On the other hand, as you'll see on option
number two, rather than completely waiving any requirement to meet city standards or
to help the city in future retrofitting that might occur, the recommendation is option
number two. We are recommending that we deny the waiver,
i.e., they would under normal circumstances have to build a sidewalk, but with the condition
that in fact they do not have to build a sidewalk. They would however be asked to provide the
10 foot easement on their property for future retrofitting as the area evolves.
Minimal cost at this point in time. Unlikely to be connected to anything in the
future, reasonably foreseeable future, as the best option.
As a reminder, the county planning board is the one who makes the decisions.
It is a quasi judicial process they take up on October18th, so the planning commission
will probably have a representative there. With any of your discussion and findings and
recommendation tonight. >> Any questions for Ms.Hilton?
Mr.Bates? >> Ms.Hilton, so staff recommends denial
with the condition that a 10 foot easement be required located in coordination with city
engineering, so we're saying we want that easement because sometime in the future the
city will pay to put the sidewalk in? >> More than likely or multipurpose trail
or path. Could be at some point 10 years from now,
could be a different kind of vehicular or pedestrian connection.
But yes, the city would undertake it at that time.
>> If we're recommending, you know, give us the land and we'll do it later on, then I
say that we have them do it now. I mean, that's just I think you 
>> Okay. >> Other questions for Ms.Hilton?
Okay. Care for a motion?
Go ahead, Mr.Mohn. >> I will make the motion that we follow staff's
recommendation, that we deny with the condition that they provide a 10 foot sidewalk easement
for potential future development. >> Okay.
Second to Mr.Mohn's motion? >> Second.
>> Okay. Mr.Crisp, thank you.
Any discussion on the motion? I'm let me ask for your vote, please.
That's unanimous. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms.Hilton. Okay.
Council, our last item is North Carolina league of municipalities annual league business meeting
voting delegates. Mr.Iman?
>> Yes, Mr.Mayor, the North Carolina league of municipalities annual meeting will be held
beginning, Monday October24th and I think running through the 26th, and this item involves
the council signing assigning one member of the council that will be participating
and attending the conference to act as a voting delegate on behalf of the North Carolina league
of municipalities. >> Okay, council.
We have a motion, the attendees I believe are Mr.Bates, Ms.Applewhite, Mr.Massey,
and Mr.Chavonne. I have a motion for, to appoint two officials.
>> Mr.Bates, sir. >> I have a motion for Mr.Haire to appoint
Mr.Bates. Is there a second to that?
Thank you, Mr.Massey. Any discussion for that?
Ask for your vote. Can we modify that in acclimation substitution
would be Ms.Applewhite? That okay with everybody?
Okay. Thank you so much.
Meeting adjourned.