HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 5234 T N=Ta AO-
Fmmom l+D �
. Ann
W e
n`rt= on
,. am 0—
r ma rtm o•• —
o om
��U'3t 1a1 _4 1 2' U� ��h0\mA
OO<9N (nom
C• mo V=
M DO O
OrtDno OC
y Il.l �O rm N_
CA) N m
.. —
ro r=
ORDINANCE NO. 5234 pp 3
AN ORDINANCE CONCURRING WITH FARMINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 2009-05, PROVIDING FOR THE
VOLUNTARY DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN LANDS FROM
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AND ATTACHING SAID
LANDS TO THE CITY OF FARMINGTON
WHEREAS, two property owners (Samples and Tennants) petitioned the Farmington
City Council to be annexed into Farmington if the Fayetteville City Council agreed to detach
their property described in Exhibit"A" from Fayetteville; and
WHEREAS, Farmington passed Ordinance No. 2009-05 on March 9, 2009 which states
that if the Fayetteville City Council votes for the proposed detachment and annexation ordinance,
then "a prima facie case for detachment and annexation (of the property described in Exhibit A)
shall be established ......; and
WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council held a public hearing on this subject as
required by A.C.A. § 14-40-201 on April 7, 2009, after Farmington published a notice for this
public hearing at least fifteen (15) days before the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby concurs
with Farmington Ordinance No. 2009-05 providing for the simultaneous detachment from
Fayetteville and annexation into Farmington of that property described in Exhibit"A".
PASSED and APPROVED this 2151 day of April, 2009. sU GO Y oF'eG�
APPROVED- ATTEST: E aFAYETTEVILLE.-
/m,;�ti
By: By: w 'tl�j"AB,;;GTON��G�°°°°°
O ELD JOO Mayor SO RA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
EXHIBIT A
Tennant Detachment Legal Description
A part of the Southwest Quarter (SW'/4) of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/4) of Section
Sixteen (16), Township Sixteen (16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, described
as beginning at a point which is N89037'1 3"W 590.95 feet from the Northeast corner
of said forty acre tract, said point being a found iron pin; thence N89037'13"W 61.60
feet to a found iron pin; thence S13020'00"E 310.13 feet to a found iron pin; thence
S8030'00"E 94.59 feet to a set iron pin; thence S03040'00"E 169.90 feet to a set iron
pin; thence S9029'45"E 205.06 feet to a found iron pin; thence S15019'30"E 64.13
feet to a found iron pin; thence S89°57'40"W 319.84 feet to a found iron pin; thence
S9001'00"E 496.80 feet to a found iron pin; thence along the South line of the SW'%
of the NW'/4 S89°43'03"E 762.00 feet; thence N0043'02"W 923.77 feet to a set iron
pin; thence N89050'51"W 508.70 feet to a set iron pin; thence N8°30'00"W 104.70
feet to a found iron pin; thence N13020'00"W 302.76 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 15.01 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas.
Washington County, AR
I certify this instrument was filed on
05/04/2009 02:13:12 PM
and recorded in Real Estate
File Number 2009-0001371
Bette Stamps- Circuit C
by
RECEIVED
(� �y•� t y� APR. 3 0 2009
ArkmsaS Demo ax CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
"Y CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
•• s
Northwest Arkansas Times
Benton County Daily Record
P. O. BOX 1607
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 72702
PHONE: 479-571-6421
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Cathy Wiles, do solemnly swear that I am Legal Clerk of the Arkansas
Democrat Gazette newspaper. Printed and published in Benton County
Arkansas, (Lowell) and that from my own personal knowledge and
reference to the files of said publication, the advertisement of: City of
Fayetteville — Ordinance #5234
April 27, 2009
Publication Charge : $123.74
Signed: -- __
Subscribed and sworn to before me
This 2?day of Qwr c,>B 2009.
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: y2
J
Do not pay from Affidavit, an invoice will be sent
NA J4
�.GpMM.FkA.is
a 0jARY
W;
Pulav ry'ys
YS,y/ 4 �.
AY Q6-" Q•
iyG�Gp..
RECEIVED
APR. 3 0 2009
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
ORDINANCE NO. 5234
AN ORDINANCE CONCURRING WITH FARMING-
TON ORDIVOLUNNCE TARY
D. ACHM5,PROVIDING FORTaye
THE VOLUNTARY DETACHMENT OF CERTAIN
LANDS ING SN HE CITY OF THEFAYETTEVILLE,IOFAND
ATTACHING SAID LANDS TO THE CITY OF FARM-
INGTON ARKANSAS
WHEREAS,two properly owners(Samples and Tennan(s)petitioned the Farmington City Council to
be annexed into Farmington if the Fayetteville City Council agreed to detach their property described
in Exhibit"A"from Fayetteville;and
WHEREAS,Farmington passed Ordinance No:200fLT5 on March 9,2009 which states that if the
Fayetteville City Council votes for the proposed detachment and annexation Ordinance,then 'a
I prima facie case for detachment and annexation(of the property described in Exhibit A)j shall be
established and
WHEREAS,the Fayetteville City Council held a public hearing on this subject as required by A.C.A.
§1440-201 on April 7,2009,after Farmington Published a notice for this public hearing a[least fit-
an(15)days before the hearing. . ,
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINS
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS: D BY-THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE-CITY OF
Soclionl That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville,Arkansas hereby concurs with Farmington
Ordinance No.2009L05 providing for the simultaneous detachment from Fayetteville and annexation
into Farmington of that property described in Exhibit"A'.
PASSED and APPROVED this 21st day of April,2009,
APPROVED: ATTEST
By: B
LIONELD JORDAN,Mayor- SONDRA E.SMITH,Cfty Cierk/4easerer
EXHIBIT
Tennant Detachment Legal Description
A part of the Southwest Quarter(SW A)of the Northwest Quarter(NWA)of Section
Sixteen(16),Township Sixteen(16)North,Range Thirty-one(31)West,described.
as beginning at a point which is N89°37'13'W 590.95 feet from the Northeast corner
of said forty acre tract,said point being a found iron pin;thence N89°37'13'W 61.60
feet to a found iron pin;thence S13°20'00-E 310.13 feet to a found iron pin;thence
S8°30'00'E 94.59 feet to a set iron pin;thence S03°40'00'E 169.90 feet to a set fron
pin;thence S9°29'45'E 205.06 feet to a found iron pin;thence S15-19.30-E 64.13
feetko a found iron pin;thence S89°57'40'W 319.84 feet to a found iron pin;thence
S9°01'00'E 496.80 feet to a found iron pin;thence along the South line of the SWI.
of the NWY4 S8964TOTE 762.00 feet;thence NO°43'02'W 923.77 feet to a set iron
.pin;thence N89-50.51-W 508.70 feet to a set iron pin;thence N8°30'00'W 104.70.
feet to a found iron pin;thence 1\113°20'00'W 302,76 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 15.01 acres,more or less,Washington County,Arkansas -.
City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form
City Council Agenda Items .
and
Contracts, Leases or Agreements
City Council Meeting Date
�( Agenda Items Only
Jeremy Pate b` Planning Operations
Submitted By Division Department
Action Required:
Approval of an ordinance consenting to the request by Steven and Sandra Tennant and AI and Yvonne Samples to
simultaneously de-annex properties from the City of Fayetteville and annex said properties into the City of
Farmington, as adopted by the the City of Farmington in Ordinance No. 2009-0A
S
n/a n/a n/a
Cost of this request Category/Project Budget Program Category/Project Name
n/a n/a n/a
Account Number Funds Used to Date Program/Project Category Name
n/a n/a n/a
Project Number Remaining Balance Fund Name
Budgeted Item Budget Adjustment Attached
Previous Ordinance or Resolution# n/a
Department Director Date
Original Contract Date: n/a
Original Contract Number: n/a
City Attorney Date
ERe
Fi ance and Internal Services Director Date Received in City 'v O
Clerk's Office
f of S D to
` Received in
Mayors Office 7
ay r *at
Comments.
Revised January 15,2009
P��a�a c. Xf r ran Cy-,lyv V/-9/,";�?
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS,CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER,ASST.CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor
City Council
CC: Farmington City Clerk
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney
DATE: March 17, 2009
RE: Simultaneous detachment to Farmington (second ordinance)
Farmington has passed Ordinance No. 2009-05 on March 9, 2009 and
provided a copy to Fayetteville. We have notified Farmington to publish the 15
day pre-hearing notice so that Fayetteville can conduct a hearing on this
detachment during its April 7, 2009 meeting.
This decision is totally within your discretion. Please see the memos from
Jeremy Pate and Steve Davis to explain why the two property owners are seeking
this simultaneous detachment/annexation.
City Council Meeting of March 17, 2009
Agenda Item Number
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
To: Mayor and City Council
Thru: Don Marr, Chief of Staff
From: Jeremy Pate, Director Current Planning
Date: 23 February 2009
Subject: Tennant/Samples De-annexation
RECOMMENDATION
The request is to adjust the the city's municipal boundary in order to allow Farmington's
City Attorney to reside within the City of Farmington on property recently annexed by
general election into the City of Fayetteville. Absent any specific policy directives from
the City Council regarding deannexation, staff has evaluated the request and does not
object to the proposed deannexation, finding that the unique circumstances surrounding
this request of the Farniington City Attorney will not establish a precedent for future de-
annexation requests from the City of Fayetteville, and finding that the reduction of
agriculturally-zoned land in this area of the City will not have a great impact on future
services or revenue.
BACKGROUND
The subject property contains three parcels totaling approximately 15 acres located
within the City of Fayetteville. The property is accessed from Wilmoth Road, east of 85th
Avenue, and currently contains a recently constructed single family home, accessory
structures and agricultural land. The land is owned by the Tennants and Samples, all
family members. The petitioner, Mr. Tennant, has served as the city attorney for the City
of Farmington since 1998. Mr. Tennant has resided within the city limits of Farmington,
until the completion of his family's new home on the subject property, which was in the
unincorporated area of Washington County. The petitioner believed he could continue to
serve as Farmington's elected city attorney while residing at the new location within
Washington County, and to use the property for farming and hunting purposes, with the
option to voluntarily annex into the City of Farmington at some later date. However, in
2006, this property was annexed into the City of Fayetteville by general election, which
complicates the ability of Mr. Tennant to remain as city attorney for Farmington. The
Attorney General recently opined that a city's attorney must reside at all times within the
jurisdiction they represent (see attached AG opinion), which is applicable in this case.
The options presented to Mr. Tennant are:
1)Attempt to sell the property and recently constructed home and reside in Farmington;
2) Resign as City Attorney, requiring Farmington to call a special election or contract for
services
3)Request to de-annex from Fayetteville and annex into Farmington.
City Council Meeting of March 17, 2009
Agenda Item Number
It is Mr. Tennant's desire to continue to serve as Farmington's city attorney, and live in
the newly constructed home on his family's land. The intended use of the land is rural
residential, a goal that is more consistent with nearby land use within Farmington than
that of Fayetteville. Consequently, the applicant has petitioned the cities of Farmington
and Fayetteville for a municipal boundary amendment. Pursuant to A.C.A §14-40-2101,
two contiguous municipalities may simultaneously detach and annex territory, subject to
approval from the governing body of each municipality.
DISCUSSION
The City of Farmington has agreed to the petitioner's request, and accordingly adopted
Ordinance No. 2009-02. In addition, the petitioner provided a summary of comments
from Emergency Response providers of Farmington, which all supported this request.
The unique circumstances of this particular petition demonstrate to staff that the request
does not establish a precedent for future de-annexation in a similar manner.
BUDGETIMPACT
None.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE CONCURRING WITH FARMINGTON ORDINANCE
NO. 2009-05, PROVIDING FOR THE VOLUNTARY DETACHMENT OF
CERTAIN LANDS FROM THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, AND
ATTACHING SAID LANDS TO THE CITY OF FARMINGTON
WHEREAS, two property owners (Samples and Tennants) petitioned the Farmington City
Council to be annexed into Farmington if the Fayetteville City Council agreed to detach their property
described in Exhibit"A"from Fayetteville; and
WHEREAS, Farmington passed Ordinance No. 2009-02 on March 9, 2009 which states that if
the Fayetteville City Council votes for the proposed detachment and annexation ordinance, then "a prima
facie case for detachment and annexation (of the property described in Exhibit A) shall be established
... "; and
WHEREAS, the Fayetteville City Council held a public hearing on this subject as required by
A.C.A. §14-40-201 on April 7, 2009, after Farmington published a notice for this public hearing at least
fifteen (15)days before the hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE,ARKANSAS:
Section 1: That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby concurs with
Farmington Ordinance no. 2009-05 providing for the simultaneous detachment from Fayetteville and
annexation into Farmington of that property described in Exhibit"A".
PASSED and APPROVED this 21"day of April,2009.
APPROVED: ATTEST:
By: By:
LIONELD JORDAN, Mayor SONDRA E. SMITH, City Clerk/Treasurer
IIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Doc ID: 012753710004 Tvoe: REL
Recorded: 03/13/2009 at 08:56:36 AM
Fee Amt: $30.00 Paae 1 of 4
F-F—
1 Hashinaton Countv. AR
L D Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
F11e2009-00007318
2r 09 MAR 13 AM 9: 00
iEra 7-1 vEr i
0,6 &PRo
ORDINANCE No. 2009-05
AN ORDINANCE TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2009-02 AND ADOPT A NEW
ORDINANCE SIMULTANEOUSLY DETACHING TERRITORY FROM THE CITY
OF FAYETTEVILLE AND ANNEXING SAID TERRITORY INTO THE CITY OF
FARMINGTON, PURSUANT TO A.C.A. 14-40-2101
WHEREAS, A.C.A.14-40-2 101 provides a procedure for the simultaneous detachment of
territory from one municipality and annexation of such territory into an adjoining
municipality; and
WHEREAS, Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne Samples are desirous of
detaching from Fayetteville into Farmington.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FARMINGTON, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. That Farmington Ordinance 2009-02 is repealed and this ordinance is
adopted in its stead.
SECTION 2. That certain territory presently within the corporate limits of the City of
Fayetteville is contiguous to and adjoins the City of Farmington. The City of Farmington
hereby calls for the simultaneous detachment and annexation of the lands that are
described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. That the proposed detachment and annexation of lands described in Exhibit
A was requested by the owners of the subject property.
SECTION 4. That a copy of this ordinance shall be sent to the governing body of the
City of Fayetteville. Within sixty (60) days of the date this ordinance was proposed, the
governing body of the City of Fayetteville shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed
detachment and annexation.
SECTION 5. That at least fifteen(15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, the
Farmington City Clerk shall publish a legal notice of said public hearing, which shall also
set out the legal description of the territory proposed to be detached and annexed.
SECTION 6. That at said public hearing, officials of both municipalities, as well and
property owners within the area proposed to be detached and annexed,may appear and
present their views on the proposal.
SECTION 7. That at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville City
Council following the public hearing, said City Council may bring proposed ordinance up
for a vote to concur in the detachment and annexation. If approved, a prima facie case
for detachment and annexation shall be established, and the City of Farmington shall
proceed to render services to the newly annexed area.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS 9th DAY OF MARCH, 2009.
C/Ty /
p
1 , n
Ernie Penn, Mayor
Kelly Tho s, City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Tennant Detachment Legal Description
A part of the Southwest Quarter(SW%) of the Northwest Quarter (NW'/<) of Section
Sixteen (16). Township Sixteen(16) North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, described
as beginning at a point which is N89°37'13"W 590.95 feet from the Northeast corner
of said forty acre tract, said point being a found iron pin; thence N89037'13"W 61.60
feet to a found iron pin; thence S13020'00"E 310.13 feet to a found iron pin; thence
SW30'00"E 94.59 feet to a set iron pin; thence S03040'00"E 169.90 feet to a set iron
pin; thence S9029'45"E 205.06 feet to a found iron pin; thence S15°19'30"E 64.13
feet to a found iron pin; thence S89057'40"W 319.84 feet to a found iron pin; thence
S9001'00"E 496.80 feet to a found iron pin; thence along the South tine of the SWI/4
of the NW`% S89°43'03"E 762.00 feet; thence NO°43'02"W 923.77 feet to a set iron
pin; thence N89050'51"W 508.70 feet to a set iron pin; thence N8030'00"W 104.70
feet to a found iron pin; thence N13020'00"W 302.76 feet to the point of beginning,
containing 15.01 acres, more or less, Washington County, Arkansas.
Exhibit B
� s
4-
ty of Fayetteville
r
City o₹ Farminyton
l Jsa .a'_k „air t}
�< t
� s
0 125 250 500 t
Feet F a
Y
FAYETTEVILLE
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS
KIT WILLIAMS, CITY ATTORNEY
DAVID WHITAKER, ASST. CITY ATTORNEY
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE LEGAL DEPARTMENT
TO: Lioneld Jordan, Mayor
Don Marr, Chief of Staff
Jeremy Pate, Current Planning Director
FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney ✓ y
DATE: February 27, 2009
RE: Simultaneous detachment/annexation of two parcels from Fayetteville
into Farmington
Ordinance No. 2009-02 was passed by the Farmington City Council on January
12, 2009, and filed for record on January 30, 2009. By letter dated February 19, 2009,
Davis Business Planning requested the Fayetteville City Council to agree with this
simultaneous detachment/annexation and evidently supplied the ordinance and other
documents including signatures of the property owners dated February 6`h and I I'h.
A.C.A. § 14-40-2101 (b)(2) requires the governing body of the city where the lands
are located to have a public hearing "within sixty (60) days of the proposal of the
ordinance calling for detachment and annexation." This was January 12, 2009. However
the statute also requires "(a)t least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing,
(Farmington) shall publish a legal notice ...." A.C.A. §14-40-2101 (b)(3)
Thus, we would have to schedule the public hearing early enough to allow
Farmington to publish the 15 days notice. With the passage of the ordinance on January
12`h, the last possible day the hearing could be held (within 60 days allowed by statute) is
March 131h. Thus the notice would have to be published no later than February 27`h
(today).
Even if the City of Fayetteville was willing to have a special City Council meeting
on Friday the 13`h of March just for this public hearing, notice has not been published by
Farmington, so we cannot legally hold such special meeting.
I see no solution to this timing mess, but for Farmington to. pass another proposing
ordinance and then send us this ordinance PROMPTLY so we can schedule the Public
Hearing and notify Farmington so it can publish the 15 day prior notice in a timely
fashion.
Davis Business Planning
P.O. Box 3381
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
Telephone Number: 479-935-4572
Fax Number: 479-935-4573
Web Site: Davisbusinessplanning.com
February 19, 2009
Fayetteville City Council
City of Fayetteville
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Re: Proposed Land Annexation from Fayetteville
Dear Council Members,
I am representing Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne Samples who request that the City of
Fayetteville consider adjusting their city limits by allowing the detachment of their parcels #765-16159-
930, #765-16159-900 and #765-16159-980 which currently lie within the city limits of Fayetteville.
This request is submitted for your review and consideration. The following discussion sets forth the
options available to Mr. Tennant and his desire to continue to serve Farmington citizens as their elected
City Attorney. The least disruptive solution for both Mr. Tennant and the City of Farmington is for
Farmington and Fayetteville agree to a detachment of Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne
Samples properties and for Farmington to agree to an attachment of their property.
The City of Farmington approved annexation of the subject property at its January 2009 City Council
meeting with its passage of Farmington Ordinance 2009-002. Completion of the annexation is subject to
Fayetteville's agreement to detach the subject parcels from its city boundaries.
The circumstances of this request are unique and do not lend themselves to establishment of any
precedents. As you will note the remedy options available to Farmington and Mr. Tennant are very
limited:
1. Mr. Tennant can petition to have his property detached from Fayetteville and attached to
Farmington;
2. Mr. Tennant can continue to reside within the city. limits of Farmington and not avail his family to
their new home;
3. Mr. Tennant can resign as city attorney for Farmington and Farmington would have to seek
another city attorney by special election; or,
4. If Mr. Tennant resigns, and no resident attorney is willing to serve as city attorney, then the
Farmington City Council and Mayor would have to seek a qualified attorney residing in Arkansas
to provide legal services by contract.
The petitioner is the incumbent city attorney for the City of Farmington and has served as Farmington's
City Attorney since 1998.. On January 18, 2008 Dustin McDaniel, State of Arkansas's Attorney General
issued an AG's Opinion that states, in part, that city attorney's must reside at all times within the
jurisdiction they represent. Mr. Tennant has been a continuous resident of Farmington until the
completion of his family's new home on the subject property. Prior to the issuance of the AG's Opinion,
Page 1 of 3
the petitioner believed he could continue to serve as Farmington's elected city attorney at least until the
next scheduled election. It is Mr. Tennant's desire to continue to serve the City of Farmington in his
capacity as city attorney. Fayetteville Building Inspection Division performed the final building
inspection on January 16, 2009 and issued the certificate of occupancy.
The petitioner had intended for the subject property to remain in an unincorporated part of Washington
County so that his property would have been governed by Washington County standards and would have
enabled the petitioner to continue to use his property for farming and hunting purposes with a future
voluntary annexation into Farmington. This option changed with the annexation vote by Fayetteville.
Once Fayetteville announced the new boundaries of their proposed annexation, all voluntary annexations
were held in abeyance pending the results of the election. The petitioner expected Fayetteville's
annexation vote to fail as had previous annexation votes by Fayetteville. Prior to Fayetteville's
annexation vote, the petitioner sought to sell the property but the real estate market began to soften
making it impossible for the petitioner to recover his investment. The option left to Mr. Tennant was to
begin the process of using the property as his personal residence with a future request for detachment -
attachment.
Failure of Mr. Tennant to gain approval of this detachment/attachment request will pose a hardship on
Mr. Tennant and.the City of Farmington. The hardships faced by Mr. Tennant is that he will either have
to give up residing in his new home or give up being the elected city attorney. The hardship faced by
Farmington, if this detachment/attachment is not approved, will be the call of a special election or
contracting for city attorney services. If Farmington had to seek another attorney by special election, and
no residing attorney(s), qualified or not, chose to run for office, the Mayor and City Council would have
to contract for services with a qualified attorney within the State of Arkansas. If Farmington had to
contract with an attorney qualified in city government to provide legal services the citizens of Farmington
would be deprived of a city attorney directly accountable to them.
Other factors that enter into the consideration of granting this request include the land use impact and
impact on emergency service delivery. Below is a brief discussion of these impacts as they relate to this
proposed action.
Contiguous Land Use
The parcels are contiguous to the current Farmington city limits boundaries and lie adjacent to
property owned by Roy and Betty Hummel. The property owners began development of the
property in 2003 with the construction of a pond, workshop and a well. The use of the property
envisioned by the owners is to complete fencing of the property and begin raising calves which is
a use that is more consistent to the surrounding parcels within Farmington than they are with the
adjacent parcels in Fayetteville.
Emergency Response Services
Both Farmington Fire and Police departments have been contacted to determine what impact, if
any, the attachment of these parcels would have on Farmington's emergency services. Mark
Cunningham, Fire Chief, City of Farmington Fire Department advised that the Farmington Fire
Department would have a better response time than Fayetteville based on location alone. Brian
Hubbard, Farmington Police Chief, advised that this area is already patrolled by the Farmington
Department. This is due to the location being right up against the end of their route and this road
is used by his department as a turn -around.
To aid in your deliberation of this request I have attached maps of the parcels and copies of emails
between my office and the City of Farmington's Police Department.
Page 2 of 3
In closing, this application for detachment -attachment presents some unique circumstances that would
limit its use as a precedent in any future detachment -attachment requests from either city. The petitioner
thanks you for your consideration of this request. Representatives of my firm and the petitioner are
available to answer any questions you might have regarding this request.
Respectfully,
Stephen Davis
Davis Business Planning
Attachments:
Farmington Ordinance
Farmington City Council Agenda Packet
Arkansas Attorney General Opinion 2007-302
Arkansas Code 14-40-2101
Location Maps
Copy of email from Farmington Police
Page 3 of 3
We, Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne Samples, owners of parcels #765-
16159-930, #765-16159-900 and #765-16159-980 petition the City of Fayetteville to
detach our parcels so the detached parcels can be annexed into the City of Farmington.
PROPERTYOWNER(S) /AUTHORIZED AGENT: I/we certify under penalty of perjury that lam/we are
the owner(s) of the property that is the subject of this application and that I/we have read this application
and consent to its filing. (If signed by the authorized agent, a letter from each property owner must be
provided indicating that the agent is authorized to act on his/her behalf)
Stev n`Tennant D TE: Al Sampl DATE:
T" /o -
Sandra Tennant DATE: Yvonne, Samples DATE:
IINIII111111III Hill IINIIIIIlulIIll!1111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!
Doc ID: 012682420003 Tvoe: REL
Recorded: 01/30/2009 at 02:32:12 PM
Fee Amt: $25.00 Paae 1 of, 3
Washinaton County. AR
Bette Stamps Circuit Clerk
Fiie2009-00002723
�Om L
ORDINANCE No. 2009-02
AN ORDINANCE SIMULTANEOUSLY DETACHING TERRITORY FII'3E o
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND ANNEXING SAID TERRITORY INT(tITV
m
OF FARMINGTON, PURSUANT TO A.C.A. 14-40-2101
u w
WHEREAS, A.C.A. 14-40-2101 provides a procedure for the simultaneous detachment�f
territory from one municipality and annexation of such territory into an adjoining
municipality; and
WHEREAS, Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne Samples are desirous of
detaching from Fayetteville into Farmington.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FARMINGTON, ARKANSAS:
SECTION 1. That certain territory presently within the corporate limits of the City of
Fayetteville is contiguous to and adjoins the City of Farmington. The City of Farmington
hereby calls for the simultaneous detachment and annexation of the lands that are
described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. That the proposed detachment and annexation of lands described in Exhibit
A was requested by the owners of the subject property.
SECTION 3. That a copy of this ordinance shall be sent to the governing body of the
City of Fayetteville. Within sixty (60) days of the effective date of this ordinance, the
governing body of the City of Fayetteville shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed
detachment and annexation.
SECTION 4. That at least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, the
Farmington City Clerk shall publish a legal notice of said public hearing, which shall also
set out the legal description of the territory proposed to be detached and annexed.
SECTION 5. That at said public hearing, officials of both municipalities, as well and
property owners within the area proposed to be detached and annexed, may appear and
present their views on the proposal.
SECTION 6. That at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Fayetteville City
Council following the public hearing, said City Council may bring proposed ordinance up
for a vote to concur in the detachment and annexation. If approved, a prima facie case
for detachment and annexation shall be established, and the City of Farmington shall
proceed to render services to the newly annexed area.
PASSED AND APPROVED THIS / `0, DAY OS'F .S , 2009.
Mayor
At ` �iy✓to✓�
City Cler
Sa Davis Business Planning
P.O. Box3381
Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702
Telephone Number: 479-935-4572
Fax Number: 479-935-4573
Web Site: Davisbusinessplanning.com
December 31, 2008
Farmington City Council
City of Farmington
354 W. Main
Farmington,. AR 72730
Re: Proposed Land Annexation from Fayetteville
Dear Council Members,
I am representing Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne Samples who request that the City of
Farmington, consider adjusting their city limits thus allowing the annexation of their parcels #765-16159-
930, #765-16159-900 and #765-16159-980 which lie inside the city limits of Fayetteville currently.
This request is submitted for your review and consideration. The following discussion sets forth the,
,options available to Mr. Tennant and his desire to continue to, serve Farmington citizens as their elected
:City Attorney. The least disruptive solution for both Mr. Tennant and the City of Farmington is for
Farmington and Fayetteville agree to a detachment of Steven and Sandra Tennant and Al and Yvonne
Samples properties and for Farmington to agree to an attachment of their property.
The circumstances of this request are unique and do not lend themselves to establishment of any
precedents.; As you will note the remedy options available to Farmington and Mr. Tennant are very
limited:
1. Mr. Tennant can petition to have his property detached from Fayetteville and attached to
Farmington;
2. M. Tennant can continue to reside within the city limits of Farmington and not avail his family to
their new home;
3. Mr. Tennant can resign as city attorney for Farmington and Farmington would have to seek
another city attorney by special election; or,
4. If Mr. Tennant resigns, and no resident attorney is willing to serve as city attorney, then the
Farmington City Council and Mayor would have to seek a qualified attorney residing in Arkansas
to provide legal services by contract.
The petitioner is the incumbent city attorney for the City of Farmington and has served as Farmington's
City Attorney since 1998. On January 18, 2008 Dustin McDaniel, State of Arkansas's Attorney General
issued an AG's Opinion that states, in part, that city attorney's must reside at all times within the
jurisdiction they represent. Mr. Tennant has been a continuous resident of Farmington until the
completion of his family's new home on the subject property. The new home is scheduled for final
inspection during mid -December 2008. Prior to the issuance of the AG's Opinion, the petitioner believed
he could continue to serve as Farmington's elected city attorney at least until the next scheduled election.
It is Mr. Tennant's desire to continue to serve the City of Farmington in his capacity as city attorney.
Page 1 of 3
The petitioner had intended for the subject property to remain in an unincorporated part of Washington
County so that his property would have been governed by Washington County standards and would have,
enabled the petitioner to continue to use his property for farming and hunting purposes with a future
voluntary annexation into Farmington. This option changed with the annexation vote by Fayetteville.
Once Fayetteville announced the new boundaries of their proposed annexation, all voluntary annexations
were held in abeyance pending the results of the election. The petitioner expected Fayetteville's
annexation vote to fail as had previous annexation votes by Fayetteville. Prior to Fayetteville's
annexation vote, the petitioner sought to sell the property but the real estate market began to soften
making it impossible for the petitioner to recover his investment. The option left to Mr. Tennant was to
begin the process of using the property as his personal residence with a future request for detachment -
attachment.
Failure of Mr. Tennant to gain approval of this detachmentlattachment request will pose a hardship on
Mr. Teennantand the City of Farmington. The hardships faced by Mr. Tennant is that he will either have
to give up residing in his new home or give up being the elected city attorney. The hardship faced by
Farmington, if this detachmentlattachment is not approved, will be the call of a special election or
contracting for city attorney services. If Farmington had to seek another attorney by special election, and
no residing attorney(s), qualified or not, chose to run for office, the Mayor and City Council would have
to contract for services with a qualified attorney within the State of Arkansas. If Farmington had to
contract with an attorney qualified in city government to provide legal services the citizens of Farmington
would bedeprived of a city attorney directly accountable to them:;
Other factors that enter into the consideration of granting this request include the land use impact and
impact on emergency service delivery. Below is a brief discussion of these impacts as they relate to this
proposed action.
Contiguous: Land Use
The parcels are contiguous to the current Farmington city limits boundaries and lie adjacent to
property owned by Roy and Betty Hummel!. The property owners began development of the
property in 2003 with the construction of a pond, workshop and a well. The use of the property
envisioned by the owners is to complete fencing of the property and begin raising calves which is
a use that is more consistent to the surrounding parcels within Farmington than they are with the
adjacent parcels in Fayetteville.
Emergency Response Services
Both Farmington Fire and Police departments have been contacted to determine what impact, if
any, the attachment of these parcels would have on Farmington's emergency services. Mark
Cunningham, Fire Chief, City of Farmington Fire Department advised that the Farmington Fire
Department would have a better response time than Fayetteville based on location alone. Brian
Hubbard, Farmington Police Chief, advised that this area is already patrolled by the Farmington
Department. This is due to the location being right up against the end of their route and this road
is used by his department to turn around on.
To aid in your deliberation of this request I have attached maps of the parcels and copies of emails
between my office and. the Cityof Farmington's Fire and Police departments.
In closing, this application for detachment -attachment presents some unique circumstances that would
limit its use as a precedent in any future detachment -attachment requests from either city. The petitioner
thanks you for your consideration of this request. Representatives of my firm and the petitioner are
available to answer any questions you might have regarding this request.
Page 2 of 3
Respectfully,
Stephen Davis
Davis Business Planning
Attachments:
Arkansas Attorney General Opinion 2007-302
Arkansas Code 14-40-2101
Location Maps
Copy of email from Farmington Police
Page 3`of3
Quarter SW%) of the Northwest Quarter (NW'f4) of Section
yen (16North, Range Thirty-one (31) West, described as
ich`is N89°37'13'W 590.95 feet from the Northeast corner of
id point • being a found iron pin; thence N89°37'13"W 61.60
thence: S13°20`00"E 310.13 feet to a found iron pin; thence
D a set iron pin, thence S03°40'00"E 169.90 feet to a set iron
205.06: feet to a found iron pin; thence S15°19'30"E' 64.13
thence S89°57'40"W 319.84 feet to a found iron pin; thence
to a found iron pin; thence along the South line of the SW%
'E.7 i2.00 feet; thence NO°43'02'W 923.77 feet to a set iron
N 508.70 feet to a set iron pin; thence N8°30'00"W 104.70
thence N13°20'00'W 302.76 feet to the point of beginning,
more or less, Washington County. Arkansas.
Opinion No. 2007-302
January 18, 2008
The Honorable Jack Critcher
State Senator
24 Rillington Drive
Batesville, Arkansas 72501-3711
Dear Senator Critcher:
lam writing in response to your request for an opinion on the following:
An attorney living inside the city limits of a first class city ran for
office of City Attorney and was elected'. During the term, the
individual moved outside the city limits.
1. Under Article 19, Section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution,
does an attorney seeking the office of City Attorney in a first
class city have to live within the city limits where he is
seeking office?
2. Under the same Article, once elected to the office of City
Attorney in a first class city, does the individual have to
continue living within the city limits throughout his or her
term?
3. If the answer to the aforementioned' question is yes, is
Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-22-106111 in conflict with the
state constitution?
Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-22-106 is a provision of the county purchasing statutes that addresses
certain purchases that are exempt from the requirement of soliciting bids. I assume that this. reference is a
typographical error and that you intended to ask about .A.CA. §§ 14-43-314, -315, & -319, which address
the election or appointment of city attorneys in cities of the first class.
The Honorable Jack Critcher
State Senator
Opinion No. 2007-302
Page'2
RESPONSE
In my opinion, with respect to Question One, the answer is "yes" because Article
19, § 3 of the Arkansas Constitution requires elected municipal officers to reside
within the political subdivision the officer serves. With respect to Question Two,
absent legislative clarification or judicial interpretation to the contrary, in my
opinion an elected city attorney for a city of the first class must continue to reside
within the city throughout his or her term of office pursuant to Article 19, § 3.
With respect to Question Three, in my opinion A.C.A. § 14-43-314 (Supp. 2007)
does, not conflict with the Arkansas Constitution.
Question One: Under Article 19, Section 3 of the Arkansas Constitution, does
an attorney seeking the office of City Attorney in a first class city have to live
within the city limits where he is seeking office?
In my opinion, Article 19, § 3 of the Arkansas Constitution requires elected
municipal officers, such as the city attorney described in your request, to reside
within the political subdivision the officer represents.
Article 19, §:3 states:
No persons shall be elected to, or appointed to fill a vacancy in, any
office who does not possess the qualifications of an elector.
Id. (emphasis added).
Article 19, § 3 applies to city officers, and has been held to require the officer's
residence in the political subdivision to be served by the official. Thomas v.
Sitton, 213 Ark. 816, 212 S.W.2d 710 (1948); see also Davis v. Holt, 304 Ark.
619, .804 S.W.2d 362 (1991); and Op. Att'y Gen. 2002-105. A city attorney has
been consistently referred to as an officer of the city or as an office of the
municipality. See, e.g., Ops. Att'y Gen. 2007-059; 2006-113; 2002-209; and 97-
038. As an officer of a city, a city attorney must meet the requirements set forth in
Article 19, § 3 quoted, above.
I have previously noted that the phrase "qualifications of an elector" in Article 19,
§ 3 includes a requirement of residency in the political subdivision to be served.
See Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-055. In considering what standards for "residency" are
The Honorable Jack Critcher
State Senator
Opinion No. 2007-302
Page 3
required of a qualified elector, my immediate predecessor quoted with approval
the following from an earlier opinion:
The Arkansas Supreme Court has interpreted the requirement of
"qualifications of an elector" to include a requirement of residence
in the political subdivision in question. See Thomas v. Sitton, 213
Ark. 816, 212 S.W.2d 710 (1948).
The court has recognized that the. term "residence" can be rather
nebulous, in that a person can conceivably have more than one
residence, or can have a temporary residence. See Davis v. Holt, 304
Ark. 619, 804 S.W.2d 362 (1991). In construing the term
"residence" for purposes of applying Article 19, § 3 of the Arkansas
Constitution, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court appears to have
equated "residence" with "domicile." Davis, supra; Charisse v;
Eldred, 252 Ark. 101, 477 S.W.2d 480 (1972). The term "domicile"
reflects the idea of both physical presence and an intent to remain
permanently. Davis, supra; Black's Law Dictionary at 435 (5th ed.,
1979); Op. Att'y Gen. No. 94-208.
It should be noted that the question of domicile (and therefore the
question of residence in the context of Article 19, § 3) is one of fact,
that must be determined on the basis of all of the relevant factors.
Davis, supra; Charisse, supra. One of the most important factors to
be considered in determining a person's domicile (i.e., residence) is
intent. Id. I have previously opined that other factors that are
relevant to this consideration are location of residence ownership;
voter registration information; location of the exercise of voting
rights; location of personal property tax assessment; and other
statements and conduct of the person involved. See Op. Att'y Gen.
88-208.
Op. Att'y Gen. 96-265 (quoted in Op. Att'y Gen. 2004-125); see also Op. Att'y
Gen. 95-296 (equating "residence" with "domicile" for purposes of office -holding
and opining that only a "resident" thus defined may serve on an Advertising &
Promotion Commission).
Therefore, because Article 19, § 3 requires all elected office holders to possess the
qualities of a "qualified elector," which includes being a "domiciliary" of the
The Honorable Jack Critcher.
State Senator
Opinion No. 2007-302
Page 4
political subdivision, in my opinion an individual seeking to be elected city
attorney must be "domiciled" within the city. Whether a particular individual is
domiciled within a city is a question of fact that can only be properly determined
by a court or other finder -of -fact reviewing all pertinent surrounding facts and
circumstances.
Question Two: Under the same Article, once elected to the office of City
Attorney in a first class city, does the individual have to continue living within
the citylimits throughout his or her term?
Absent judicial interpretation or legislative clarification to the contrary, in my
opinion Article 19, § °3 should be interpreted to require the continued residence of
a city attorney within the city he or she serves throughout his or her term.
My research has not revealed any specific precedent on whether Article 19, § 3
creates a constitutional requirement for a municipal officer to maintain residence
in the political subdivision being, served. As noted above, Article 19, § 3 applies to
municipal officers. I have previously opined that Article 19, § 3 prohibits "any
individual domiciled outside the city" from serving as an officer of a municipality.
Op. Att'y Gen. 2007-055 at 8. The implication is that being a "qualified elector"
is a qualification to hold office and if that qualification is absent, an individual
would not be able to serve as an officer.2 This common sense standard
acknowledges that the Constitution requires a qualification to be eligible for
office, and that it stands to reason that such qualification must continue to exist
throughout the term for which the individual serves for the individual to remain
eligible to fill the office. It would be absurd to require the residence of an
individual in the municipality up to the day of his or her election but allow him or
her to abandon the city's limits at some point thereafter.3
Article 19, § 4 of the Arkansas Constitution specifically requires continued residence for State, county,
and district officials, but is silent as to whether such a requirement also applies to municipal officers. An
argument could be made that such exclusion indicates a lack of intent to apply such residency requirements
to municipal officials; however the previous opinions of this office and statutory requirements persuade me
otherwise.
I note that,: while aldermen, the mayor, recorder, and treasurer are statutorily required to maintain a
residence within a municipality throughout the term of office by A.C.A. § 14-42-201(c) (Supp. 2007), there
is no such statutory requirement for a city attorney, An argument could be made that the General
Assembly did not intend to limit a city attorney's residency by the exclusion of it from the requirements in
A.C.A. § 14-42-201. However, as noted above, absentjudicial interpretation or legislative, clarification, in
my opinion Article 19, § 3 of the Arkansas Constitution impliedly requires a continuing qualification of
residency on all office holders supported by the language of A.C.A. § 14-43-314.
The Honorable. Jack Critcher
State Senator
Opinion No. 2007-302
Page 5
I am bolstered in my opinion by the language of A.C.A. § 14-43-314 (Supp.
2007). In addressing the procedure for a municipality when no resident attorney is
elected or there is no resident attorney to serve as city attorney, A.C.A. § 14-43-
314 authorizes a municipality to contract with a licensed attorney or law firm for
contract legal services "until such time as a qualified city attorney may be elected
or appointed." Id. at (c)(2)(A) (emphasis added). In specifically addressing city
attorneys and contingencies for a municipality that may not have an attorney
residing there, the General Assembly has labeled resident city attorneys, either
elected or appointed, as "qualified." This demonstrates, in my opinion, the
continuing nature of the qualification of residence — one who is not residing within
the city is not qualified.
In my opinion, implicit in the residency requirement of 19, § 3 is the requirement
that the officer continue to reside within the political subdivision being served'. In
my opinion, the answer to your second question is therefore "yes..":
Question Three: If the answer to the aforementioned question is yes, is
[Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-43-314J in conflict with the state constitution?
In my opinion, A.C.A. § 14-43-314 does not appear to violate Article 19, § 3 of
the Arkansas Constitution because it provides for contract legal services in the
event that there is no qualified cityattorney.
In pertinent part, A.C.A. § 14-43-413 states:
(a)(1) The city attorney in any city of this state having a mayor -
council form of government and having a population of fifty
thousand (50,000) or more inhabitants shall be elected by the
qualified electors of the city in the same manner as other municipal
officials are elected.
(c)(1) If no attorney residing in the city is elected as city attorney,
the city council may select a resident attorney to fill the office for the
remainder of the unfilled term.
The; Honorable Jack Critcher
State Senator
Opinion No. 2007-302
Page 6
(2)(A) If no resident attorney of the city is willing to serve as city
attorney or if no attorney resides within the limits of the city, the
mayor and city council may contract with any licensed attorney of
this state or the attorney's firm to serve as legal advisor, counselor,
or prosecutor until a qualified city attorney is elected or appointed._
(B) The duties of a nonresident attorney under contract shall b5
prescribed by ordinance.
Id. (emphasis added)
In assessing the constitutionality of a statute, the Arkansas Supreme Court has
stated:
Statutes are presumed constitutional, and the burden of proving
otherwise is on the challenger of the statute. Ford v. Keith, 338
Ark. 487, 996 S.W.2d 20 (1999), ACW, Inc. v. Weiss, 329 Ark..
302, 947 S.W.2d 770 (1997). If it is possible to construe a statute
as constitutional, we must do so. Jones v. State, 333 Ark. 208,
969 S.W.2d 618 (1998)I. In construing a statute, we will presume
that the General Assembly, in enacting it, possessed the full
knowledge of the constitutional scope of its powers, full
knowledge of prior legislation on the same subject, and full
knowledge of judicial decisions under preexisting law. McLeod v.
Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 205 Ark. 225, 168 S.W.2d 413
(1943). We must also give effect to the legislature's intent,
making use of common sense and giving words their usual and
ordinary meaning. Kyle v. State, 312 Ark. 274, 849':S.W.2d 935
(1993).
Bunch v. State, 344 Ark. 730, 736,43 S.W.3d 132(2001).
I note that identical pertinent language is found in A.C.A. § 14-43-315 (Supp; 2007), addressing mayor-
council cities with less. than 50,000 residents and A.C.A. § 14-43-319 (Supp. 2007), addressing city ` attorneys in mayor -council cities of fewer than 5,000 residents. 'rhe analysis provided in this opinion,
while solely referencing A.C.A. § 14-43-314, should be read as also applying to A.C.A. §§ 14,43-315 &
-319. When addressing the election or appointment of city attorneys in cities of the second class, the
General Assembly used significantly different language in A.C.A. § 14-42-112. Because your question
concerns a cityattorney in a city of the first class Twill thereforenot address A.C.A. § 14-42-112. See Op.
Att'yGen. 98-041 for a discussion of the. constitutionality of A.C.A. § 14-42-112.
The Honorable Jack Critcher
State Senator
Opinion No. 2007-302
Page 7
Looking to the plain and ordinary language of A.C.A. § 14-43-314, it is clear that
the General Assembly has differentiated between the "office" of city attorney and
a contract lawyer engaged to provide services while there is no "qualified city
attorney." The statute specifies that the contracted attorney is only to be used until
a "qualified city attorney" may be elected or appointed ♦ The plain and
unambiguous language of A.C.A. § 14-43-314 providing for a municipality to
contract with a licensed attorney for legal work until a qualified city attorney may
be elected or appointed does not make the contracted attorney the city attorney or
represent an "office" to which article 19, § 3 is applicable.
In my opinion, because the attorney or firm under contract pursuant to A.C.A. §
14-43-314 does not hold the office of city attorney, there is no constitutional
conflict with the residency requirement in Art. 19, § 3 of the Arkansas
Constitution.
Assistant Attorney General Joel DiPippa prepared the foregoing opinion, whichI
hereby approve.
Sincerely,
DUSTIN McDANIEL
Attorney General
DM JMD/cyh
14-40-2101. Simultaneous detachment and annexation by two (2) cities.
(a) When the boundaries of two (2) municipalities are contiguous to and adjoining one
another, and one (1) municipality desires to detach and annex territory in another
municipality, then the governing body of the municipality desiring to detach and annex
territory may propose an ordinance calling for the simultaneous detachment of the lands
from the one (1) municipality and the annexation of the lands into its municipal limits.
The municipality desiring to annex land in the adjoining city, after the passage of the
ordinance calling for detachment and annexation, shall send the ordinance to the
governing body of the city or town in which the lands are located.
(b) (1) The ordinance will provide a legal description of the lands: proposing to be
detached and annexed and describe generally the reasons for proposing the action.
(2) The governing body°of the city or town in which the lands are located shall
conduct a public hearing within sixty (60) days of the proposal of the ordinance calling
for the detachment and annexation.
(3) At least fifteen (15) days prior to the date of the public hearing, the governing
body of the proposing municipality shall publish a legal notice setting out the legal
description of the territory proposed to be detached and annexed. Municipal officials of
the proposing city or town, officials of the city or town in which the lands are located,
and property owners withinthe area proposed to be detached and annexed may appear at
the public hearing to present their views on the proposal.
(c) (1) At the next regularly scheduled meeting following the public hearing, the
governing body of the municipality in which the lands are located may bring the
proposed ordinance up fora vote to concur in the detachment and annexation.
(2) If a majority of the total number of members of the governing body vote for the
proposed detachment and annexation ordinance, then a prima facie case for detachment
and annexation shall be established, and the proposing municipality shall proceed to
render services to the newly annexed area.
(d) The decision of the municipal governing bodies shall be final unless suit is brought in
the chancery court of the appropriate county within thirty (30) days after passage of the
ordinance to review the mutual actions of the governing bodies.
(e) (1) As soon as the ordinance proposing the detachment and annexation is final, the
territory shall be deemed and taken to be a part and parcel of the limits of the city or town.
annexing it, and the inhabitants residing therein shall have and enjoy all the rights and
privileges of the,inhabitants within the original, limits of the city or town.
(2) The governing body of the annexing city or town shall direct the municipal clerk
or recorder to duly certify one (1) copy of the plat of the annexed territory and one (1)
copy of the proposing ordinance as adopted by both governing bodies to the county clerk.
(3) The clerk shall forward:.a copy of each document to the Secretary of State, who
shall file and preserve them.
History. Acts 1999, No, 988, § 1.
Message
Joey Lockard'
Vna PO7N PART:OF
State of Arkansas
of State
Charlie Daniels
Secretary of State
May 13, 2009
The Honorable Karen Combs Pritchard
Washington County Clerk
280 North College Avenue
Suite 300
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Dear Ms. Pritchard,
Business & Commercial Services
682-3409
Elections
682-507C
Building & Grounds
682-3407
Communications & Education
683-0057
State Capitol Police
682-5173
Business Office
682-8032
Information Technology
682-3411
RECEIVED
MAY 1 3 2009
BY:
The Following Information has been recorded and filed in the Office of the Secretary of
State:
Date: April21, 2009
De -Annexation:
Incorporation:
County: Washington
Ordinance No.
County Order No
Plat
Election
Island
Ordinance No.
Co. Order No.
Plat
Election
City: Fayetteville
— 5234
- xx-Tennant/Samples
Census Information: The following City or Town has been upgraded or reduced to:
1st Class City -
2nd Class City -
Incorporated Town -
I have forwarded this information to the Arkansas Municipal League and the Arkansas
Highway and Transportation Department and the Arkansas State Data Center. If you have any
further questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 1-800-482-1127 or 682-3451.
Sincerely,
y, Nancy
a cy Croy exo
t
Election Services Representative
Arkansas Secretary of State
Room 256 State Capitol • Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1094
501-682.1010 • Fax 501-682-3510
e-mail: arsos@sos.arkansas.gov • www.sos.arkansas.gov