Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout52-17 RESOLUTION113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Resolution: 52-17 File Number: 2017-0124 ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY: A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REFRAIN FROM REMOVING THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RESOLVE LOCAL ISSUES AND ENACT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO FOSTER IMPROVED ECONOMIC GROWTH WHEREAS, the Arkansas General Assembly has long recognized that local governments are the closest and most responsive to their citizens and best able to resolve the varied uses and conflicts of city life; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly has empowered city councils to enact ordinances "which, as to them, shall seem necessary to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of such corporations and the inhabitants thereof' (A.C.A. § 14- 55-102); and WHEREAS, the Arkansas Supreme Court has also "recognized that the varied uses and conflicts of city life requires that much must be left to the discretion of city authorities" (City of Little Rock v. Linn, 245 Ark. 260, 264 (1968); and WHEREAS, after lengthy study and negotiations between developers, realtors, citizens and city staff, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville enacted a Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance a quarter of a century ago and has used it to preserve and enhance the beauty and quality of life in Fayetteville ever since; and WHEREAS, Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance preserves our homeowners' rights to remove any tree or bush from their residential property and exempts most builders of homes and duplexes from tree preservation requirements; and WHEREAS, since that time Fayetteville has enjoyed very rapid growth and almost doubled its population with equally impressive job and commercial growth assisted (and not hindered) by Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance and other development regulations ensuring quality and Page 1 Printed on 312117 Resolution: 52-17 File Number.- 2017-0124 sustainable growth; and WHEREAS, Fayetteville and its metropolitan area has once again been ranked as one of best places to live and work in America; and WHEREAS, our citizens' quality of life and our city's attractiveness for continued commercial and residential development depends upon the Fayetteville City Council's development regulations not being vetoed by big government proponents in the Legislature who want to impose their will and substitute their judgment for our citizens' clear decisions to preserve worthy parts of our natural settings which have proven so successful for our economic prosperity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests that the Arkansas General Assembly reject Senate Bill 286 and refrain from removing the authority of local governments to resolve their local issues and also requests that the General Assembly honor and respect our City Council's judgments on how best to preserve and enhance Fayetteville's natural beauty and economic prosperity. PASSED and APPROVED on 2/21/2017 Attest: -" &-, �CI�.'k + Sondra E. Smith, City Clerk T `eraj4V6f1,,,,r,,� op AS�f Page 2 Printed on 3/2/17 City of Fayetteville, Arkansas 113 West Mountain Street Fayetteville, AR 72701 (479) 575-8323 Text File File Number: 2017-0124 Agenda Date: 2/21/2017 Version: 1 Status: Passed In Control: City Council Meeting File Type: Resolution A RESOLUTION TO REQUEST THE ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REFRAIN FROM REMOVING THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RESOLVE LOCAL ISSUES AND ENACT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO FOSTER IMPROVED ECONOMIC GROWTH WHEREAS, the Arkansas General Assembly has long recognized that local governments are the closest and most responsive to their citizens and best able to resolve the varied uses and conflicts of city life; and WHEREAS, the General Assembly has empowered city councils to enact ordinances "which, as to them, shall seem necessary to provide for the safety, preserve the health, promote the prosperity and improve the morals, order, comfort and convenience of such corporations and the inhabitants thereof (A.C.A. § 14-55-102); and WHEREAS, the Arkansas Supreme Court has also "recognized that the varied uses and conflicts of city life requires that much must be left to the discretion of city authorities" (City of Little Rock v. Linn, 245 Ark. 260, 264 (1968); and WHEREAS, after lengthy study and negotiations between developers, realtors, citizens and city staff, the City Council of the City of Fayetteville enacted a Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance a quarter of a century ago and has used it to preserve and enhance the beauty and quality of life in Fayetteville ever since; and WHEREAS, Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance preserves our homeowners' rights to remove any tree or bush from their residential property and exempts most builders of homes and duplexes from tree preservation requirements; and WHEREAS, since that time Fayetteville has enjoyed very rapid growth and almost doubled its population with equally impressive job and commercial growth assisted (and not hindered) by Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Protection ordinance and other development regulations ensuring quality and sustainable growth; and WHEREAS, Fayetteville and its metropolitan area has once again been ranked as one of best places to live and work in America; and WHEREAS, our citizens' quality of life and our city's attractiveness for continued commercial and residential development depends upon the Fayetteville City Council's development regulations not being vetoed by big government proponents in the Legislature who want to impose their will and City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 1 Printed on 31212017 File Number.' 2017-0124 substitute their judgment for our citizens' clear decisions to preserve worthy parts of our natural settings which have proven so successful for our economic prosperity. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS: Section 1. That the City Council of the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas hereby requests that the Arkansas General Assembly reject Senate Bill 286 and refrain from removing the authority of local governments to resolve their local issues and also requests that the General Assembly honor and respect our City Council's judgments on how best to preserve and enhance Fayetteville's natural beauty and economic prosperity. u City of Fayetteville, Arkansas Page 2 Printed on 3/2/2017 Kit Williams Submitted By City of Fayetteville Staff Review Form 2017-0124 Legistar File ID 2/21/2017 City Council Meeting Date - Agenda Item Only N/A for Non -Agenda Item 2/22/2017 City Attorney / General Government Department Submitted Date Division / Department Action Recommendation: A RESOLUTION TO REQUESTTHE ARKANSAS GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO REFRAIN FROM REMOVING THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RESOLVE LOCAL ISSUES AND ENACT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS TO FOSTER IMPROVED ECONOMIC GROWTH Budget Impact: Account Number Fund Project Number Project Title Budgeted Item? NA Current Budget $ Funds Obligated $ Current Balance Does item have a cost? NA Item Cost Budget Adjustment Attached? NA Budget Adjustment Remaining Budget $ - V20140710 Previous Ordinance or Resolution # Original Contract Number: Approval Date: Comments: 91 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE TO: Mayor Jordan City Council CC: Don Marr, Chief of Staff Paul Becker, Chief Financial Officer Jeremy Pate Development Services Director FROM: Kit Williams, City Attorney DATE: February 16, 2017 Kit Williams City Attorney Blake Pennington Assistant City Attorney Patti Mulford Paralegal RE: Senate Bill 286's Attempted Repeal of Fayetteville's Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance Even though neither Senator Bart Hester of Cave Springs nor Representative Robin Lundstrum of Elm Springs represent a single Fayetteville resident, they are sponsoring Senate Bill 286 to repeal Fayetteville"s Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. These Big Government proponents seek to have the big state government dictate to local governments whether firmly established local development regulations like tree preservation ordinances can continue to protect our citizens. From on high at the State Legislature, these politicians attack a two - decades -old and proven regulation that has helped spur Fayetteville's economic prosperity and quality of life. The fair and balanced Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance has never prevented a homeowner from cutting trees or bushes around his or her residence. Instead the Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance has sought to preserve and enhance portions of Fayetteville's urban forest when large commercial projects are developed. Our tree preservation regulations have resulted in much more attractive commercial and large residential developments and enhanced our prosperity and strong economic and population growth since the ordinance's enactment. A dictated repeal of our Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance by the State Legislature would not only damage Fayetteville's quality of life, but threaten our economic growth and prosperity by damaging our attractiveness which has helped make Fayetteville the fifth best place to live in the United States as ranked by U.S. News and World Report. The proposed Act also violates well-respected and established conservative and small government principles that governments closer to the people should not be suppressed and trampled upon by a higher level government, be it State or Federal. Some Aldermen indicated they might like to walk on to the February 21, 2017 City Council meeting the attached proposed Resolution to support our Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance from the attack of outside Legislators and their Senate Bill 286. If so, a City Council member would need to move to suspend the rules to add this Resolution to the agenda. Such motion requires 6 affirmative votes to pass. z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Stricken language would be deleted from and underlined language would be added to present law. State of Arkansas 91 st General Assembly A Bill Regular Session, 2017 SENATE BILL 286 By: Senator Hester By: Representative Lundstrum For An Act To Be Entitled AN ACT TO PROHIBIT CITIES AND COUNTIES FROM DENYING OR HINDERING PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE OR TRIM TREES, BUSHES, OR SHRUBS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. Subtitle TO PROHIBIT CITIES AND COUNTIES FROM DENYING OR HINDERING PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS THE RIGHT TO REMOVE OR TRIM TREES, BUSHES, OR SHRUBS. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS: SECTION 1. Arkansas Code Title 14, Chapter 1, is amended to add an additional subchapter to read as follows: Subchapter 5 -- Landowner Tree Maintenance Protection Act 14-1-501. Title. This subchapter shall, be known and ma. be cited as the "Landowner Tree Maintenance Protection Act". 14-1,-502. Fundings and legislative intent. <a)__ The General Assembly finds that the ritpht to mm, use, and eniox private property: 1 Is protected by the Arkansas Constitution and the United 02-06-2017 16:30:28 KLC055 SB286 1 States Constitution: 2 (2) is a hallmark of Arkansas and American society chat is 3 deeply embedded in the fabric of both urban and rural societies; and 4 (3) Should be protected from undue interference by state and 5 local government. 6 b It is the intent of the General Assembly by this subchapter to 7 preserve and protect the property rights of citizens by ensuring that county 8 and local governments do not prohibit or hinder a landowner from trimminz or 9 removing the landowner's trees, bushes or shrubs. 10 11 14-1-503. Definitions. 12 As used in this subchapter: 13 (1) "Landowner" means: 14 (A) An individual or entity that owns real prot+erty; and 15 (B) The authorized agents of an individual or entity that 16 owns real property? and 17 (2) "`free maintenance" means trimminp- or removing a tree, bush, 18 or shrub. 19 20 14-1-504. County and municipal ordinances restricting tree maintenance 21 22 prohibited (a) -- Exceptions. A county, city,or town shall not restrict by ordinance or 23 otherwise the right of a landowner to perform tree maintenance on the 24 25 Landowner's (b) property. Subsection (a) of this section does not permit a landowner to 26 perform tree maintenance on the landowner's nrooerty if the tree maintenance 27 on the landowner's property would violate: 28 (1) A real property_ covenant or deed restriction; 29 (_2_) A bill of assurance; or 30 3 A requirement or restriction imposed by a homeowners' 31 association,_a property owners' association, or a similar organization 32 whether imposed_by_a duly recorded master deed and bylaws or otherwise. 33 34 14-1-505. Conflicting ordinances repealed. 35 An ordinance of a county, city, or town that conflicts with this 36 subchapter is repealed to the extent of the conflict.. 2 02-06-2017 16:30:28 KLC055