Fayetteville City Council Work Session – September 3, 2024
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Fayetteville City Council Work Session – September 3, 2024
The City Council met on Tuesday, September 3, 2024, at 2:00 PM in the Council Chamber for a work session. The meeting covered three major items: pedestrian and traffic improvements around the Market House, a new scoring matrix for prioritizing demolition projects, and a proposal to create an innovation and entrepreneurship district. Council members expressed frustration over study timelines and sought to balance pedestrian safety with traffic flow, while staff presented data‑driven approaches to resource allocation.
Discussion Items
Market House Pedestrian Improvement and Traffic Mobility
- City Engineer Mr. Reeves presented two options from a prior repurposing study: expanding the circular brick promenade (Option A) or creating a square “about” (Option B). Council had previously directed staff to study the square option.
- Staff recommended a comprehensive traffic operational and safety analysis (5–6 months) to evaluate impacts, including pedestrian safety, traffic queuing, emergency vehicle access, and 18‑wheeler deterrence. Full design and construction would take an additional 18 months, with completion estimated in August 2026.
- Several council members voiced frustration over the lengthy timeline. Councilmember Green stated, “I am very frustrated… it seems like we study it and we study it.” Councilmember Banks McLaughlin expressed opposition to spending $102,000 on a pedestrian walkway, arguing the community’s feedback was about repurposing, not pedestrian access.
- Councilmember Davis made a motion to adopt Option A (circle) to address traffic flow concerns. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Hare and passed 7–3. The analysis will proceed under the circle option, including a study of Hay Street closure impacts at Councilmember Banks McLaughlin’s request (though not added to the formal motion).
Establishing a Scoring Matrix to Prioritize Demolition Projects
- Ms. Baptiste and Dr. Newton presented a proposed scoring matrix based on criteria such as structural damage, time on demolition list, demolition ordinance status, cost, crime, and location. The matrix, inspired by Genesee County Land Bank’s process, aims to objectively rank pending demolitions and better steward the city’s $150,000 annual demolition budget.
- Examples of ranked properties: Bell Street (82 points), Bever Road (82), Chairland Street (80), Rose Hill Road (80), Rayfoot Road (80), Mercinson Road/BJ’s property (72), and North Pearl Street (57).
- Council discussion focused on recouping costs through liens and foreclosure. The city attorney noted that liens are rarely enforced and often expire after 10 years. Councilmember Hare pushed for better cost recovery processes.
- Councilmember Hondros moved to receive the report. The motion was seconded and carried without objection.
Innovation District – Mayor Colvin
- Mayor Colvin proposed creating an innovation and entrepreneurship district, possibly near the university, to cluster health, defense, and small business sectors. He cited demographic data: only 7% of residents earn over $100,000, and the city has the lowest degree‑holder rate among peers. An innovation district could attract higher‑income jobs and amenities like Trader Joe’s.
- Councilmember Hare moved to support the concept, seconded by Councilmember Thompson. The motion passed.
Key Outcomes
- Market House: Council voted 7‑3 to proceed with the circle option (Option A) and direct staff to conduct a traffic operational and safety analysis, survey, and conceptual evaluations. Completion of the project is not expected before August 2026.
- Demolition Matrix: Council voted unanimously to receive the report on the scoring matrix, allowing staff to initiate its use for prioritizing demolitions.
- Innovation District: Council voted to support the concept and direct staff to research and report back on creating an innovation and entrepreneurship district.
Meeting Transcript
Discussion uh Mr. Hewitt. Uh right. Have the engineer, Mr. Reeves. Yes, sir. How are you doing? All right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Um, so today we're gonna talk to you about uh market house pedestrian improvement and traffic mobility. Um this kind of builds upon what council has already uh seen earlier this year. I think back in February it was presented uh as part of the market house repurposing study. Um I think two options were given for kind of the footprint of the market house. Um I won't read it word for word here. Um but on one way you could have uh extended the circular brick promenade, the other you could put a square, what we're calling a square about in. Um so these were kind of two areas of what that rendering looked like. Uh council's direction at that time was to uh further analysis and look forward, look more toward the square about. So uh what we're gonna talk to you about is kind of what we're proposing the next steps for this to be. Um, some project considerations uh for this or constructability. So what we want to look at is existing utilities and surface features that are around the market house. Uh also want to talk about structural evaluations and vibration monitoring. That's not a big part of what we're scoping out today, but it is something to consider down the road. Uh, when PWC did a project downtown a number of years ago, they had to do or they did structural evaluations and vibration monitoring on some of the historic buildings. So that's something that you need to consider moving forward as construction takes place down there. Again, functionality. Uh really want to talk about pedestrian mobility versus traffic mobility. Uh the more pedestrian friendly you are, uh, the more difficult it will be for traffic to get around uh the square. Uh traffic control type's gonna be a big one. I've got it bold. I'm gonna talk a little more detail about that on the next slide. Um current and future traffic flow. So we want to look at not just what's going through the market house today, but what's going on out into 2050? Um again, we'll look at stacking and queuing, and what I mean by stacking and queuing is uh now you have kind of free flow going into the roundabout with yield signs. Um how does how does changing it to a square affect the stacking and how cars are backed up in that intersection and if they are backed up a certain length, how does that affect side streets that we have? Uh then emergency services and tractor trailers. Um, one thing we want to make sure is that we can get our emergency services through this new square. Um, the largest fire engine needs to be able to get through there. Uh another consideration is I don't know if you've seen, but tractor trailers like to go around the market house instead of using MLK like they should. A lot of a lot of those tractor trailers come downtown, so how do we deter that? Uh and then um we of course we want to stay on budget. So all we have right now is a very high-level um conceptual cost opinion uh that's based on uh lump sum items. So to talk about the traffic control type. One big question that we want to make sure council is aware of being the direction was to go forward with the square about is will the traffic entering a square about will it will it have to make stops at a stop sign or will we be able to maintain the yield signs? So if you think about it, if a if a vehicle is entering in the square, it may have to make four complete stops before it makes a left-hand turn. So how does this impact the stacking of traffic and are other streets impacted? You can imagine going through the square now or going through the circle now and having the stop at each intersection. How does that back traffic up? Uh are we considering future downtown development and growth uh with this approach? And then again, emergency response impacts. If you if you now have an intersection that's congested with traffic, how does that affect response time?
openpublica.com