Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rehab Agreements Haywood topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council declines two rehab agreements for Haywood Street properties tied to out-of-state developer
Summary
The council voted down Resolution R2559 and later rejected R2560 after recalling and re-voting; members cited the developer's absence at the meeting and expressed concern the company is out-of-state (Newman Capital Ventures LLC).
The North Little Rock City Council rejected two resolutions to authorize rehabilitation agreements for properties on Haywood Street after council members said the developer or a local representative did not appear at the meeting.
Resolution R2559 would have authorized a rehab agreement for real property at 4509 Haywood Street with Newman Capital Ventures LLC. Council discussion centered on the absence of a local representative and the fact the developer is based in New York; several members said they expected a local contractor or company representative to be present. When the motion to adopt R2559 was called, the roll call produced mostly negative votes: Council member Ross—No; Council member Hamilton—No; Council member Hart—Yes; Council member Robinson—No; Council member Baxter—No; Council member Harris—No; Council member Insilaco—No. The resolution failed.
After the failed vote on R2559 council members moved to expunge the earlier vote for a separate but related item and to recall R2560, a rehab agreement for 4503 Haywood Street with the same firm. The council again cited the company’s out-of-state status and the absence of a local representative. On the recalled item the roll call recorded: Council member Ross—No; Council member Hamilton—No; Council member Hart—Yes; Council member Robinson—No; Council member Baxter—No; Council member Harris—No; Council member Ensalocco/Insilaco—No. That motion also failed.
Council members said they were willing to consider the projects again if a sponsor or a local representative appeared at a subsequent meeting; one council member noted the failed vote means the rehab agreement did not pass. The council did not adopt either resolution and did not direct staff to reintroduce the agreements during the session.
