Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects offer to buy small block of city lots after debate over future use and valuation
Summary
A resident’s offer to purchase four to five city lots that include an access driveway and two sheds prompted a lengthy council debate over future city vision, easements and valuation; a motion to sell lots 12–16, block 46 failed on a 2–3 vote. Council members asked the owner to return with a revised, legally described proposal or to request an easement.
Eureka Springs — After an extended public and council discussion on March 9, the City Council voted down an offer to sell lots 12 through 16, block 46 (the area near Anderson/Armstrong) that include a driveway and two sheds currently used by a nearby homeowner.
A resident — identified in the record as Lila (spelled both "Lila" and "Layla" in the meeting exchange) — told the council she wanted to purchase the portion of city land that contains her driveway and the two sheds, saying the parcel had been used as her access for more than a century and was being washed out by stormwater. She said she was flexible about exact legal descriptions and could return with a survey to define the portion she wanted to buy.
Council members split on policy. Supporters argued selling the small, underused parcel would return it to property tax rolls and remedy a continuing maintenance problem; opponents said the city lacks a comprehensive vision plan and that the parcel (described by Rochelle as about ".33 acres") could have future value for trails, affordable housing or other public uses. Several council members favored a narrower solution—selling only the sliver that contains the sheds or granting an access easement—rather than divesting the entire block.
"It's .33 acres and the city also owns property across the street," Rochelle said, urging caution because of possible future infrastructure and planning needs. Others, including Terry and Harry, argued the homeowner has improved the property and that relinquishing the small parcel would be reasonable stewardship.
When council moved to vote on the existing offer to sell lots 12–16, the hand count showed two in favor and three opposed, so the motion failed. Councilmembers instructed the resident she may return with a precise survey/legal description if she wants to pursue either a purchase limited to the sheds/driveway or an easement for access; staff clarified that questions about maintenance of an easement would be negotiated in any transaction and that municipal code generally assigns maintenance of private driveways and ditches to property owners.
What happens next: The applicant was told she may provide a legal description and comps for a revised offer at a future meeting; alternatively she can pursue an easement application. The council indicated it wants to reserve options while its citywide vision plan is developed.
