Council again turns down resident’s offer to buy property

The frustration in the voice of resident Lyla Allison — and the council members on her side — was evident. 

Despite another effort by Allison to purchase a series of lots from the city — one even described as primarily a ditch — three members of the Eureka Springs City Council wouldn’t budge in relinquishing the property that hasn’t changed in purpose in more than a century.

No votes from council members Rachael Moyer — who has been the most vocal in her opposition to the proposal — along with Steve Holifield and Susane Gruning kept Allison from acquiring Lots 12-16 of property where her home and two sheds are located on Anderson Road.

Council members Terry McClung and Harry Meyer supported the sale, with McClung, the most senior member of the council, calling the votes by Moyer, Holifield and Gruning a “disservice.”

Council member David Avanzino was absent from the March 23 meeting.

“… I think the city council has done a resident property owner, the Allisons, a disservice,” McClung said during council member comments at the end of the meeting.

McClung quickly made a motion to accept Allison’s revised proposal, which reduced the amount of land she was requesting, and increasing the offer to $5,500.

Meyer seconded the motion.

“Basically, what I did after our discussion at the last meeting, and hearing the comments about not wanting to give up any more city land than we ever need to, which I absolutely agree on, I went ahead and reduced the lots that I was asking for and offered more money trying to come to a resolution,” Allison said, adding she got input from a surveyor who said he was “confident that all of Lot 16 was past my driveway, and if I just asked for [Lots] 13, 14 and 15, that I could clear my driveway and still get ingress and egress to my property.”

McClung and Meyer were on board, as they were at the council’s March 9 meeting, saying they felt it was time to move the issue forward, in part, as a good gesture to a resident.

“We would have to have a vote for a public hearing first,” McClung said. “What’s the next step”

Before any discussion on moving forward — or a vote on McClung’s motion — Gruning spoke up, saying Moyer had things she wanted to say.

“I want to start by saying that I appreciate you demonstrating compromise given the conversation that we had at the last meeting, and again, nothing personal, I would say that where I stand, because we don’t have a map in front of us to even really know what we’re agreeing to, I would only be in favor of Lot 12,” Moyer said. “And I’d like to see how the other lots break out across the property. …  I would, at this time, only be in favor of selling Lot 12.”

Allison responded that the two sheds on the property are located on Lot 13.

“So 12 doesn’t help me clear the shed,” she said, before pointing out that maps with all the information Moyer was requesting had been submitted before the March 9 meeting.

“… I thought it all was included in the first packet I gave to you guys like seven weeks ago,” Allison said.

McClung echoed that the information being asked for was included in the first set of maps the council members received, then proceeded to make another motion to accept “the purchase price and her offer to purchase.”

“I want to make a motion that we approve it,” McClung said.

Moyer clarified that the motion was to accept selling Lots 12 through 15 for $5,500, before the motion received a second from Meyer.

McClung and Meyer voted yes while Moyer and Gruning — who voted no to the original proposal on March 9 — maintained their opposition. 

Holifield, who didn’t vote at the March 9 meeting while serving as mayor pro tem, hesitated for a couple of moments during his turn to vote at the March 23 meeting before voting no, and ended up being the deciding vote.

“I have a quick question,” Allison said moments after the vote. “Who all has been to the property to see the ditch I’m trying to buy?”

McClung and Meyer raised their hands.

“So, the two that voted yes and the mayor have been there,” Allison continued before quickly and sternly being cut off by Moyer.

“I don’t think that this is an appropriate conversation,” Moyer said. “We have voted. The discussion is over.”

Allison responded: “OK.”

“You’re not the mayor,” Meyer interjected.

“True,” Moyer said.

Mayor Butch Berry, who was back after a lengthy hospital stay following a sudden illness, confirmed Moyer was correct.

“The motion is dead,” the mayor said. “Unless there’s any further business on this …”

Allison requested to ask what the next step is to proceed.

“…. The city council decided not to sell this piece of property, for whatever reason, but it doesn’t prevent you from coming back and making another offer, a different offer, if you so choose, or any other offer, an easement, or anything else,” Berry said.

At the March 9 meeting, council members opposed to the sale referred to the months-long discussion regarding a revised vision plan for the city and their opinion that the city should keep all property it owns, not knowing what the future holds.

“… It’s hard to know where we’re going to be five or 10 or 20 years from now,” Moyer said March 9. “What I do know is we want affordable housing, we want attainable housing, we want green spaces, we want trails, we want all kinds of things, but we don’t have an ultimate plan in place. And so because we don’t have an ultimate plan in place, I’m not in favor of selling city property until that happens.”

Allison reminded the council at the March 9 meeting that the combined lots totaled 0.28 acres.

“There were many comps that I provided you guys that were under what I actually offered, even though they’re buildable lots and some of them flat lots, whereas I’m literally looking to buy a drainage ditch that happens to be my driveway,” Allison said. “So I just, I wanted to offer enough that you guys would feel comfortable, of course, to sell it. But I wanted to provide to you other sales so that you could see that it wasn’t just me trying to pad my perspective, right? So really, all I’m trying to do is clear up the property boundary issue, which is the actual driveway.

“It might be a whole lot, it might just be over a lot that both the sheds sit on. They’ve been there since the ’50s. This driveway has been the only driveway into this property since it was built in 1920. It’s nothing the city has ever used or utilized or had a plan to utilize in the past.”

Allison said she just wants to clean up an existing boundary issue and clear up “the ingress and egress to the property.”

“I’m a native born in Eureka, born in the Eureka Springs Hospital,” Allison said. “I obviously want what is best for Eureka. I just want to secure a way to get in and out of my property.”

McClung said March 9 he felt selling the land is a no-brainer and would be doing a good deed for a resident.

“… [The property] has been there forever,” McClung said. “The lots have no real value, she’s correct, and you know that’s what I do for a living, it’s what she does for a living and the value she’s offering is more than what they’re actually worth in today’s market. They’re not buildable. It’s good stewardship to relinquish that and let her start paying tax on that property that is generating zero for the city and it never will. I understand what you’re saying but it’s also good business and smart for the city to be fair with the citizens and make their properties whole and give them peace of mind.”

AGREEMENT APPROVED FOR GROTTO REPAIRS

After receiving requested paperwork — including estimates and at least one receipt for work already completed — the council agreed to a reimbursement plan for up to $35,000 for Grotto Wood-Fired Grill and Wine Cave owners Rodney and Autumn Slane, following extensive water damage caused last fall by a public works mishap.

At the March 9 council meeting, the Slanes asked for $60,000, including help paying staff and recouping money for their business when they will be forced to close for repairs.

Berry, however, said at the March 23 meeting, that the city could legally only reimburse for goods and repairs, and the Slanes agreed to the $35,000 request.

“The only thing we can do is material,” Berry said. “We cannot subsidize any business salaries, your business loss, or any of that. That’s something that’s against the law. So, what we’ve got is an offer of what we made, what I made, an offer of $35,000.”

Autumn Slane, a former council member, voiced frustration that incidents involving the city and property damage continue to occur.

“I think it’s just extremely unfortunate that the damages occurred to our property and now we have to clean up the situation, and you know this is just not the first time this has happened in the city, and I’m just extremely saddened that at this point we haven’t done anything to help mitigate any of these issues,” Autumn Slane said. “I mean, even when I sat up here at this table, this is exactly what I was talking about.”

Berry interjected that Autumn Slane needed to stay on the topic, and Rodney Slane quickly spoke up, saying they would accept the $35,000 offer if approved by the council.

Heather Owens, an attorney representing the city, again explained that the city wasn’t obligated in agreeing to paying anything.

“The law is you have tort immunity,” Owens said to council members. “This would be a tort, it’s negligence. So, you didn’t do anything intentionally to, or my understanding, the city didn’t do anything intentionally to cause them damages. So, we’ve got a negligence claim here. You do not have to pay them any money. You can if you choose to do so. You are stewards of taxpayer money. There are laws that dictate what you can spend taxpayer money on. If you are going to reimburse for damages like this, you are limited to actual damages. Any speculative costs like lost wages, lost profits, lost business income, anything like that would be vulnerable to an illegal action lawsuit for improper use of tax money. I don’t recommend doing that.

“I think what we have now, we’ve got some receipts, estimates that they had prepared that we did not have last time when we were here.”

Berry suggested that if the council approved the proposal, it be paid as reimbursements as work is completed and receipts are provided.

“Up to a maximum of $35,000,” Berry said.

Some council members again said they didn’t have the necessary paperwork to make a decision, but in the end, the reimbursement plan was approved by a 4-1 vote.

Meyer cast the lone nay vote, saying the damages were because of “an act of God,” arguing the tort immunity fallback and saying he felt the city didn’t owe the Slanes “a dime.”

“This isn’t like a sewer backing up in someone’s house, and I know a few people who’ve had that happen, and its tort immunity, the city couldn’t afford to fix it,” Meyer said. “[The Grotto damage] looks more like an act of God. Yes, they were working on the street, yes, and water went past where they had the hole, and it got down to your business. That’s an act of God. We didn’t plan the rain. The city didn’t make it rain.”

Some council members again asked whether the Slanes’ insurance company would help with expenses. That wasn’t an option because of the insurance company’s feeling that the city was at fault, Autumn Slane said.

“Basically what he told us is that the city cut a hole in our property which allowed the rain to come in. That was not an act of God,” Autumn Slane said of communications with her insurance agent. “Yes the rain was, but them cutting a hole — that was the defining moment —  so at that point it was their responsibility.”

City building inspector Paul Sutherland, who surveyed the Grotto in the days after the Sept. 23, 2025, incident, told council members there was damage and he, along with the mayor, tried to come up with a fair remedy.

“There is damage there, and I do feel like that the mayor and me tried to do work in good faith to try to come up with some type of reasonable offer to the Slanes,” Sutherland said.

At the March 9 council meeting, public works director Simon Wiley said the issue affecting the Slanes’ business first arose as a result of work being done to replace a water meter at Nelson’s store next door to the Grotto.

“Back in, I guess, September 23, we were replacing a water meter for the Nelsons and …  our crew pulled off for the day for whatever reason,” Wiley said. “The next morning, a storm rolled in, and the water ran down the curb and gutter like it’s supposed to and went into the hole that the meter was in. The sump pumps for Mr. Slane’s location failed. I loaned him a sump pump. It turned out that when we ran the sump pump the water actually backed up because the drain pipe was not cleared for the sumps themselves so there’s really nowhere for the water to go.

“It’s just a bunch of unfortunate instances that occurred all at one time. The mayor approached me about fixing the wall in the back where it was tuck-pointed, and I said I have no objection to fixing that wall and trying to do what we can to remediate this issue, and it just kept snowballing, if you will, and building up in price and the mayor worked with the building inspector at that time. I kind of excluded myself from that situation.”

TEMPORARY DISTRICT REVISED, OK’D

A temporary entertainment district for the 10th Annual Spring Fling Rally, to be held April 22-26, was approved by the council at the March 23 meeting, but with an adjustment.

At the urging of Gruning, the end time for each district day was changed from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. to align with other temporary districts approved in the past.

The council was reminded that the district for the Spring Fling  — which is primarily hosted by Cathouse Lounge and Pig Trail Harley-Davidson — has had an end time set at 11 p.m. for a number of years.

That didn’t matter to most of the council as Meyer, Holifield, Moyer and Gruning voted for the revision, while McClung opposed the change.

When it came to voting for the revised approval of the temporary district, the vote was again 4-1, with Meyer — a frequent opponent to any form of an entertainment district — casting the lone vote against.

MAYOR THANKS WELL-WISHERS

During his closing remarks at the March 23 meeting, Berry said he was grateful for the thoughts and well wishes he received during his hospital stay and rehabilitation stint over the past couple of months.

“… I want to do a couple of shout-outs,” Berry said. “One to all the citizens and city council, and especially Mr. Holifield for carrying on city business while I was in the hospital for the last lot longer than I anticipated.

“That’s one of the problems, when you go in the hospital you never know when you’re going to get out sometimes. And I appreciate everybody’s prayers and well-wishes in not only the city and the city staff, but all the community.”

Berry praised the quick service he received at Eureka Springs Hospital when his medical issue first arose.

“When I was told to go to our hospital and get a CAT scan, I got in almost immediately at 5 o’clock,” he said. “And by 6 o’clock I got a result back and was told I needed to get to a major hospital. They gave me a good reference over in the (Northwest Arkansas) corridor, and I was over there in an hour, and within another hour I was talking to a surgeon, and that’s all because of our hospital …. We’re very fortunate that we have a hospital here. If I had to go to Berryville there’s no telling what would have happened, how long it would have taken to get the results and getting in to do a CAT scan and all that. Or, if I had gone to Springdale, Fayetteville to get into one of their facilities, I hate to think of how long that would take. So, I’m real pleased with our hospital and our service. We’ve got a lot to be grateful for. I’m certainly grateful for it.”

The Eureka Springs City Council’s next regular meeting is scheduled for 6 p.m. Monday, April 13, in the basement of The Auditorium.