So this is the uh Tuesday, August 27th, uh sixth tentative agenda meeting for us to prepare the agenda for the Tuesday, September 2nd council meeting, which is the business meeting.

And um, I will go through um next week.

The first item that a business that we'll have is a presentation from our chief financial officer, Stephen Dotson.

It's the sales tax and monthly financial report.

If you are thinking, wow, it seems like we just had that last week.

It is because we did um due to um some Stephen being out.

Um you were giving them back to back.

So I know we're all excited about that.

Really great report.

Stephen, do you have anything to prepare for?

Okay.

I will go through this consent agenda.

And um we will, if there is anything that you want us to dive more deeply into, we are happy to do it.

Um first up will, of course, be the approval of the minutes.

Next is um a resolution to confirm my appointment to the Fayetteville Public Facilities Board.

So this is one of those.

This is not a city board.

Um, this is a um a outside of the city of Fayetteville board and the state statute um dictates that the mayor of the city um um appoint someone and then it be confirmed back to the council and kit, I think from the a board that hasn't been active for some time, but is now becoming active.

Sometimes it's hard to get members on there because they don't usually have a lot to do, but they're now about to have something to do.

So it's good that we're getting them back up the full strength.

Great.

So there we go.

Um question just was um are those additional members or is that the whole um formation of the board?

I wasn't quite it's existed for many.

Right, yes.

So this must be a new member.

Yes.

This is a they had vacancies for forever.

Yeah.

This is a new um a new appointment, but I believe it is a renewal of someone who had been on in the past.

Yes.

Yeah.

But I think to your question, is I don't the mayor doesn't appoint the entirety of the board.

We I think the mayor appoints one or two.

Is that correct?

Well, you might appoint the entirety, but not all at once, usually.

That's only because it would be at the very start.

When they were created, uh, which was long time.

Okay.

Great.

Um the next consent item is um that Justin can speak to if you have questions.

Is a resolution authorizing me to sign a shared parking lease agreement with the University of Arkansas for us to operate their um West Annex parking lot as a revenue producing off-street parking lot within the entertainment district.

And I believe this is the parking lot that is um used to be like a graduate school building.

It's right off of um West Street.

Justin, do you have anything to add?

It's a lease renewal.

We've um had this agreement in place since 2013.

Um permitted view of a lot during the day, during weekdays becomes a city lot nights and weekends.

So the same rights regulations, the other lots of interfaces.

And we've been doing for many years.

One question.

Yeah.

Um, so sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.

Well, that's okay.

It's kind of just what we got here.

Um we need actual money off of that.

Has definitely profitable, or we broken the evening.

We break even.

Um, so we give them uh net revenues, we recoup our costs, and then um we get the public benefit of it becoming open to the public where it would otherwise be closed off on nights and weekends.

Follow-up kind of building off of what um House Member Um Turk was saying.

Uh with the breaking even is that's with our current projected staffing levels then and the enforcement that we're currently doing today over the duration of that contract.

Do we anticipate?

You know, I do get resident feedback about additional enforcement and even escalation of enforcement where someone might potentially get ticketed only once, but say they're for you know quite a long period of time and the potential of like additional ticketing.

So I just didn't know if we had done considerations too about um over the additional term, whether or not we might need um additional staff hours um over time to take a fair lot.

Yeah, so the the lots folded into our typical patrol and is patrolled consistently as with everything else that we enforce.

Um and it's the way we cover our expenses, it's based on a pro rata share of the total uh spaces that we monitor.

So um that can be adjusted within the life of the contract.

Um as more spaces come online or get removed.

We get we adjust that accordingly.

Justin, just hang out there for a second in case there are questions.

This next item is also one from your office.

And it's uh a resolution to authorize a shared parking waste agreement with HMT of AVL LLC for the operation of two privately owned parking lots as revenue producing off-street parking lots within the Dixon Street Entertainment District, and to approve that budget adjustment.

So do you want to go ahead and speak to those since we're already talking about it?

So we know how this one's different.

Sure.

So these are um two surface slots uh right off of Dixon Street.

One is the surface lot in front of Wasabi, if that helps, and one is the surface lot behind uh Farrell's Amelia's Dixon Street Inn.

Uh they're privately owned, they've been privately managed and enforced for a number of years.

Um, and then this agreement would allow the city to manage it, make um those lots consistent with our other parking facilities, have the same way finding signage, have the same payment app, have the same consistent method of enforcement.

Um, and this actually would be a revenue share uh with an 8515 uh split.

So in addition to covering costs, we we would be making some revenue off of that.

We anticipate it to be a highly utilized lot um right there in the heart of the entertainment district.

And um, yeah, we're excited about that opportunity.

Kind of going back to UA, has there been consideration in actually us making a little bit of money off of the VMA's um contract?

Um I think our our costs and expenses are very adequately covered in um the way that we've managed that over the years.

Um we're probably coming out a little bit ahead, frankly, um, in terms of of what we remit to them.

Um so I think it's a pretty pretty good deal with another governmental entity.

Because they don't have they could choose to my understanding is they could choose to just not to keep it right, not yeah, have it open.

Exactly.

That's a good question.

Um okay, thanks, Justin.

Thank you.

The next is the remote to award bin 25-44, an authorized purchase of concrete construction service from sweets during construction in variable amounts and for variable unit prices through the end of the year.

And then after that is A6, and it's a resolution to approve the purchase of a hydro excavation truck from GAPVAX.

Hope I said that right, incorporated, in the amount of 733,015 and 70 cents, plus the surcharges freight charges and delivery fees per the source well uh co-op purchasing contract and to approve the related budget adjustment.

And I know Ross is here if you have questions.

We've got three in a row that are from Ross.

Got questions for him about any of them.

Please please feel free to ask.

He is prepared to talk about it.

Um truck from National Auto Fleet Group in the amount of 251,400 plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, delivery fees.

That's also part part of the source well co-op purchasing contract, and to approve that budget adjustment.

And the third one then from Ross is the resolution to approve the purchase of a Spartan aerial fire apparatus from Delta Fire and Safety in the amount of 2,024,386, plus any applicable surcharges, freight charges, and delivery fees for the source well co-op purchasing contract um and approve the budget adjustment.

And I should have also said on this one since it is one of our fire operators uh apparatus apparatuses that uh that I brought it that um that sheep harden is also here and can speak to that as well.

Um, because this is this ladder is a taller than our than typically when we reach um kind of understand on this one because this one did obviously have quite a bit of an exceeding over our budget, and I would assume that's probably because of the ladder extension, but then one that's same.

Yeah, but yeah, I don't think we'll be in the leach.

Yeah.

I don't expect that we want to talk about that even more.

So the um the cost did go up, just a smidge.

It like over doubled the so we it's ridiculous.

It honestly is.

The the fire truck manufacturers are being called on the carpet about it.

I mean, they're they have to go testify before Congress on why they have gone up so much.

It's not just our community that's being hit with this, it's all across the nation.

We placed inflation on it and come up and we're like okay so it should be this much well today that very same fire truck which at that time was a 75 foot truck or ladder uh was uh today it would be 1.8 million dollars and it was 800,000 literally five years ago um now as she mentioned we are going to a hundred and ten foot that's was a 75 foot truck uh we're doing that because of the uh you know for the infill and we are anticipating right now we've got buildings going up everywhere there the current 75 foot we can go about six stories this one we can go 10 so uh they're taller trucks they're only about a hundred thousand dollars more than the other truck that additional is equipment and stuff that's with it comes with the truck so it's just a little over two two million dollars is what the truck is so but yeah I'd happy to answer any more questions yes are we adjusting based on the finance of this and I understand it's gonna be a war in comments and we're gonna ask questions that are we changing our rules and our estimations for future trucks based on what we just learned on this we are we have got right now with the known replacements we should be able to get out four years um but that's as far as our plan's gonna go but we are meeting working on that very thing and coming up with a plan to address um but with the funding we've got currently and the capital plan funding that you've already approved it will get us through four years which is sad because five years ago I had you out through 2030 um you know so I had 10 years figured out that we were gonna be able to flow and continue moving into the future and it just I mean it's crazy.

I mean we couldn't possibly anticipate that kind of increase.

Do you want to add anything to the to that point?

I don't think I have any anything to add uh just uh uh Brad and I you know we've been meeting on this and you know we're gonna be talking the budget a bit more to make sure that our projections are as up to date as they can be that's really all we can do at this point.

And I know we um service the U of A.

This is kind of why I was going back to the parking thing here the because um has there been any discussion with U of A about covering some of this I mean this is this is a big increase and and we do provide that service for them.

Well that was a so that that was discussed previously uh the fire chief uh chief day ringer he he was on the town and gown and uh he came up with a them gonna pay for this or pay for that anyway what ended up was we removed him from the town and gown and we're not on it anymore.

I don't I don't know the uh that was the it what didn't go over very well is the moral story they didn't like the idea of state law right now dictates that we have to provide fire protection so it's not something we can't just say well we know we're not gonna come over there you know so we're kind of in a um situation where we have to provide it so I'm just wondering if that constitution they started getting since costs are going up slowly since because you know we pay for this with our citizens pay for this with their taxes and third house should go first we really doesn't contribute and we have to serve them as well because you're going to do that anyway like you said well I wasn't involved in that uh meeting exactly but I do know I mean he came back with they they would argue otherwise they bring in like a gazillion dollars or something I mean some huge amount of money to our community for all of the be clear that that conversation that you're talking about was how many years ago long time ago a decade ago now but I we have as an administration started um and Keith isn't here otherwise I would ask him to recap some of so maybe that's something he could do at a future meeting but we have begun started having I know with with fire and with you know public works and how do we work more together with the university for some of those things because you're I mean we obviously want them to be protected and safe and served and we recognize all that they do for the city and also these things are very expensive.

I believe you've gotten that memorandum in your pocket.

Yes, off of consent.

Okay.

So that we can have a little bit more a chance to review this, and it's one of our first stormwater agreements with another entity.

I just have a follow-up question about that for what's like we're gonna cut off to maybe have the next day was um I reviewed uh things that were currently in place the district was doing.

I just didn't know if there were any um additional things I might have above their new additional things for that education person that the district's doing and overreviewed like by the buildings, but didn't know some are more robust than others and their education, and so I didn't know if I take over because I know there's that different um, like I think about Washington Elementary and uh as we revented our um uh playground area.

We talked a lot with the kids during that time period about the fact that um they actually go into the um both waterways um our area, but that was way back when we raised that item number of years ago, and I thought now that there's continuation of those types of conversations about their impact to that um as part of I didn't see it outlined in there, but doesn't mean maybe it's not being covered.

Um to clarify you're talking about any sort of ways that they weave in stormwater talks into the curriculum.

Well, it so there is a list of um things that historically have been done on taking place um on the campuses of the Able Public Schools as part of that 20% credit.

My question was just if there was explorer, I missed anything of a common thread curriculum that might be happening in regard to stormwater to help to educate our small consumers in the system potentially and their impacts because I just I know it was impactful for us during those years when our playground was under construction for our kids to hear that and see it and experience it.

Yeah, but it's not an act of angle and like we have a rain bear, I'll think of the right bear.

So we'll get it.

Yeah, so two things.

One is Chris, if you if you have questions that Chris is here, I can also speak.

I think to that.

Um we're gonna pull it off consent, and then Clerk Paxon, will that mean it just goes to the very first item?

Is that typically how you all do that?

Or do you I forget every time I apologize?

I think we just agenda snow for that on preference on location.

Otherwise, I think the clerk will just put it where it makes the most sense.

Sounds good to me.

Okay.

Um, and then in terms of what I want to be careful of doing is not getting too much in the you know, in the too many cooks in the kitchen and how the district manages their curriculum.

Sure, yeah, yeah.

Okay, um, yeah, we can pull that off consent.

And Chris, do you have anything you want to add about that?

Or do you all have direct questions for Chris?

Really, really quickly.

Uh, the very last page of the appendix, it does talk about some additional programming of the school is working on.

We have been discussing that with them that uh they they do a lot of things already.

They're looking at some additional things as well.

It's it's in there, it's just kind of that right at the very end.

Um the next item A 10 is a resolution to approve a budget adjustment recognizing funding from the Arkansas Prosecutor Coordinator's office in the amount of 350,000 for the fourth judicial pass fourth judicial district third task course.

And item A11.

This one.

If you went if you absolutely Deputy Chief Cascott is here, you can answer any questions you have.

And I may also administer, oh well, no, go ahead and then we'll do the next thing.

Good evening.

So goodman, how are you?

Well, thank you.

So we don't have a presentation schedule, but any questions that you have for Deputy Chief Scott, who's able to answer, or you can you just want to give us an overview pad and start that way, maybe that's better.

And then yes, so I absolutely do the best I can.

So this first item, I'll I'll speak to the first item and I may slip into the second one, but I'll try to keep them separate there.

This first item.

So over the last 10 years, grant funding for the DTFs remain unchanged while uh costs have increased.

So through the governor's office, the Office of Prosecutor Coordinator's office through them.

They have provided funding to there's 19 drug task force in the state, and they've provided funding for a shortfall, this shortfall that comes in that to uh ease that gap, if you will, in funding.

And that's what that's what this funding is for.

Um, do you have um budgetary or the chief has budget of what we spent in the past on the drug test force for the button to be increased?

So if this answers a question, I don't want to get too far into the second one.

The this this other item um A11 essentially funding has remained pretty much steady since 1991.

Uh I say steady.

We've been funded through this um through a grant that comes through the Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration since 1991 for the drug task force.

So it's so the drug task force is funded through through three mechanisms.

The Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration, and that's the one we've been receiving since 1991.

And that is included in the budget, was in the 2025 budget, those fundings were, and that's that's A11 that we'll get to.

And then there's we are in an area which is with which is within the high-intensity drug trafficking area.

So it's called HIDA for short, HIDTA, and that's us that's another funding um mechanism, excuse me, that provides funding for the drug task force.

And then this A10, the one the three, the one we're currently talking about is is the third funding mechanism.

So what was the last one?

Okay.

So I think it'll be easier if I'd he means since there are two that are related.

I'm gonna go ahead and read this next agenda item A11, and then that way y'all can just talk about both of them because I think because they're related, so okay.

Absolutely, yes, ma'am.

So then the next of that item, and then the next item is the resolution to authorize acceptance of a state drug crime enforcement and prosecution grant for state funding, but the fourth judicial district drug task force in the amount of 272,301, and to authorize Mayor Ron to sign all necessary documents to receive the grant funds.

And so those are A10 and 11 on the agenda, and then that way because they're similar, that way you can see.

Yes, ma'am.

I'm just um I have more questions and I'll bet the people who consent to um which one I'd be here.

What do you want it for?

And what's what is passive why compared to this future?

Okay.

So we will pull both of these from consent and uh clickpacks and place them on new business.

And then are both of these my understanding for both of these grants that the council voted for you to apply for, and then they were also budgeted, is my understanding.

The the grant the the funding, I apologize.

I I don't know that the I don't know that the funding was okay.

That's just offered, but they did I think the grant the the the general grant usually is, yes, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

And I believe Chief Brown will also be here next Tuesday going to be a council meeting.

You guys the question that was budgeted, and I was waiting for um Mr.

Dotson to speak to was that something that was budgeted for us to receive additional grant funding?

Well, generally recognize that when we're actually awarded when we when we're basically given that award.

So that will go into the budget, yes.

By four, we're just giving it to by the state.

No, we apply for these.

I think we have to apply for both home on the second.

In preparation so that not to give you plenty of time before the next council meeting.

Um, can we please have um what the lowest threshold is for disposition of cases?

So, for instance, you know, drug task force interactions for uh fee as a forfeiture features when those dispose of.

Um, you know, I know some of them can be as low as $500 for these books that we prosecuted.

Can we get an idea of the average amount of the dispositions um that have happened in their previous grant?

Um, what our expectation is for the future of our future activity and planning uh that we're doing because we're targeting the big eyes and then the fake traffickers like to get understanding of our operations of them over time.

You mentioned for previous years.

Well, just the previous grant cycle, because we're fine for the new grant cycles.

We just correct.

They run roughly June 30th through just the 2024.

Which probably just witch over a time period would be the easiest reading uh I was just thinking because I do know they run the states year and not discourse there.

Sure.

I I guess where I'm where do you want me to stop?

Sure.

So I'm asking I believe this alert is is June to the line.

I'm in June.

Is that correct?

I I think the question, if if I may cat, I think the the the question that Tad is asking is you said for previous years, how many years back would you like?

I think he just wants to make sure he is providing you all the information or asking it how many years back, how far back do you want to think about the previous period to what we're projected that activity with that new grant period?

Correct.

I think expires June 30th of the year and then starts over.

Okay.

So there was that, and then Mr.

Jones, I think you had questions about you want to see how it was budgeted or know how it was.

Anything else that we can, or if you do have additional questions, if you want to email that to me, I'll get with Chief Reynolds and we'll thank you.

We have another question.

Okay.

That brings us to unfinished business.

There are two items of unfinished business.

The first is a resolution to express the city council's intent to provide $70,000 in matching funds to the Salvation Army for an emergency solutions grant from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, contingent upon the award of that grant.

So if they do not receive that grant, we are not going to be beholden to the matching funds.

If they do, then we would be.

And I would like Steven, could you talk a little bit about that funding and how that works?

Yes.

So on the next council agenda, we're going to be coming forward with an item to create a new fund for franchise fees.

Not the next, not like the next in two weeks.

Yeah.

Right.

In two weeks on the next agenda.

So we'll be coming forward with an item to create a new fund for franchise fees.

And uh in consulting with our city attorney, the probably the best way to pay for these kind of expenditures would not be out of general fund revenues.

It would be out of franchise fee funds.

And so we'll be splitting off uh enough of our franchise fee fund receipts to cover this item, as well as the third potential item uh in the mayor's uh proposal.

I think you had selected three items for funding or are in the process of doing so.

Um just as a reminder, this is not a new source of revenue.

This is how we can most effectively and safely fund these projects, not using general fund revenues.

The rest of the franchise fee funds as historically has happened, will be deposited in the general fund um according to our normal process.

It's just it's uh a better way to do it to split these funds out separately in order to pay these type of expense.

And so that will be on the next uh agenda.

So what you're gonna see here is um assuming the Salvation Army is uh granted this emergency solutions grant uh that they have applied for, then we're we're passing a resolution of intent to um to go forward with this this time around on the next council meeting when we come forward with the franchise fee fund creation, then we'll also be discussing this with a budget adjustment to fund this, assuming we know by that point in time whether they have received the HUD grant or not.

And if you just presupposing if you are wondering why not just wait and do that all at once and not bring it forward at all until you have the budget adjustment um in order for them to make that application, they have requested that we have the letter of intent so that they know that that is what we are intending to do should the grant indeed come through.

My question for you is you said if they're granted will do a budget adjustment for the future.

Is that out of dual funds or is that out of franchise?

No, uh so just to make this payment this one time, this would be out of the franchise fee fund.

But future could come out of um just the normal budget.

That would be it would not be able to, it would not come out of the general fund.

So in the future, any sort of discussion on that would it would need to take place if any funding were gonna happen, it would have to be out of the franchise fund.

From where it's gonna come from correct.

Thank you.

The time frame, it sounds like we're expecting that they're within the next couple of weeks that could potentially be longer than do we know?

I don't know.

Okay.

I mean, I did the owner of that.

I mean, I think the safest answer to that is probably okay.

But I know I then I don't I'm not for sure.

Okay.

And if that were to happen, I think we would just hold this item until we knew for sure.

Yeah.

In gym in general, what it is saying is that when it comes, this is just expressing our intent when it comes time to actually adjust the budget.

We will at that time also be bringing you the appropriate plan to establish the franchise fee because that's how we'll need to pay for it.

Then um, so is the you're gonna create the separate fund.

Can you um can you off the top of your head how much do uh franchise fees generate for us on average?

I'll have that information for you.

Okay, but once again, this is not a new source of revenue.

This is just us basically using a section of it to fund these these projects.

And I guess my follow-up question is the TIFF to use all of the franchise funds to fund the school work in the intent is at this time when I'm asking council boards simply for this 70.

That the franchise fees are simply a mechanism to fund this 70,000.

If for whatever reason perceives being the case, that let's say something happened in Salvation Army didn't get their grant, and therefore we don't need the um we don't meet the match.

We likely won't be bringing them forward the front.

I mean, there would that not then need to be the franchise fees brought forward for you.

Okay.

But there is a budget because you said there were the mayor has three separate items.

Is that correct?

I think what he was referring to was when we initially did the resolution of intent over a month ago to talk about spending some additional funding on homelessness.

There were three um proposals that I was intending to bring forward to you.

The first one we already voted on approved was to the housing authority for reasons that Kit can speak to better than I can.

That specific type of expenditure does not have to be done for franchise fees.

We're allowed to do that through general fund because of state law.

Is that correct, Kit?

Well, state law and several uh decisions by the Arkansas Supreme Court saying that it was constitutional to do that.

It was challenged many times, but the state supreme court has only said that this kind of public housing is a public purpose and allowed to be funded by cities to the authority.

Whereas this proposal, which was also a part of that initial plan of ours for the $70,000, we don't have as clear of a pathway, hence create the creation of Franchise.

Yeah.

And then you have one more project, or is it title three from the the umhouse projects?

Um all projects related to the unhoused, and we are hoping to bring forward, as I've mentioned, I know before in here of the new beginnings.

Um we are hoping to be able to do that soon, but still working through that with that organization.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Sorry.

And I know this is unfinished business, but it it is a resolution just for expressing the intent.

Is there any reason we couldn't put this on consent?

It needs to stay, it needs to stay on unfinished business based on the rules ordered procedure.

Okay.

Because we brought it up before.

Yeah, because it was tabled to an overhead.

So I'll build it.

Okay.

Um we had another item of finished business.

It's an ordinance to approve a residential plan zoning district, PCD 2025-2.

Um, this is the 66.78 acres located southeast of Double Springs and West Dot Tipton.

And this is the one that was should be fresh on our minds because we just last week.

Um, because we've had a presentation about it in the longer discussion.

Jonathan can speak to it more tonight if you have questions.

Otherwise, it'll yeah, please go ahead.

Yeah, I just had a quick question because I know staff had uh initially uh recommended denial, but I know that the uh developer has come through with some uh I don't know if there were guarantees or bills of insurance about Don Tipton Road.

And I'm just wondering if that uh change uh staff's recommendation.

I appreciate the question.

Jonathan Kurt Development Services uh to Councilmember Safford's comment in case y'all haven't seen your emails.

The developer applicant submitted a revision to the request over the week and it broadly falls into two buckets.

One is zoning, which it's pretty simple.

They're proposing to remove use unit 46 with this short, which is short-term rentals.

Uh they heard that feedback at the last meeting.

The other bucket is more on the development side of the project.

They're proposing to downgrade a master street plan connection that runs uh east-west through their property, paralleling dot tipped and so it's it's separate from dot tipton.

Uh and then as a part of the PCD, they would agree to widen basically the midpoint if you go north on Dot Tipton, they would widen from that midpoint west towards Double Springs Road and include the typical street section requirements, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and then from that midpoint east towards 54th, they would only widen it to uh or they'd widen it to 24 feet with no additional improvements.

So basically they're trying to balance out uh some of the street improvements that may be required to offer.

So to get to your question finally, Councilmember Stafford.

Uh, we just have the opportunity to review it this afternoon internally.

So staff's uh recognition has not changed to this point.

I think our bigger bigger concern is understanding what that master street plan interaction could have on a systems basis, since that's the master street plan is intended to discuss connections on a citywide uh mindset.

Uh understanding of that still represents a viable connection.

Additionally, uh from staff's perspective, some of these improvements that they're offering for lack of a better word would almost certainly be required anyways uh to meet fire code requirements, such as widening portions of dot tip and roads.

Um so another piece of it is just making sure that we have a clear understanding and can share that clear understanding with council if that's really something that's being offered or if it's something that they would be required to do as it is, if that makes sense.

So the short answer is we have not changed the recommendation to this point.

We're still evaluating what they're still evaluating.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

So if there's possibility and under further evaluation that you could change your mind before X to Will you be able to sort of give us a heads up of uh in advance?

Yes, we certainly don't want to spring that on anybody.

Uh this one has some interactions as you go throughout that Master Street plan that connects all the way to Broils through the Woolsey Wet Prairie and West Side Treatment Plant property.

So we need to coordinate with the utility department about whether that's that connection is viable.

And if that is not, then it may impact whether we support the Master Street Plan amendment zoning distance property.

And we'll certainly get with y'all as soon as possible to let you know what that recommendation is if it changes.

I haven't had a chance to read all the emails.

So there was quite a bit of information in there.

So with the igniting to 24 feet, uh, is that there are also still digits on the side?

And would that mean the fire code requirement?

Or you're still evaluation on that too.

In discussing with our fire marshal this afternoon, uh they this is gonna get a little bit into the weeds fire code, so please bear with me.

Uh, there is a need to, because of the odd shape of the subdivision, they'll certainly have two separate points of access to it.

And those two separate points have to be a certain distance from each other.

Uh the concept of that in fire code being that if one of those exits or or entrances is damaged or shut down by a fallen tree or an accident, there's still a viable alternative access to that subdivision.

Uh so that we'll certainly have to widen some portion of dot tipping, whether it's back to 54th Street or back to Double Springs.

Uh, there may also be a need for the subdivision to attempt to connect elsewhere out of the subdivision.

We've sometimes seen that done with a public street as uh as a as a network builds out.

Uh, we've also seen that done more informally in some instances by a gravel drive that's provided on adjacent property that can be put into an easement and turns into a street later when that property is developed.

Does that answer your question?

It does.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you, John.

Certainly.

We wouldn't normally be getting in this much detail.

We'd be told that's when they submit their application for a large scale of the television.

But we're only able to dabble in this because they can pro-offer this on their own, and so we get to connect to it.

I I need to rely somewhat on the city attorney's office for that, but I do think it does bear noting if you haven't had a chance to read the email that their last point and their offering is that they're fully acknowledging that they still have to go through the development review process, which includes a traffic study, which may uh indicate that additional street improvements or upgrades would be necessary to accommodate the project's impacts.

But yes, generally PZD affords a greater ability for the council to interact with the details of a project.

So questions are did that get it.

Um I that would I think John just played my point since it's a PCD, we do have an ability to get more grandwork with it.

I don't like how I'll offer the you have some some ability like that.

In many ways, it really is more like a double machinery at this point in time.

Um, because it's not development approval.

And uh as Jonathan said, they'll still have to get development approval, even if they promise all these things, it might not be enough.

Thank you.

Why don't you just hang out there?

Yes.

Um okay, so that breaks us to what maybe on new business next week.

Um, the first is a resolution to award RFP 25-9 and authorize a contract with McGrath Human Resources Group and the amount of 171,500 to provide compensation and classification consulting services and to approve the budget.

It's new, it's a different way of new process than we've done before, which I know several of you have asked about and been excited about.

So I'm proud to hear about it.

Yes, and we listened to the feedback of council and we issued an RFP um about for a new compensation and consultant consultant agreement and also a project.

And so I'll go into basic the rest of the recommendations of the project.

So we are recommending that you approve the agreement with McGrath Human Resources Group, who was selected out of nine proposals, um, and they were the unanimous choice of staff on the selection committee to provide both our compensation and consulting services, and also to do a very comprehensive classification and compensation project.

So the scope of that project would include um review and update of our city's compensation philosophy.

Um, you remember when we come forward every year about our compensation, we talk about that philosophy.

It's dated from 2017.

So we are going to do a deep dive into that, get feedback from the stakeholders and create what we envision that compensation philosophy needs to be for the city.

Um, and also look at our methodology, the cities that we are surveying, who those uh cities need to be in our benchmarks.

And we are going to perform a full job analysis on 350 merit positions, and that's where you go in, you do position questionnaires, you find out the skill sets that are needed for those positions and come out with a new structure, a new grade recommendation, all of those things based on this project.

We're also going to um in part of the initial conversations, discuss who those pure city market competitors need to be.

Um, this particular consultant recommends getting 10 to 12 to 15 responses, um, which will be a lot uh bigger than what you are used to seeing.

So we'll have some conversations with leadership on who those cities need to be and what the demographic needs to look like and who the competitors are and those types of things.

Um we will also benchmark employee benefits because we know a good total comp package includes what are we doing for benefits, incentives, and things like that.

We want to get credit for the good things that we do here at the city.

Um we will do a development of updated pay structures and we will put together for finance and for the city council an implementation of cost models because we know anytime you're doing a deep dive in compensation, you're affecting your number one operational costs.

And so we will come forward with recommendations on how we might implement those over a one, two, three how room year period that's sustainable here financially.

Um we will develop we will uh train HR staff in how to sustain the compensation system long term, how to rank jobs, rate jobs, that type of thing, and keep the the ball rolling.

And we were gonna perform a compression and internal equity analysis, which I think is very important for compliance issues and it's just really the right thing to do.

So that will be part of this project as well.

And then we'll present final reports and recommendations to leadership, employees, and city council.

And we expect a full con communication campaign from the jump with uh leadership with the employees themselves, because they will all be answering these uh job analysis questionnaires.

Um and they're gonna get input into their own roles and what they do and what's required for their roles.

Um it is a big project and it is estimated to be about seven months long.

Um the total cost for the project is a hundred not to exceed 171,500.

And that's why we have a budget adjustment request tied to this.

And of that, up to 18,000 of that could be for travel expenses.

So it could be less, but it will not exceed that amount.

And finally, we just think this is the right thing to do to update and look at our philosophy, our methodology, make sure we're being compliant, make sure we're being competitive, recruiting and retaining the talent that we do have.

And I'm happy to take any questions that you might have at this early point in the project.

I really appreciate the work you've put into this because it is different than it's more robust and comprehensive than what we've done in the past.

So it's exciting.

If you approve it on September 2nd, we will meet with the consultants starting sometime that week and get started on what they're gonna have a lot of requests from HR specific to things that we have that they can start analyzing before they start meeting with people.

So yeah.

So let's see, what was the last time we did something similar like this?

So thank you.

My recollection is we last used Johansson group, which you know then became JERH group in 2016, and then they came forward and did there was an ad hoc city council something that lasted a long time, like almost a year, and then recommendations came from that and a 2017 methodology was updated by city council or approved by city council from the Johansson group at that time.

So it's that's how long it's been.

Well, and I have a question too, a genuine question that I actually don't know the answer to that I wish I would have thought to ask you earlier.

I know that they did that one eight years ago.

Was it did it include staff in this same way where you're like interviewing, was it as comprehensive then?

Or I wasn't here in 2017, so I can't I can't speak, but anyone who's doing a full comp is has to involve staff or it fails.

So I would assume anyone shaking their head that was here at that time probably could say they were very involved.

We're all looking at Sarah Bunch.

No, I'm I'm very excited about this.

Yeah, and I'm appreciating the approach we're taking.

I just want to understand too though, and I know we're at the early stages, but I mean, this is where when you say we're really looking at our methodology, and that would be put into kind of formulas too, talking about compression, et cetera, uh to come up with those those potential wages as well, or no, because I know we're doing comparison to other cities and other roles and other places as part of the formula and methodology.

Right.

I would with without putting words into the comp consultant's mouth, they're going to come at it from basic compensation principles, which would be looking at uh market data and other market data.

They're probably not looking at it from the perspective that you just said, um, unless that's something we tell them that we want them to be looking at.

But there will be um they're you know, after they do the job analysis, they're looking at, you know, what does an HR director do?

And here, what does an HR director do there?

All of the different places, but but it's less about I think what I hear you asking about, which is a living wage.

If we had certain criteria, for instance, I guess, because like you're not like the traditional methodology, and so I think about this as far as the struggle to build because when we do compare apples apples to another hole in another city, if the person who is leaving sidewalk crew or street crew is going to go uh drive a dump truck somewhere or build like cable, um, one of the things I've been having conversations with over time is like how do we define all the possible uh other outlets that that workforce might go to so that we understand that they're gonna go for a five or ten dollar an hour pay increase.

How do we take that to account in our compensation?

So that was part of I know several people you can see who was on the committee, but that was one of the things specifically that public works and RTC brought forward as part of their questions.

Well, outside of just entities, what are other databases and sources that you use for my people that might go to construction or some other industry?

And that will be and factored in to answer that part of it.

And the other um thing that I'm curious is that I know again historically that we filled some staff roles with tenth agencies as part of our thoughts on um kind of our methodology and what that kind of setting that is that looking at turning those into full-time staff, for instance.

I think there's some HR staff that are from they're not full-time city employees or considered employees of the city.

Are we looking at that too, potentially in how we do staff positions like that as part of this consideration?

So that would not typically telling like the operational staffing of each department typically comes in during the budgeting process more often than it would come in through your compensation structure.

So we take care of what should we pay those people, and then budget side of it take and operations works to say um this is how many people I need, and this is what it will cost me and factoring in.

Um and I'm glad you remember that because I'm going to be asking for a to convert one of those people to a full-time staff member in the budget.

So um yeah, there you go.

Um, but that is more of an operational budget thing than it would be a human resources compensation and how to compensate them.

Thank you, Messiah.

I'm excited about how robust this is too.

So yeah, I'm I'm looking forward to it.

It's a big big project.

So you plan on having new representative present speaker, you you just representing your answering our questions tonight.

I'm answering your questions tonight, yes.

And I have any other questions.

Is there a reason not to put this on consent?

So that's perfect.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um that'll be moved to consent.

The next item is a resolution to approve a cost share agreement requiring South Cato Springs to hold this LS think to provide up to the estimated amount of 1.96 million, 1.960,527 to increase the capacity of planned steward infrastructure improvements to serve its development and to approve amendment number one to the economic development project contract with South Cato Springs Holdings LLC.

I know I'm sorry.

So if you want questions about that, then it is here to answer them.

So can you remind us about the South Cato Springs folding cover?

Absolutely.

This project of course.

This project traces back to resolution 2792.

This project is the 200 acres that is north of Kessler Mountain Regional Park that abuts it.

Does not have sewer.

So there's been a topic of discussion on this property for many decades of people to tempting.

South Cato Springs Holdings.

Um we received a community project fund award back in 2021 from Congressman Womack.

It was accepted under 27922 by the council.

And what that does, what that $3 million did was it went towards sanitary sewer connection.

However, as the project team has matured and decided to move forward with divestment because we've gone through some changes in the development world, especially with the cost of capital construction, et cetera.

And looking at this, they're recognized very early they need to upgrade capacity to expand housing on the site.

What was proposed was going to cap it at 400 units.

That was it.

And the engineers could have talked about it about this is about the limitations of what goes under the interstate.

But their investment that they're making can enable it to go over that and make it up to closer to over a thousand.

They'll be here next week with me.

And so this project is that South Cato is one of the impact partners of SLS community.

And they're still here.

And all the goals and projects are pursuing what they're building as a neighborhood.

And what this also does, council member, since you ask is it amends my contract, it ends the city's contract with them.

The shift in housing production ad actually adds a new performance milestone to them where they have to deliver 200 units within five years.

And so we'll be checking with them on that.

It adjusts the other economic development milestones out to 10 years off completion of infrastructure.

I'll have a full presentation next week and they'll be with me.

What's already budgeted for this primitive?

Originally, what was budgeted was $3 million.

And so the city's only financial contribution of this is the $3 million grant.

We are out, no additional funds with this, all cost over it on the developer.

And so for this new proposal that's the same status that we're we're not on the hook at all.

Correct.

Okay.

We're not on the hook.

City's only financial obligation is capped at the HUD grant received to go towards this project.

Okay.

Thank you.

The next item is an ordinance to approve vacation 25-16 for property at 835 West Cleveland Street to vacate.02 acres of right-away.

But if you have um preliminary questions for Jonathan, you can also ask to us now.

I'd lost you there for a second.

Um could you have um did you have available the traffic information and accident rate um at that intersection?

I know active transportation is and has discussed that intersection, and I'm very familiar with that intersection, and I think that might be helpful to our conversation next week.

Certainly.

Thank you for the request.

The next item is also then in fact though the remaining four are all rezoning ordinances, beginning with C4, an ordinance to rezone RZN 2025-26 for approximately 1.04 acres located at 1893 North REPL Road.

Ruple Ruffle.

I think well, angry every time I say it.

I just don't ever want to have to say it anymore.

I'm so sorry I offended that road in Ward 4 from RSF1 residential single family one unit per acre to RIU residential intermediate urban, subject to a bill of assurance.

Jonathan will also have a full presentation on this next week, or you can ask him questions now if you have them.

Or if there's anything you in particular you want him to be prepared for, this is also a great time.

Yeah.

We've looked at this, it seems like a number of times.

Maybe this is only the second time.

Uh I think we probably had a few readings the last time.

Um so I guess my question is next to the problem Ela.

Uh yeah, just pointing out the differences in what was requested forward to what's being composed.

Certainly not gonna do that in brief now, just for you to chew on over the weekend.

Uh, you're correct.

We saw this in November of last year, which is less than a year, uh, which and it was denied at that time.

So the first question is why are we seeing it again?

Because our ordinance says you can't make the same request within a year.

Uh so what is before the council this time is a request from RSF one to RIU with the bill of assurance.

Previously, there was no bill of assurance on offer.

Uh council ultimately denied the request.

Uh the bill of assurance that's before council uh most prominently proposes to only develop the property with single family or two family dwellings, uh, where RE would also normally allow triplexes and fourplexes.

Uh it limits development on the property to eight units.

Uh, it's proposes pursuing an extension of a private alley, which you may recall was one of the main focal points of the conversation last time.

There's a private alley that serves the Oak Park subdivision to the west.

And so the bill of assurance uh asserts that they'll pursue that, and failing that, they will connect directly to Sari Drive.

Their intent is not to impinge on those private private development or that private alley and its usage.

Uh then other than that, the bill of assurance also includes a lot of elements that seek to mimic the development standards of the Oak Brook subdivision.

Uh, if you've ever been through there, you may or may not know it was a previous land zoning district at the time with uh higher design criteria than our normal city uh development code requires.

So those are the main distinctions.

Uh when the planning commission heard it, their first charge was to determine whether they feel the request had changed enough to be heard.

They did unanimously agree that the bill of assurance represented that change.

Uh ultimately they forwarded the city council by a somewhat split decision of eight to one recommending approval of the request.

And is uh staff recommending approval of this?

We are.

Thank you.

I forgot to mention that.

Okay.

Uh C5, it it may not be C5 anymore because we may be putting, we've moved some things, but the next item is an ordinance to rezone the property described in rezoning 2025-30 for approximately 0.81 acres located at 2135 East Huntsville Road in Ward 1 from RSF4, residential single family, four units per acre, rezoning to UN urban neighborhoods.

Jonathan will have a presentation about this one as well.

But preliminary questions are good tonight, or things that needs to be prepared to answer.

It might not be obvious.

Oh, I'm sorry, Bob.

I didn't see you.

Um Jonathan, um, I'm familiar with the property uh right down the street from me.

Um I I need to create a planning uh or zoning cheat sheet for myself, so I don't have to ask these questions every time.

Uh the urban neighborhood uh does that allow uh commercial usage?

It does.

Okay.

And for context, if you're not familiar with where this is, it is immediately west of the former HIP Cafe, current Dodds chicken location on Huntsville Road.

Yeah, this is the one with the points that head monogram.

Correct.

Yeah.

The next item is an ordinance to rezone the property described in RZN 2025-28 for approximately 0.40 acres located at 261 East Rock Street in Ward 1 from RMF 24 residential multifamily 24 units per acre, also to UN urban neighborhood.

Um my question here would be uh right now it's 24 units per acre.

Would urban neighborhood be more or less dense than that?

Sorry.

Urban neighborhood does not have a prescribed density.

It's based on the unit types and the height of buildings uh generally, and of course, development standards like parking requirements and stormwater requirements.

Uh the biggest difference in the building size that could be allowed is uh RMF 24 allows five-story buildings, and urban neighborhood allows three stories.

So the height of the movie come down.

Correct.

The greater flexibility for in UN is creating smaller lots for fee simple sales is generally the biggest difference.

And this is just kind of up the street from and across the street from Yvonne Richardson.

It's immediately southeast of the Waters Center.

By the creek.

Yeah.

Well, thank you.

And then our final item and um is the property described in RZN 2025-24 for approximately 0.7 acres, located south of 380 South Happy Hollow Road in Ward 1.

Um, rezoning from RSF four residential single family four units per acre to RSF eight, residential single family eight units per acre.

So I think we might because this is one I think we talked about a lot or similar rezonings in that same location, correct?

Certainly.

And then it bears noted that this is coming to the council on an appeal.

Uh the request just to put to locate you.

It's about halfway on Happy Hollow Road between the Cliffs uh apartment complex access to the north or Sequoia Woods, if you prefer, and the intersection of Happy Hollow and Huntsville to the south.

Uh there have been uh a multitude of different zoning requests along this area, both uh as straight rezonings but also conditional use permits uh for for different items.

Uh this one staff is recommending in favor of.

Uh there was a uh uh an amount of public comment provided at the planning commission meeting, including some videos uh from a resident who's very concerned about stormwater items.

I believe that is ultimately what uh what many of the commissioners who recommended denial of it uh founded their recommendation of.

So again, this is coming to you on appeal.

It was denied by a vote of two to seven by the planning commission.

And will it be clear that this is on appeal?

So that we're currently voting right now, doesn't mention that in the uh on the agenda.

Yes, so we vote the right way.

Because I know that sometimes one different appeals we have to be careful about.

We can also ask Kit to remind us again before the vote so that you're all aware what yeah, yeah.

Jonathan, I just want to make sure it's showing up correctly on the map.

This is where one of those large single family residences already exist.

Is that correct?

No, this is actually a currently empty lot that is south of two single family residences.

I I think of the larger of the two in that area, and then I think there's a smaller single family residence to the south, so we're three lots north of Fourth Street, Fourth Street's intersection with Happy Hall.

So this would be north of those two big residences or south.

South.

Yes.

Okay.

I think uh Google Maps is just four.

Assuming we're talking about the same large residences, but yeah, there's say two of them, and then uh between and then to the south would be a couple smaller residences in fourth street.

That's correct.

Okay, and this is the empty lot in between.

That's correct.

Okay.

I'd just like to say something really quick to follow up with your your question, Councilmember Stafford.

So as the city has worked to become more ADA compliant when it comes to the city's website.

That's why you're starting to see the agenda change, is for that reason because we are working with the communications department to ensure that's happening.

So that's why when you take a look at the agenda, you're not seeing those titles that we used to place on there.

You're seeing the actual legislation text that is written by the city attorney's office.

Okay.

Okay.

So if they don't have additions, then that is everything that you will be hearing next week.

Thank you.